Rugby Club progress...

captainpish

captainpish

Well-Known Forumite
Its has got ridiculous but to be fair i think theyre people who have joined and have a bit of an agenda. The "residents" of this site have all been pretty fair in my opinion. I think theres a lot of people in stafford who feel that there is something a little fishy about the whole thing but one or two have gone a bit too far.
 
MAL

MAL

Disabled account
tek-monkey said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think it is absolutely clear I am not involved in the planning decision, I have no interest in development companies involved in the development of any of this. I have been in and around this club since I was 11 and the desire to move etc and locations have been around since 1987. It is clearly a nonsense to say that me saying NE response was no objection was a falsehood, when it is a fact. I have acknowledged conditions but this does not make this a falsehood.

"Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 01 February 2016. Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT 1981 (AS AMENDED) No objection – with conditions"

I think the above lifted from the NE response reflects EXACTLY what I have been stating.

I cannot make any judgement on how SBC will deal with SWT comments as I do not have insider information to this discussion or consideration.
 
P

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
WoolmanT said:
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
Click to expand...


If you're new on here, please read the whole thread, then you might understand that the 'anti MAL' comments are based on frustration with not getting straight answers to straight questions, that ultimately relate to the way public money is being spent on our behalf. Odd that you tell us off for throwing insults then do exactly the same.
 
W

WoolmanT

Well-Known Forumite
PPPPPP said:
If you're new on here, please read the whole thread, then you might understand that the 'anti MAL' comments are based on frustration with not getting straight answers to straight questions, that ultimately relate to the way public money is being spent on our behalf. Odd that you tell us off for throwing insults then do exactly the same.
Click to expand...
I have read the whole thread, and your goodself plus another couple of others seem to be the worst culprits of personal insults. From my reading of it, MAL has been straight down the line. Despite what people may or may not think, there are no smoke and mirrors, conspiracy theories, brown envelopes here. What money exactly is being spent on your behalf? Grants?
 
MAL

MAL

Disabled account
captainpish said:
Its has got ridiculous but to be fair i think theyre people who have joined and have a bit of an agenda. The "residents" of this site have all been pretty fair in my opinion. I think theres a lot of people in stafford who feel that there is something a little fishy about the whole thing but one or two have gone a bit too far.
Click to expand...
I agree many have been very open to a reasonable discussion. I came on here to try and respond to a number of allegations etc that seemed to be being made. I have perhaps done nothing to assuage these but that was my intent.
I think some have very genuine concerns and I have tried to address these. Others quite clearly have agendas that are not open. I made a simple decision to not make my identity impenetrable as I wanted to explain a position and be open. Others have come on with an agenda not so easy to judge as they are less forthcoming with interests.
Through my discussions with neighbours it is clear some would be happy. It is clear some are others are not. It would be regrettable surely if people who were campaigning as they "Just don't want it" were to use smear campaigns etc to try and dredge support when this was their only real agenda, if they would try and rip through the honest reputation of others with no regard because they "don't like" something . As I have mentioned, and then been threatened to an extent, the SPAG group were very quick to put up posts about "backstabbing" etc when people were not seen to do their bidding. Then later take them down. Facebook - generally seen as quite open - shut down a profile set up in the name of Virginia Park which tried to say it represented the estate but was seemingly a person hiding behind a name to make false statements etc.
I must admit I am a little disappointed in some of the people of Stafford (or where ever) who feel that posting personal social media bits etc is relevant on a forum built on free speech and anonymity. As I have said time and time again - when using an avatar I think you have responsibility not to say things you would not otherwise say.
You may not like my answers, or agree with my opinions but I have tried to engage and make honest replies. I think the response from a few has been interesting, is this the view of reasoned discussion or the tantrums of somebody who feels they may not get their way
 
P

PPPPPP

Well-Known Forumite
WoolmanT said:
I have read the whole thread, and your goodself plus another couple of others seem to be the worst culprits of personal insults. From my reading of it, MAL has been straight down the line. Despite what people may or may not think, there are no smoke and mirrors, conspiracy theories, brown envelopes here. What money exactly is being spent on your behalf? Grants?
Click to expand...

What exactly are the personal insults I have made? Quoting facts or asking questions aren't insults.


If MAL has been straight down the line, can you tell us how he justifies conflicts of interest identified in the council's code of conduct, and /or those arising from being a director of a ltd company?

All the money spent by government, national or local, comes from taxes, including SportEngland grants and funds the council is wasting by processing planning applications incorrectly, even when it knows it's acting unlawfully. Are you happy with that?
 
MAL

MAL

Disabled account
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...
This would be the local councillor who sent in a withdrawal of objection saying she had no issues now but could we ensure boundary fence was good.
 
MAL

MAL

Disabled account
PPPPPP said:
'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?
Click to expand...
I cannot possibly keep track of all questions. I have tried to answer questions where I can. Not sure what issues I have missed but there you go. I have tried to engage in an open an honest manner.
 
MAL

MAL

Disabled account
1JKz said:
Someone here, is posting in just the one thread!
Click to expand...
It may seem that a few are. I certainly joined to address this thread. Perhaps over time I may evolve to others - this seems to take to much time already
 
MAL

MAL

Disabled account
PPPPPP said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think who is consulted is a matter of law - I am sure you will tell me if I am wrong.
I am happy to be open and public just not always sure of relevance of information - which could be perceived by the more cynical to perhaps be just throwing out useless information to create a false impression
bandwagon said:
View attachment 2738 View attachment 2739 View attachment 2740
Click to expand...
Thank you for advertising #MoreThanRugby a little late but I think a lot of this describes what rugby is about. How it can be a great focus in a community. Not sure why it could possibly be relevant on this thread but thanks for the publicity. Of course this also started a long time AFTER any plans were submitted etc
 
MAL

MAL

Disabled account
tek-monkey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Trust me none of my business interests has one iota to do with anything here.
 
MAL

MAL

Disabled account
PPPPPP said:
Can this be true, if you are director of a building company called Elm Developers?
Click to expand...
I do know myself - this is of course a foolish oversight by me and I apologise unreservedly if I misled people into thinking otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top