Rugby Club progress...

[MAL]

I have finally managed to spot the various edits - been along weekend. Difficult to comment on the different highlighted points but one stuck out about moving. We will be able to move the club without grants - it will just not be as good as it could have been. I want the best possible facility for the folks of Stafford.

 

[PPPPPP]

I do know myself - this is of course a foolish oversight by me and I apologise unreservedly if I misled people into thinking otherwise.

Jokes aside, you're not the only director of that company, so saying you only knew one in Manchester wasn't correct.

 

[tek-monkey]

Calm your tits people, stick to the facts.

NE said listen to SWT, no evidence is available that this has happened exists. The report is recent, let them respond? As long as no work is carried out beforehand let it go through the motions, if they do start work that's another matter.

 

[tek-monkey]

Not sure I ever read that

It was quoted on here, anyone got a link?

 

[PPPPPP]

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

Exactly, and Natural England referred the council to SWT experts who obviously know far more than anyone about the marshes and whether the proposal would have an effect, bearing in mind other applications in the SSS1 zone.

 

[PPPPPP]

Calm your tits people, stick to the facts.

NE said listen to SWT, no evidence is available that this has happened exists. The report is recent, let them respond? As long as no work is carried out beforehand let it go through the motions, if they do start work that's another matter.

Didn't they chop down trees, or was that a vicious rumour started by a group of irate NIMBY Stafford badgers?

 

[tek-monkey]

The trees I know of were for the bypass, but I don't know everything that goes on. If work has started on this site before planning is passed isn't that illegal?

 

[tek-monkey]

Not sure I ever read that

Is this a falsehood?

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."

 

[Withnail]

The Wildlife Trust have not just made an overwhelming case as to why this proposal should be rejected...

Have just read it - in an ideal world it really would be the last word on the matter. But will it be?

Again I have no idea where yo get your information on NE, but glad we agree they did not object - the rest of your analogy just confuses me

You are the needy friend. Your application is a car crash.

I am not sure why this is described as a false dichotomy.

When asked whether you’d prefer to be punched in the face or kicked in the bollocks, it is always prudent to enquire whether ‘neither’ is an option.

I was restricting my comments to statutory consultees as this seemed a reasonable better biased point.

FTFY

Therefore yes the buck stops with the planning dept then...

It kind of always has – it is not, and never has been, up to MAL to determine the ‘rightness’ of this case. If fault can be found, and it can, it can be found through the Planning Officer’s door, whence to the Planning Committee’s corridor of unusual and unfounded certainty.

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

Hahaha - you're 'funny'. You no doubt feel very proud of yourself. You really shouldn't, though.

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, for one, respect you for it - as has been mentioned many times, most objections are to the site of the club, not the club itself.

What money exactly is being spent on your behalf? Grants?

If ‘reports’ are to be believed, Sport England are in to the tune of nearly £1/2m, the MoD ponying up £1/4m. Where, exactly, do you think Sport England and the MoD get the monies for £3/4m worth of largesse from? Down the back of the sofa?

I want the best possible facility for the folks of Stafford…

… *that play Rugby Football*

I don’t think it unreasonable to say that you do not necessarily represent the wishes of all those other folk, those folk of Stafford that do not share your passion and care not for Rugby. Would that it were that the scales could fall from thine eyes, that you could SEE that.

Calm your tits people, stick to the facts.

Also this.

 

[Withnail]

The Wildlife Trust have not just made an overwhelming case as to why this proposal should be rejected...

Quite apart from anything else, they proper ripped the shit out of the EIA - my favourite bit -

There are some inconsistencies with the figures which need to be clarified...

Species-poor semi-improved grassland - 4.55 ha plus 0.1 ha on the access track equals 4.65 ha, not 4.56 ha.

ha (0.1)ha!

 

[The truth the whole truth]

Facebook - generally seen as quite open - shut down a profile set up in the name

I'm puzzled with this one ? Virginia Park Facebook page is still active ! . You seem to get shutdown what you do not like , remember the BBC you complained and they removed it from the website . Here it is if you did not see it firstly .
Take a look at this video on YouTube:

.

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.

 

[The truth the whole truth]

as has been mentioned many times, most objections are to the site of the club, not the club itself.

Well said

 

[Admin]

I have removed @bandwagon's posts as not only were they reported by a number of people, but I suspect that it is the same person as @The truth the whole truth. If not the same person, then they are definitely representative of the same organisation; these are what are known as sockpuppet accounts and are not allowed on here (or, indeed, most internet discussion forums).

A reminder to everyone, please refrain from posting personal information, in this thread or anywhere else on The Forum. Publicly accessible information is fine (stuff from Companies House, matters of public record, etc.), but trawling Facebook for people, screengrabbing their information and so forth is not really cricket. I don't care if their Facebook profile has poor privacy settings; it is still a personal profile and their information should not be reproduced without their say so.

In other words:

Calm your tits people, stick to the facts.

And I have to say, without knowing @MAL or even having read this thread (before the reports started coming in), fair play to them for taking the time to respond to as many replies as possible, regardless of how barbed they may be.

 

[1JKz]

The trees I know of were for the bypass, but I don't know everything that goes on. If work has started on this site before planning is passed isn't that illegal?

You mean normal, right?

 

[1JKz]

My thoughts and feelings on the matter; The planning application for the rugby pitches to be built anywhere near/next to/in or on the marshes, is...
...Orange Juice - Rip it Up (and start again)

 

[The truth the whole truth]

I have removed @bandwagon's posts as not only were they reported by a number of people, but I suspect that it is the same person as @The truth the whole truth. If not the same person, then they are definitely representative of the same organisation; these are what are known as sockpuppet accounts and are not allowed on here (or, indeed, most internet discussion forums).

A reminder to everyone, please refrain from posting personal information, in this thread or anywhere else on The Forum. Publicly accessible information is fine (stuff from Companies House, matters of public record, etc.), but trawling Facebook for people, screengrabbing their information and so forth is not really cricket. I don't care if their Facebook profile has poor privacy settings; it is still a personal profile and their information should not be reproduced without their say so.

In other words:


And I have to say, without knowing @MAL or even having read this thread (before the reports started coming in), fair play to them for taking the time to respond to as many replies as possible, regardless of how barbed they may be.

Let's get some order and stick to the topic , no more mud slinging and Let this be a warning to us all , even in the back benches

 

[Mikinton]

I see more pitches are disappearing (front page of today's Newsletter), not rugby pitches but the cricket and football pitches at Shugborough.

 

[PPPPPP]

Doh! Am I the only one who didn't know that Lord Sta£ford is actually president of the rugby club. Or is that just a rumour?

 

[proactive]

Doh! Am I the only one who didn't know that Lord Sta£ford is actually president of the rugby club. Or is that just a rumour?

It's not exactly a secret. Don't see why that is an issue though.

 

[PPPPPP]

It's not exactly a secret. Don't see why that is an issue though.

Suppose not, but it must give him another reason why he won't let the non rugby playing riff-raff tell him what to do with his land.