ATJ
Well-Known Forumite
Is the implication that to be a mason you need six fingers?
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Two faces and a giant arsehole are the only requirements, I believe.Is the implication that to be a mason you need six fingers?
Is the implication that to be a mason you need six fingers?
That's beside the point - unless you want to make one here - which, whatever it might do, will not stop it missing the point.
So....Back on track
How high are these proposed ( oh you do make me larf ) flood lights?
That's beside the point - unless you want to make one here - which, whatever it might do, will not stop it missing the point.
One would rather hope that we don't try 'n' make this into some kind of 'Rugby-be-damned' sort of how's-your father - for the FECKIN RECORD I less than 3 LOVE Rugby. I'll state here and now that Brown should've been penalised for that - i care not that he has been absolved, he knew what he was doing and he did it, and with malice aforethought to boot - you all saw it, i saw it, there it is. If you disagree, you are wearing the kind of powerful blinkers that has made you already give your assent to this development on the planning portal. You have done more than that.
I sympathise - this may be the right thing, but it is in the wrong place.
Much like Brown's boot, if you agree with the decision
Sorry but why do you have a problem with rugby?Point
Point being stopping children getting obese is not a material planning consideration ! Looking at the strategy of the RFU the brand is on a high and indeed puts on a good show ! After the staging the World Cup and now the six nations well done and a new facility is required and about time put it in the right place
View attachment 2657
View attachment 2657 View attachment 2658
The present 'Rugby Club' isn't the same as the one that played at Newport Rd for decades, scraping in a few pennies. Half a million quid at stake now. Anyway, you can't possibly argue with all those totally unsolicited supporting comments appearing on the planning website.
Quite so.Point being ... stopping children getting obese is not a material planning consideration !
- as if it is in some way surprising that a 'club' of people might try and unite to protect something they hold dear.Anyway, you can't possibly argue with all those totally unsolicited supporting comments appearing on the planning website.
- as things stand 'the feckers' have done a much better job of rallying support as it's approaching 4:1 last time i looked.Quite so.
As things stand the 'ayes' have it - 3:1.
There is an underhandedness to this process as well - the 'ayes' had a headstart, let's overtake the feckers!
Vroom vroom!