Rugby Club progress...

MAL

MAL

Disabled account
PPPPPP said:
Again, most of t his is irrelevant. However, I agree with: "SBC's job is to look at the plan and consult the statutory bodies...' That's what they should do, but didn't, hence the 2014 application being taken to judicial review, at great cost to everyone apart from the legal profession. Then you waste even more public money reapplying.

Funny how you don't mention Staffs Wildlife Trust's opinion.
Click to expand...
I was restricting my comments to statutory consultees as this seemed a reasonable point - others will and have commented
 
The Hawk

The Hawk

Well-Known Forumite
tek-monkey said:
I thought they said they would not object as long as full consideration was given to SWT, which has not happened?
Click to expand...

This is the relevant bit from Natural England:
Natural England, as stated in previous correspondence, is not in a position to give a view on issues such as local sites, local landscape character or the impacts of the development on species or habitats of biodiversity importance in a local context. We would therefore urge you to have strong regard to the comments of the local wildlife trust in relation to wider biodiversity impacts.
Click to expand...
 
P

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
MAL said:
I was restricting my comments to statutory consultees as this seemed a reasonable point - others will and have commented
Click to expand...

I hope you've read the documents you'll know why Staffs Wildlife Trust should be consulted. FaceBook is one thing, but Companies House is a public record. If you don't want to be on it, don't become a director of a ltd company.
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
MAL said:
Comments seemed to relate to my private business interests - these are not rugby club related and not relevant. If we believe in the principals of anonymous forum surely people should not be trolling through FB profiles, companies house records etc to publish on this forum no matter how convoluted the post
Click to expand...

I don't know who you are, but if you are involved in the planning application and you hold a position that could be construed as a conflict of interest then forum anonymity doesn't come into it. If this situation exists then it deserves to be discussed, as it is relevant to the planning.
 
proactive

proactive

Enjoying a drop of red.
bandwagon said:
View attachment 2742




A man who calls Twickenham hq are you on the payroll , I don't call the brittannia my HQ it's my heaven
Click to expand...
What a surprise that the RFU would support the development of Rugby in the town. Of course they bloody will. It is for the impartial bodies to decide fairly what should or should not be allowed.

What relevance this quoted post has other than to be a personal attack on an individual and a sport, with no foundation by fcuk knows who with fcuk knows what private agenda, fcuk knows!

By all means attack the proposals for the new club and the impartial bodies for appearing not to have acted impartially, but attacking MAL for supporting rugby and having connections with rugby and rugby for supporting rugby is bloody stupid.

Stop bashing rugby.
 
G

Gareth

Well-Known Forumite
I have to say I am not supporting of rugby nor this development.

People are entitled to opinions on such matters but attacking and hounding peoples interests or businesses are pointless and in bad taste. The posts above by the likes of PPPPP and others is paramount to trolling to suit their own incognito agendas and are in fact ruining this forum with idiotic tarring people as being corrupt when they don't like something they read, all with no evidence basis at all and are bordering on outright slander.

proactive is right, attack proposals and processes if it should be the case but this but this thread is becoming a farce and a personal witch hunt against someone coming on an answering virtually every answer thrown at them. I would suggest admin look into some posts carefully indeed.
 
tek-monkey

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
proactive said:
What a surprise that the RFU would support the development of Rugby in the town. Of course they bloody will. It is for the impartial bodies to decide fairly what should or should not be allowed.

What relevance this quoted post has other than to be a personal attack on an individual and a sport, with no foundation by fcuk knows who with fcuk knows what private agenda, fcuk knows!

By all means attack the proposals for the new club and the impartial bodies for appearing not to have acted impartially, but attacking MAL for supporting rugby and having connections with rugby and rugby for supporting rugby is bloody stupid.

Stop bashing rugby.
Click to expand...

If MAL is involved in the planning decision he is in the wrong, if he is merely involved in the application then I fully expect him to be behind rugby! If he is involved in the building firm that will build over the old site it shows a clear prejudice towards moving the club off that land, but the decision is not his unless he has connections to the planning decision itself.

We need to be looking at the council members involved, and what they have to gain from all this. The main focus right now should be the SWT document that clearly questions the merits of this site, and the fact that the planning officers have failed to take them into account thus far despite being told to do so. My main gripe with MAL is that he says Natural England have no objection, which is a falsehood. They specifically said to listen to SWT which has not been done.
 
G

Gareth

Well-Known Forumite
Well I guess that could be a matter of interpretation. But I am clearly not talking about name calling.
 
P

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
Gareth said:
I have to say I am not supporting of rugby nor this development.

People are entitled to opinions on such matters but attacking and hounding peoples interests or businesses are pointless and in bad taste. The posts above by the likes of PPPPP and others is paramount to trolling to suit their own incognito agendas and are in fact ruining this forum with idiotic tarring people as being corrupt when they don't like something they read, all with no evidence basis at all and are bordering on outright slander.

proactive is right, attack proposals and processes if it should be the case but this but this thread is becoming a farce and a personal witch hunt against someone coming on an answering virtually every answer thrown at them. I would suggest admin look into some posts carefully indeed.
Click to expand...


'Bad taste?' 'The likes of PPPPP', eh? Sorry for dragging the tone down, but I think it's important for local government to act lawfully.

It's libel, not slander, when something is written - but only if it's not true. Don't you think Companies House or SBC documents are evidence? Don't forget that no-one forced MAL to come on here trying to defend what's happened. Why not read back and see how many questions he hasn't answered?
 
The truth the whole truth

The truth the whole truth

Well-Known Forumite
Ok , the line looks to have been crossed. Therefore yes the buck stops with the planning dept then , who collate the info from consultees whom within the own guidelines have objected then put conditions or refer to experts to try and guide the officer into making a decision on the proposal. This would have sailed through otherwise if not called in by local Councillor before a committee .The council should have advised point blank that the proposal will not go through legally , but relying on local democracy to have a proper debate putting the Stafford local plan is in jeopardy wouldn't have happened , back to the drawing board is now on the agenda
 
proactive

proactive

Enjoying a drop of red.
The truth the whole truth said:
Ok , the line looks to have been crossed. Therefore yes the buck stops with the planning dept then , who collate the info from consultees whom within the own guidelines have objected then put conditions or refer to experts to try and guide the officer into making a decision on the proposal. This would have sailed through otherwise if not called in by local Councillor before a committee .The council should have advised point blank that the proposal will not go through legally , but relying on local democracy to have a proper debate putting the Stafford local plan is in jeopardy wouldn't have happened , back to the drawing board is now on the agenda
Click to expand...
Yes, no, maybe, er, what?
 
W

WoolmanT

Well-Known Forumite
I am new on here but reading some of the anti MAL comments, does make me ask what type of people are hiding behind the anonymity this site offers.

MAL has come on here and offered answers to questions and given an opinion.......for that there follows personal abuse, character assasination, searching Facebook / Companies house for any 'dirt' that can be dug up. It's pathetic.

Certain people have been fair with discussions / opinion (for that I am genuinely grateful) whereas others seem to be waging some form of vigilante campaign against MAL / Stafford Rugby Club

I can now see why the marshes / the SSSI is so important to the people throwing personal insults.....it's a natural habitat......pondlife
 
MAL

MAL

Disabled account
bandwagon said:
Sorry I was emphasising connections , but you stole my thunder ! Damn .

What other connections can we find in this Pantomime? Mr hill appears then disappears like the shopkeeper in Mr Ben .
Click to expand...
I think you are highlighting the enormous amount of volunteer time spent supporting youth rugby and sport. Indeed as part of the RWC Legacy Committee I did organise and run a social media project to promote community rugby. There is no difference in an RWC legacy and an Olympic Legacy. I feel this is not really news but thank you for highlighting. Perhaps you feel it is fair or reasonable from an anonymous platform to post irrelevant rubbish to try and tarnish a name. I do not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top