Urgent Please Read Re: Sainsbury's Decision

[Guest]

This £4m land thing keeps cropping up, as far as I can see the club build facilities on it and then continue to run it for 10 years at a cost of £370k PA. That's hardly free is it?

[CotswoldRed]

A very disappointing answer from Ms. Janke.

I had expected something of substance five days after the decison not empy rhetoric.

Verry poor indeed.

Unfortunately its exactly what I expected.

Edited July 27, 2010 by CotswoldRed

[cheese]

A very disappointing answer from Ms. Janke.

I had expected something of substance almost a week after the decison and not empy rhetoric.

Verry poor indeed.

I particularly dislike the reference to "wealthy chairman". The use of wealthy is inappropriate and is used in a way that suggests that being wealthy is somehow wrong and something to be ashamed of. Very socialist worker of the seventies.

[Gazred]

That Barbara Janke statement has just fueled the flames if you ask me. Using phrases like "intense, sustained, deliberate bullying", "wild hysteria" and "an extremely disturbing attack" is way off the mark and the mention of our "wealthy chairman" is completely irrelevant.

They made a bad decision in the eyes of many who now have every right to vent their displeasure and highlight what looks to the average voter as an air of corruption around the verdict. And why even bother saying the Lib Dems are supporting the stadium when clearly at least 3 of your councillors are not following the party's direction on this?

[redcityman]

This £4m land thing keeps cropping up, as far as I can see the club build facilities on it and then continue to run it for 10 years at a cost of £370 PA. That's hardly free is it?

Am I wrong in thinking you've mislaid a few zeros?

[CotswoldRed]

I particularly dislike the reference to "wealthy chairman". The use of wealthy is inappropriate and is used in a way that suggests that being wealthy is somehow wrong and something to be ashamed of. Very socialist worker of the seventies.

What other descriptive might be appropriate than when referring to someone Miss Janke?

Bald

Fat

Ugly

?

[howey_ducky]

What other descriptive might be appropriate than when referring to someone Miss Janke?

Bald

Fat

Ugly

?

corrupt?

[Guest Red Wardy]

What other descriptive might be appropriate than when referring to someone Miss Janke?

Bald

Fat

Ugly

?

Stop teasing us Cotswold Red, what have you got on Miss Janke?

[Guest]

Am I wrong in thinking you've mislaid a few zeros?

Yes, 370k

[CotswoldRed]

Stop teasing us Cotswold Red, what have you got on Miss Janke?

She's a LIberal. Is that enough?

We can keep digging though ....

[Guest Red Wardy]

There are some very good comments at the foot of the article. Some of them clearly not BCFC fans, but locals fed up with the running of this City from "inept", "self-serving", "Whinging" (Good response from an American Citizen) bureaucrats. Most concur exactly with how I feel. I'm still shocked that two councillors abstained from voting.

Again, as all Politicians do, Janke skirted around the issues and used her open letter to defend her Party and attack those who question their integrity.

The pressure - quite rightly- being applied by the public she serves, is clearly getting to her and her party. One Day, Politicians in this Country will realise that they serve our interests, not their own and their close knit support system.

Keep the pressure up everybody, freedom of speech and democracy is really beginning to work for us. Don't be scared by (as pointed out by Tommy) threatening and empty rhetoric.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Red Wardy

[downendcity]

A very disappointing answer from Ms. Janke.

I had expected something of substance almost a week after the decison and not empy rhetoric.

Verry poor indeed.

If that's what you expected of a policitian then you are very naive BCS.

As a result of Ole's investigations, the question on everyones lips relates to Simon Rayner's impartiality over this planning issue and therefore whether he should have declared an interest and disqualified himself on this occassion. Barbara Janke has done what politicians are best at - she didn't answer the question at issue but used attack as the best form of defence.

She has attacked the methods that some stadium suporters have allegedly adopted i.e. bullying tactics by sending vindictive and malicious emails and phone messges to Simon Rayner. Whether he is is guilty of any wrongdoing is not even on her agenda and she is cleverley removing that issue from public consciousness. She is doing this by planting the actions of a small minority firmly in the minds of the public and making this the major issue, in order to deflect attention away from SR's actions. Reading the thread following her letter on the EP page it seems she is succeeding, as much of the dialogue is focusssed on the actions of stadium supporters and not on the actions of Simon Rayner.

It's a bit like a customer making a complaint. The complaint might be completely valid, but if the customer becomes rude, abusive and foulmouthed, he will undermine his chances of success. YOu only have to look at the last Labour government and MP's expenses fiddling to see that even when caught red handed, policiticians have an inate ability to wriggle out of almost anything. That's what we are up against, and a load of football supporters are amateurs when up against policiticians.

[CotswoldRed]

YOu only have to look at the last Labour government and MP's expenses fiddling to see that even when caught red handed, policiticians have an inate ability to wriggle out of almost anything. That's what we are up against, and a load of football supporters are amateurs when up against policiticians.

Your points are well made. I would like to add though that in this case there are few things in life that produce as much cohesion and sense of purpose than a group of football fans. However fickle they might be on occasion, when people start attacking a football club in the media people WILL pull together.

I don't think in this case that British apathy will let this peter out and be forgotten. Even a significant proportion of younger non-voters will become a force for good here.

The Liberals can try to tar us all with the same brush they use for their political opponents, but the group of people they are attacking here are too sizeable for them to go out on the offensive - it makes no sense long term.

They are burning community bridges fast IMO.

Edited July 27, 2010 by CotswoldRed

[Cider Army]

Truely outstanding work that man True legend lets hope the EP and other media get on the case..Lets get them...After the walk sunday it shows what us city fans are about its brilliant to see the club come together!!

Red and proud..

[Guest Red Wardy]

Your points are well made. I would like to add though that in this case there are few things in life that produce as much cohesion and sense of purpose than a group of football fans. However fickle they might be on occasion, when people start attacking a football club in the media people WILL pull together.

I don't think in this case that British apathy will let this peter out and be forgotten. Even a significant proportion of younger non-voters will become a force for good here.

The Liberals can try to tar us all with the same brush they use for their political opponents, but the group of people they are attacking here are too sizeable to go out on the offensive - it makes no sense long term.

They are burning community bridges fast IMO.

Absolutely agree. BCFC is the bedrock of South Bristol. The Church is in decline, Pubs are closing in their droves and Children are on their playstations. Bristol City FC however, is the one uniting factor in that Part of the City and further afield. Lest we forget, The Club claims it could have sold out Wembley single-handedly for The Championship play-off final. Mock and deride football fans as neanderthals at your peril Janke, you may be surprised that we have tenacity to match our free thinking......oh, and a vote.

[havanatopia]

Okay, next up this morning, Pete Levy, another of our friendly Liberal Democrat NO voters.

Someone stated in the busy day following the council decision that his business was registered to the Tobacco Factory - I have found no evidence to support this and therefore Mr. Levy deserves an apology. His firm was previously based at PaintWorks, a development to which George Ferguson and Ferguson-Mann were contributing partners, but that is a very small and tenuous link which might only suggest a minor appreciation and support for Ferguson's architectural and development ideas.

However, Mr. Levy is also a board member, vice-chair and former chair of Bristol Media, a group setup to champion the creative agencies in Bristol. In various places Levy even describes this role as supporting the creative community in the city. And where better place to support them than the number of creative firms who ARE based in and registered to the Tobacco Factory? Levy supports firms who are hosted by Ferguson - that must be good for a bit of sympathetic voting for Ferguson's point of view?

Apparently there IS a declarable conflict of interest if you happen to be just one among the thousands who support a football team that stand to gain, but there ISN'T if you are one in, err, just two people to have held the role of chair and vice-chair of a group that is responsible for supporting the interests of 3500 creative firms including those based in the Tobacco Factory. The other person to hold both roles just happens to have founded a firm which was previously, err... the biggest tennant of the Tobacco Factory.

So no danger of Mr. Levy not knowing about his friends in the Tobacco Factory - and in turn George Ferguson's point of view - when he sits alongside this well established former tenant of George as a fellow Bristol Media director and former chair, in their collective role as figureheads for the interests of local creative firms, whether based at the Tobacco Factory, Paintworks, or anywhere else which might appreciate Ferguson's role in these developments. Is it in their interests for George to get his way or not?

To be clear, I don't see any potential for commercial interest here in the way Simon Rayner quite clearly should have declared, but at the very least you can see good reason why Levy, immensely loyal to the Bristol design community and it's supporters like George, would have wanted to identify with George's point of view.

i want to buy you a pint or two and shake your hand Ole. Superb research. Keep digging away sir and appreciate the public viewing.

[Kid in the Riot]

I can't believe this article is front page of today's EP, calling our fans bullys

Big mistake Janke

[havanatopia]

I can't believe this article is front page of today's EP, calling our fans bullys

Big mistake Janke

Thats fine as long as the EP provides the same platform for the other side of the argument. Ole or somebody from the club/sainsbury's should get together, formulate a response and submit it to the papers.

[slartibartfast]

I can't believe this article is front page of today's EP, calling our fans bullys

Big mistake Janke

is that rhyming slang ?

[Fiale]

Outside of general election years these councillors are elected on extremely small numbers (and winning margins are often a couple of hundred votes). Angering and losing support from BCFC/Arena/Stadia fans/Sainsbury's employees is a bad, bad move.

Expect to see Lib Dem Council numbers plummet as these people start to show their displeasure. Those opposed to the plans are already active and vote Lib Dem/Green. Awakening the wrath of potential 60,000 others though who maybe less inclined to vote/active should be considered walking on a knife edge.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Fiale

[Daniro]

Okay, next up this morning, Pete Levy, another of our friendly Liberal Democrat NO voters.

Someone stated in the busy day following the council decision that his business was registered to the Tobacco Factory - I have found no evidence to support this and therefore Mr. Levy deserves an apology. His firm was previously based at PaintWorks, a development to which George Ferguson and Ferguson-Mann were contributing partners, but that is a very small and tenuous link which might only suggest a minor appreciation and support for Ferguson's architectural and development ideas.

However, Mr. Levy is also a board member, vice-chair and former chair of Bristol Media, a group setup to champion the creative agencies in Bristol. In various places Levy even describes this role as supporting the creative community in the city. And where better place to support them than the number of creative firms who ARE based in and registered to the Tobacco Factory? Levy supports firms who are hosted by Ferguson - that must be good for a bit of sympathetic voting for Ferguson's point of view?

Apparently there IS a declarable conflict of interest if you happen to be just one among the thousands who support a football team that stand to gain, but there ISN'T if you are one in, err, just two people to have held the role of chair and vice-chair of a group that is responsible for supporting the interests of 3500 creative firms including those based in the Tobacco Factory. The other person to hold both roles just happens to have founded a firm which was previously, err... the biggest tennant of the Tobacco Factory.

So no danger of Mr. Levy not knowing about his friends in the Tobacco Factory - and in turn George Ferguson's point of view - when he sits alongside this well established former tenant of George as a fellow Bristol Media director and former chair, in their collective role as figureheads for the interests of local creative firms, whether based at the Tobacco Factory, Paintworks, or anywhere else which might appreciate Ferguson's role in these developments. Is it in their interests for George to get his way or not?

To be clear, I don't see any potential for commercial interest here in the way Simon Rayner quite clearly should have declared, but at the very least you can see good reason why Levy, immensely loyal to the Bristol design community and it's supporters like George, would have wanted to identify with George's point of view.

Ole,

I thought your scoop about Simon Rayner's potential conflict of interest was spot-on and I strongly agree that this should be investigated further. I don't think he's a partner in Alec French so i don't suppose he's liable to benefit in quite the way some seem to be suggesting, but it needs looking into.

However, this latest piece you've written is sheer garbage and risks undermining your credibility. You are confusing commercial conflicts of interest with other kinds of interests. It stands to reason there are a lot of people who share Ferguson's values and interests and are therefore likely to share his opinions or even rent space from him. They are entitled to express their opinion and to cast a vote according to their beliefs. It is only if they are likely to derive direct commercial benefit from that vote that one might object. As far as I'm aware Bristol Media is not a profit making business? Please don't try to whip up another witch hunt.

I advise everybody to calm down and be businesslike about this. Hysteria will not help the cause.

You have made a strong case and there is simply no need to scrape the barrel in this way.

[Guest Daz555]

Outside of general election years these councillors are elected on extremely small numbers (and winning margins are often a couple of hundred votes). Angering and losing support from BCFC/Arena/Stadia fans/Sainsbury's employees is a bad, bad move.

Expect to see Lib Dem Council numbers plummet as these people start to show their displeasure. Those opposed to the plans are already active and vote Lib Dem/Green. Awakening the wrath of potential 60,000 others though who maybe less inclined to vote/active should be considered walking on a knife edge.

Planning applications should not have any consideration for politics in this way. An application should be rejected/refused without even a passing thought as to which councilors may lose their seats.

[chinapig]

Ole,

I thought your scoop about Simon Rayner's potential conflict of interest was spot-on and I strongly agree that this should be investigated further. I don't think he's a partner in Alec French so i don't suppose he's liable to benefit in quite the way some seem to be suggesting, but it needs looking into.

However, this latest piece you've written is sheer garbage and risks undermining your credibility. You are confusing commercial conflicts of interest with other kinds of interests. It stands to reason there are a lot of people who share Ferguson's values and interests and are therefore likely to share his opinions or even rent space from him. They are entitled to express their opinion and to cast a vote according to their beliefs. It is only if they are likely to derive direct commercial benefit from that vote that one might object. As far as I'm aware Bristol Media is not a profit making business? Please don't try to whip up another witch hunt.

I advise everybody to calm down and be businesslike about this. Hysteria will not help the cause.

You have made a strong case and there is simply no need to scrape the barrel in this way.

Nobody has suggested anything illegal here. It is a question of ethics not law, a distinction politicians are congenitally unable to make. For them as long as something is legal it is ipso facto ok to do however unethical it may be. Let's just say that if it were me and I was personally closely associated with the leading opponent of the plan I would have stepped aside. Indeed one Councillor did so on the grounds he was a City fan when he might have argued that the application was from Sainsbury and therefore what club he supported was irrelevant. What exactly is the difference?

[Superjack]

I might have to stop reading your posts, Cotswold Red. As much as I applaud the good work of your signature, his smug little face is making me want to vomit.

[Guest Red Wardy]

Nobody has suggested anything illegal here. It is a question of ethics not law, a distinction politicians are congenitally unable to make. For them as long as something is legal it is ipso facto ok to do however unethical it may be. Let's just say that if it were me and I was personally closely associated with the leading opponent of the plan I would have stepped aside. Indeed one Councillor did so on the grounds he was a City fan when he might have argued that the application was from Sainsbury and therefore what club he supported was irrelevant. What exactly is the difference?

Here Here. Well put ChinaPig. It's not black and white, although the Lib Dems are towing the legality line.

A Bloc vote would suggest Party alliance, rather than a well-judged decision. It absolutely stinks.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Red Wardy

[Avalonred]

I might have to stop reading your posts, Cotswold Red. As much as I applaud the good work of your signature, his smug little face is making me want to vomit.

Seconded!

[Kid in the Riot]

Here Here. Well put ChinaPig. It's not black and white, although the Lib Dems are towing the legality line.

A Bloc vote would suggest Party alliance, rather than a well-judged decision. It absolutely stinks.

Absolutely. 'Party voting' is however not uncommon at Planning Committees....

[Daniro]

Nobody has suggested anything illegal here. It is a question of ethics not law, a distinction politicians are congenitally unable to make. For them as long as something is legal it is ipso facto ok to do however unethical it may be. Let's just say that if it were me and I was personally closely associated with the leading opponent of the plan I would have stepped aside. Indeed one Councillor did so on the grounds he was a City fan when he might have argued that the application was from Sainsbury and therefore what club he supported was irrelevant. What exactly is the difference?

Yes - but the idea Ole seems to advocate is that anyone involved with a creative company is somehow in cahoots with George Ferguson. That is nuts. Bristol Media, of which he says Peter Levy is a vice-chair (although he is not mentioned as a Board Member on their website http://www.bristolmedia.co.uk/board-members) is a network of 3500 creative individuals and companies - tv, graphic designers, all sorts. I should think hardly any of its members have anything to do with property development.

He's a million miles off the mark with this attempted slur. Better off sticking to the Simon Rayner angle - clearly the chair of the committee should be uncompromised.

[SC_Red]

Yes - but the idea Ole seems to advocate is that anyone involved with a creative company is somehow in cahoots with George Ferguson. That is nuts. Bristol Media, of which he says Peter Levy is a vice-chair (although he is not mentioned as a Board Member on their website http://www.bristolmedia.co.uk/board-members) is a network of 3500 creative individuals and companies - tv, graphic designers, all sorts. I should think hardly any of its members have anything to do with property development.

He's a million miles off the mark with this attempted slur. Better off sticking to the Simon Rayner angle - clearly the chair of the committee should be uncompromised.

its a fair point but Ole's post is just facts about Peter Levy isn't it? Theres no slur as far as I can see just facts for people to draw their own conclusions.

Agree the focus should be on Rayner though.

[chinapig]

its a fair point but Ole's post is just facts about Peter Levy isn't it? Theres no slur as far as I can see just facts for people to draw their own conclusions.

Agree the focus should be on Rayner though.

Indeed and whether he is personally associated with Ferguson in a birds of a feather flock together sense is a legitimate question.

[Daniro]

Indeed and whether he is personally associated with Ferguson in a birds of a feather flock together sense is a legitimate question.

legitimate maybe - but barmy. It's the same as saying anyone who works in the creative industry is personally associated with George Ferguson. In any case personal association has got nothing to do with it. Simon Rayner makes it clear he's never met Ferguson so to that extent he's not "personally associated" - it's the commercial association that's the worry.

[chinapig]

legitimate maybe - but barmy. It's the same as saying anyone who works in the creative industry is personally associated with George Ferguson. In any case personal association has got nothing to do with it. Simon Rayner makes it clear he's never met Ferguson so to that extent he's not "personally associated" - it's the commercial association that's the worry.

Let em make it clear, I do not know if , and am not alleging that, the two are personally associated, though given the facts Ole puts forward, which you have not disputed, it would be surprising if they do not at least know each other. But your reply makes my point about ethics as opposed to law. Why has personal association got nothing to do with it unless you take a purely legalistic view? If a member of the Committee was a personal friend of Steve's but stood to gain no commercial benefit from the decision would it be ok for them to decide on the application? Personally I think not. Unethical you see to somebody terribly far removed from the values that prevail in politics these days. If you regard that as barmy, so be it.

[Daniro]

Let em make it clear, I do not know if , and am not alleging that, the two are personally associated, though given the facts Ole puts forward, which you have not disputed, it would be surprising if they do not at least know each other. But your reply makes my point about ethics as opposed to law. Why has personal association got nothing to do with it unless you take a purely legalistic view? If a member of the Committee was a personal friend of Steve's but stood to gain no commercial benefit from the decision would it be ok for them to decide on the application? Personally I think not. Unethical you see to somebody terribly far removed from the values that prevail in politics these days. If you regard that as barmy, so be it.

Crikey. You appear to suggest ("it would be surprising if they do not at least know each other") that if a member of a committee KNOWS someone who objects to a proposed development they should not be allowed to vote. There's quite a difference between knowing someone and being a personal friend as in your SL example.

My point is that this whole line of attack is a complete waste of time, a desperate attempt to start a witch hunt which plays in to the hands of those who are objecting to the internet "conspiracy theory". It's so stupid it undermines the credibility of the main issue which is the guy who chaired the meeting - Simon Rayner.

[chinapig]

Crikey. You appear to suggest ("it would be surprising if they do not at least know each other") that if a member of a committee KNOWS someone who objects to a proposed development they should not be allowed to vote. There's quite a difference between knowing someone and being a personal friend as in your SL example.

My point is that this whole line of attack is a complete waste of time, a desperate attempt to start a witch hunt which plays in to the hands of those who are objecting to the internet "conspiracy theory". It's so stupid it undermines the credibility of the main issue which is the guy who chaired the meeting - Simon Rayner.

That is not what I was suggesting, merely responding to your response to Ole similarly implying they would be unlikely to know each other. And Ferguson does not simply object he is the leading objector. But you're right of courses that Rayner is the real issue, though I don't expect there to be any consequences for him as using power to serve your own interests is now the norm, not least from his political party.

[CotswoldRed]

I might have to stop reading your posts, Cotswold Red. As much as I applaud the good work of your signature, his smug little face is making me want to vomit.

Shall I start a poll on whether it should be removed? :)

[Superjack]

Shall I start a poll on whether it should be removed? :)

What? His face, or just the picture?

[Barrs Court Red]

What's a creative industry? Sounds like a haven for poofs, spongers and red trousers

[CotswoldRed]

What? His face, or just the picture?

I was going to add that myself but I didn't want to upset Janke any more!

She's crumbling after 3 days, quite clearly. They really won't want their jobs after a few more weeks of us fans whinging and whining.

(Disclaimer: I'm not inciting hatred).

[Superjack]

(Disclaimer: I'm not inciting hatred).

No, nor was I. Obviously.

The little runt.

[CliftonCliff]

Crikey. You appear to suggest ("it would be surprising if they do not at least know each other") that if a member of a committee KNOWS someone who objects to a proposed development they should not be allowed to vote. There's quite a difference between knowing someone and being a personal friend as in your SL example.

My point is that this whole line of attack is a complete waste of time, a desperate attempt to start a witch hunt which plays in to the hands of those who are objecting to the internet "conspiracy theory". It's so stupid it undermines the credibility of the main issue which is the guy who chaired the meeting - Simon Rayner.

I'm beginning to get quite confused about where you're coming from here. I though I was in agreement with your argument at first, not least because the outcry provoked by Ole's excellent initial post has subsequently taken on an unfortunate tone which, as you have said, threatens to undermine our case. Some people need to calm down a bit, or they risk harming the reputation of the club and giving amunition to the Barbara Jankes of this world to get on their high horse about bullying, which allows her to adopt the moral high ground, dilutes public sympathy for what we're trying to achieve and generally diverts attention away from the real issue, which is precisely what she as a politician wants.

Appointing an architect as chair of a planning meeting of this importance makes about as much sense as giving a fox a job as security guard in a chicken run. It simply shows a basic lack of judgement, both on the part of whoever made that decision and on Rayner's part for accepting the role, which I think is partly what Chinapig has been seeking to ram home. I don't think you can separate the obvious inappropriateness of his chairmanship from the wider question of who his professional - and maybe other - contacts might be. The fact that there are no direct, demonstrable, commercial or other links at the moment between Rayner and, say, Ferguson, on the one hand and any alternative plans for the redevelopment of AG, on the other, is neither here nor there. They are both architects and it is conceivable that their respective firms might wish to tender for work on the AG site at some stage in the future, if Sainsbury's doesn't happen. There is nothing wrong with that at all: it would just be a matter of professional people going about their legitimate business - provided they had nothing to do with the decision to refuse the current proposals in the first place. But Rayner has had a very great deal to do with it and we cannot ever know what influences might have been brought to bear on him. So, in those circumstances, who he consorts with, professionally and socially, does become a matter for justifiable public interest

There is only one way to avoid that sort of doubt in the conduct of public affairs. Rayner may be guilty of nothing more serious than political naivety, but the simple truth is that he should be nowhere near this process and the fact that he is in such an influential position surely fatally undermines the integrity of the meeting and its decision. It's a no brainer and the motives of anyone who tries to make a claim to the contrary are themselves wide open to suspicion. If you think otherwise, than just see what happens if Ferguson ends up getting his hands on the site and his firm then subsequently sub-contracts some of the architectural work to the company that employs Rayner. What's happened may be legal, but it ain't right.

[Olé]

However, this latest piece you've written is sheer garbage and risks undermining your credibility. You are confusing commercial conflicts of interest with other kinds of interests.

Daniro, I had my own reservations about whether this particular theme was a little too weak to warrant publication in my daily appetite to keep the pressure on this, however, I chose to go ahead and do so by being absolutely clear in the piece that it wasn't an accusation of a commercial conflict of interest, so there is no confusion on my part.

The reason I went ahead with this is for one simple reason - Sean Beynon also has no commercial conflict of interest, it was a personal preference and SUPPORT for a football club which was deemed to make him unable to vote on this important decision, so clearly the bar isn't only set high enough to warrant review of commercial interests.

• Pete Levy chose to head up a local organisation where as vice-chair/director he SUPPORTS creative businesses in the area: in choosing to support these firms he may have been liable to act in a way which aligns with their interests and locations (including the Tobacco Factory, and those who have supported the design community).
• Sean Beynon chooses to support Bristol City - and in supporting the football club he was EXPECTED to act in way that aligned with City's interests and locations (not least Ashton Gate and Ashton Vale), and was therefore automatically excluded him from the process. A mere preference and loyalty excluded him from voting.

Surely some double standards, however slight, there? I accept this is nowhere as strong a case as against Rayner and said as much myself, but on a simple comparison with how the football supporter was supposed to conduct himself relative to the design community supporter, it warrants debate and for that reason I shared it.

Now I shall go back to bullying Barbara Janke through the trivial act of posting FACTS on a message board. If that constitutes bullying then VERY clearly the truth hurts.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Olé

[Olé]

Yes - but the idea Ole seems to advocate is that anyone involved with a creative company is somehow in cahoots with George Ferguson. That is nuts. Bristol Media, of which he says Peter Levy is a vice-chair (although he is not mentioned as a Board Member on their website http://www.bristolme...k/board-members)

That's odd how quickly that list has changed...

I think chinapig has said it better than I. The application was on behalf of Sainsbury's and therefore excluding the Bristol City supporter (who had no commercial interest in any case) was a clear statement that conflicts of interest both indirect and non-commercial were fair game in vetting participants for this meeting.

You may well be right to feel some of the connections made here are excessive but that is the rules by which one side have had to play. There is no 'in cahoots' with George Ferguson, BUT Bristol Media exist to support design companies who themselves have been well supported in locations past and present by George.

The founding chair of Bristol Media for the 3-4 years immediately preceding Levy was someone who was the biggest tenant in the Tobacco Factory. Do you really think he and George never spoke? And do you really believe that he never subsequently mentioned such warm hosting from George for design firms, to Levy?

Given that Ferguson helped deliver PaintWorks and both men re-located there when it opened, I find it hard to believe there wasn't any familiarity which might have helped swing votes behind George's preferred development interest. Bristol Media's stated aim is to support design firms and their board know and trust George.

Yet we're told that Beynon would vote for Sainsbury's because he supports City and it does them a favour, whilst Levy couldn't possibly vote for Ferguson's view of the world in spite of supporting local designers who have long been favoured by Ferguson. Rayner was out of order. Beynon was no less entitled to vote than Levy was.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Olé

[BCAGFC]

Pete Levy should definately be investigated as well as he was the one who put forward the 'refusal' motion.

And representing Horfield is another reason to investigate IMO.

Remind me how that freedom of information works?.

BCAGFC

[RedRock]

Appointing an architect as chair of a planning meeting of this importance makes about as much sense as giving a fox a job as security guard in a chicken run

Quote of the Year!

[slartibartfast]

The little runt.

learn how to spell! :0)

[Kid in the Riot]

And representing Horfield is another reason to investigate IMO.

Why? No-one in Horfield actually supports the gas. 600 letters of objection to their stadium proposal is testament to that!

[BCAGFC]

Why? No-one in Horfield actually supports the gas. 600 letters of objection to their stadium proposal is testament to that!

Shock horror......................MP acts on constituents requests.

BCAGFC

[Daniro]

I'm beginning to get quite confused about where you're coming from here. I though I was in agreement with your argument at first, not least because the outcry provoked by Ole's excellent initial post has subsequently taken on an unfortunate tone which, as you have said, threatens to undermine our case. Some people need to calm down a bit, or they risk harming the reputation of the club and giving amunition to the Barbara Jankes of this world to get on their high horse about bullying, which allows her to adopt the moral high ground, dilutes public sympathy for what we're trying to achieve and generally diverts attention away from the real issue, which is precisely what she as a politician wants.

Appointing an architect as chair of a planning meeting of this importance makes about as much sense as giving a fox a job as security guard in a chicken run. It simply shows a basic lack of judgement, both on the part of whoever made that decision and on Rayner's part for accepting the role, which I think is partly what Chinapig has been seeking to ram home. I don't think you can separate the obvious inappropriateness of his chairmanship from the wider question of who his professional - and maybe other - contacts might be. The fact that there are no direct, demonstrable, commercial or other links at the moment between Rayner and, say, Ferguson, on the one hand and any alternative plans for the redevelopment of AG, on the other, is neither here nor there. They are both architects and it is conceivable that their respective firms might wish to tender for work on the AG site at some stage in the future, if Sainsbury's doesn't happen. There is nothing wrong with that at all: it would just be a matter of professional people going about their legitimate business - provided they had nothing to do with the decision to refuse the current proposals in the first place. But Rayner has had a very great deal to do with it and we cannot ever know what influences might have been brought to bear on him. So, in those circumstances, who he consorts with, professionally and socially, does become a matter for justifiable public interest

There is only one way to avoid that sort of doubt in the conduct of public affairs. Rayner may be guilty of nothing more serious than political naivety, but the simple truth is that he should be nowhere near this process and the fact that he is in such an influential position surely fatally undermines the integrity of the meeting and its decision. It's a no brainer and the motives of anyone who tries to make a claim to the contrary are themselves wide open to suspicion. If you think otherwise, than just see what happens if Ferguson ends up getting his hands on the site and his firm then subsequently sub-contracts some of the architectural work to the company that employs Rayner. What's happened may be legal, but it ain't right.

To clear up any confusion, I agree that Rayner's position is highly suspect and should be investigated. It's the attack on the other fellow - Levy - that I think is problematic - because he "knows" Ferguson.

[Daniro]

Daniro, I had my own reservations about whether this particular theme was a little too weak to warrant publication in my daily appetite to keep the pressure on this, however, I chose to go ahead and do so by being absolutely clear in the piece that it wasn't an accusation of a commercial conflict of interest, so there is no confusion on my part.

The reason I went ahead with this is for one simple reason - Sean Beynon also has no commercial conflict of interest, it was a personal preference and SUPPORT for a football club which was deemed to make him unable to vote on this important decision, so clearly the bar isn't only set high enough to warrant review of commercial interests.

• Pete Levy chose to head up a local organisation where as vice-chair/director he SUPPORTS creative businesses in the area: in choosing to support these firms he may have been liable to act in a way which aligns with their interests and locations (including the Tobacco Factory, and those who have supported the design community).
• Sean Beynon chooses to support Bristol City - and in supporting the football club he was EXPECTED to act in way that aligned with City's interests and locations (not least Ashton Gate and Ashton Vale), and was therefore automatically excluded him from the process. A mere preference and loyalty excluded him from voting.

Surely some double standards, however slight, there? I accept this is nowhere as strong a case as against Rayner and said as much myself, but on a simple comparison with how the football supporter was supposed to conduct himself relative to the design community supporter, it warrants debate and for that reason I shared it.

Now I shall go back to bullying Barbara Janke through the trivial act of posting FACTS on a message board. If that constitutes bullying then VERY clearly the truth hurts.

Well, I see where you're coming from but I think the Levy front is way off target. Ferguson isn't in the Media business in the way that Bristol Media are - OK, media companies may choose to rent the kind of spaces he designs / owns but it's wrong to conflate all "creative businesses" with property developers / architects who do stand to gain directly from the Ashton Gate site. Anyway - the point is the decision not to allow Sainsburys to shift 200 yards up the road i clearly bonkers and Ferguson has got way to big for his boots.

[Chivs]

I posted this in another thread, but it may as well b on this one as well.

I've had a couple of emails on this subject from within the Council.

One was from a Councillor called Negus - he can be ignored, he's not worth bothering with.

But I had a very concise email from the Chief Exec, Jan Ormondroyd who set out the interpretation of the code of conduct and the planning code from the Councils perspective. Whilst I don't necessarily agree with their interpretation or their conclusion, it seems to me that, like most law concerning planning, it is not an exact science. It seems to me that they are basing their conclusion that Rayner had no conflict of interests on the premise that his employers had no interest in the planning application being heard - I'm not sure how they obtained that infomation. I would challenge the bit where it's stated "I have no information to support an allegation that the Sainsbury decision would have any impact--real probable or possible on AlexFrench." Anyway, this is a copy of what she said;

You make an allegation that Cllr Rayner had a conflict of interests. I

do not understand the basis of your allegation: on the basis of the law

and my understanding of the factual matrix there is no conflict

Members are required to comply with the Code of Conduct. The Bristol

Code follows the model code exactly

In considering whether there has been a breach of the code in respect

of interests it is necessary to consider the terms of the Code. This is

the hyperlink to the full Code:

http://www.bristol.g...-councillors.en

And this is the Planning Code

http://www.bristol.g...ning-matters.en

For there to be a prejudicial interest there has first to be a personal

interest. I refer you to para 8 of the Code:

8(1) You have a personal interest in any business of your authority

where ......

a) it relates to or is likely to affect..............

iv) any person or body who employs ...you

Cllr Rayner is employed by Alex French. So the question now is: was the

Sainsbury decision likely to affect Alex French.

"Likely" is ambiguous between: probably that so and so as against there

is a significant and real possibility that so and so. The best

interpretation of "likely" in the clause is the second so the question

now becomes: is there a significant and real possibility that the

Sainsbury decision would affect Alex French

I have no information to support an allegation that the Sainsbury

decision would have any impact--real probable or possible on Alex

French. Therefore my conclusion is that there was no personal interest

in the application created by his employment. And if there is no

personal interest then there can be no prejudicial interest

But for completeness: A prejudicial interest is created if where a

personal interest of a councillor is such that a member of the public

with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so

significant that it is likely to prejudice the councillor's judgement of

the public interest. And the balance is between respecting the

reasonable and acknowledging the reality of the unreasonable

The Committee took a lawful decision after considering the report and

hearing all the submissions and the advice from officers. I have seen

correspondence which has praised the way the meeting was handled and the

clarity of thinking of the members involved, and on the other hand, I

have seen correspondence such as yours. The point here is: there are

contrary perceptions and views of the meeting

Planning matters are non-executive functions and are therefore not the

responsibility of the Cabinet.

If the applicant believes that the decision was flawed then of course

they may chose to lodge an appeal.

Regards

Jan Ormondroyd

Chief Executive

Interesting stuff. This is the key phrase as you say:

"I have no information to support an allegation that the Sainsburydecision would have any impact--real probable or possible on Alex

French."

This is classic Blair-speak if ever I saw it! And, in the nature of Blair-speak, you should always follow up to determine what they are hiding.

Therefore, could I suggest that you respond and ask if she has asked Raynor and Alex French if the Sainsbury decision will have any impact on them.

[Guest bcfcas1]

Interesting stuff. This is the key phrase as you say:

"I have no information to support an allegation that the Sainsburydecision would have any impact--real probable or possible on Alex

French."

This is classic Blair-speak if ever I saw it! And, in the nature of Blair-speak, you should always follow up to determine what they are hiding.

Therefore, could I suggest that you respond and ask if she has asked Raynor and Alex French if the Sainsbury decision will have any impact on them.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't A French at the hearing? If not that, he certainly has an interest given his vocal opposition of the stadium?

[CotswoldRed]

But for completeness: A prejudicial interest is created if where a

personal interest of a councillor is such that a member of the public

with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so

significant that it is likely to prejudice the councillor's judgement of

the public interest.

If only to avoid this scenario, and to look whiter-than-white, he should have come out with the facts on planning night. Bare minimum.

I feel I have enough facts to feel that there may be something to hide and this IS the problem here.

If there is absolutely nothing to hide, then coming out with the full facts would have been no issue for Rayner. As he chose not to this, this is reason why there is a potential conflict of interest in the minds of Bristolians.

How complicated is that? To do anything different is like saying "I know best and you'll have to trust me on this".

Rayner seems to think its "innocent until proven guilty", but this isn't about criminality, its about morals as much as anything else.

Edited July 28, 2010 by CotswoldRed

[Webzcas]

Ok, I have made a post on my political forum and have stuck it for good measure. Appealing to the UK members of the forum. Hopefully will generate several signups for the petition as a result.

If anyone has a website and is documenting the stadium decision, please send me a pm with the link and I'll reference it in the thread I started on my forum. Lets get these discussions and sites start ranking in google, thus increasing the exposure.

http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.co.uk/Forum/world-events/92818-inept-local-politicians.html#post943550

[CliftonCliff]

To clear up any confusion, I agree that Rayner's position is highly suspect and should be investigated. It's the attack on the other fellow - Levy - that I think is problematic - because he "knows" Ferguson.

Thanks, Daniro, and my apologies if I got the wrong end of the stick.

[Guest Red Wardy]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't A French at the hearing? If not that, he certainly has an interest given his vocal opposition of the stadium?

Guys, I want to clear this up. There is no such person or individual as Alex French. Alec French Architects are the practice that Rayner works for, the name is taken from the Founding Partners Surnames.

I think the Alex has slipped in instead of Alec because of the Companies close affinity to George Ferguson.

Just think Red Trousers, not Red Nose.

[Olé]

Barbara Janke reacted to the publication of facts by yesterday accusing us of bullying her councillors. It's an odd reaction to the publication of facts, but then maybe these facts hurt. It was also odd that she chose to focus on alleged actions of one or two idiots over and above the very serious facts that were presented calmly for people to draw conclusions from.

Perhaps these facts not only hurt, but were also inconvenient to discuss.

Well, since Barbara seems to think she can complain about her Lib Dem team being attacked by, err.. facts and play the victim card for a lady so powerful, here are some more facts. Barbara, far from being "brow-beaten" by City supporters, actually has a lot more friends in high places than we do. Consider, for a minute, the Local Strategic Partnership for Bristol.

The Bristol Partnership. You probably better know this sort of show as a Quango - packed with unelected businessmen and local figures and costing billions of taxpayer money to run. It's stated aim is delivering Bristol's strategy (that's their strategy to you or I unless you're an unelected businessmen or local figurehead) and they have several executive boards.

Each Bristol Partnership board is designed to bring together the city's key stakeholders for meetings to focus on key strategic aims. The "Prosperous & Ambitious Board" is good fun. Barbara is on the "Prosperous & Ambitious Board"! That's because of course Barbara is all about prosperity and ambition, as she was keen to remind us between whinges yesterday.

Do you know who else is in the select group that meets with Barbara on the Bristol Partnership "Prosperous & Ambitious Board"? Well let me tell you who Barbara hangs out with...

• Mike Bennett (former largest tenant of George Ferguson's Tobacco Factory, fellow Bristol Media board member and former office neighbour to Pete Levy, who voted No last week)
• David Bishop (one of the most senior and best paid unelected council employees, and, err... the subject of a public call to resign in a previous council meeting after he went against all formal advice to act in umm... George Ferguson's interest on a previous contentious planning decision, following highly embarrassing private emails from, err... George Ferguson)
• David Mellor (director of Alec French Architects, yes them again, successful development partner of George Ferguson and employer of Simon Rayner, who voted No last week)

I don't need to add that this cosy club also includes the treasurer of the Merchant Venturers (George Ferguson conspiracy theories gone wild) and several housing and real estate figures. But I tell you what it doesn't include (nor does any other board in this Local Strategic Partnership) and that's anyone from any local football club. Clearly football is not part of the strategy.

Odd that 2 well supported well established local clubs that carry the ambitions of so many people in our city have no role in strategy, yet so many businessmen and friends of George do. Not hard to see why decisions are not taken even handedly (and before Barbara starts yapping about supporting us, the same Lib Dem councillors were voting against us last year too).

For good measure, the "Thriving Neighbourhoods Board" includes secretary of the GBCP, a BS3 group that included the local Green Party councillor and George's rabble rousing daughter, Alice. Now for Barbara's benefit, these are all facts. What people make of them is entirely up to them. It may, at the very least, paint a picture that Georgey boy gets closer to this lot than we do.

Thanks to Red Wardy for the eagle eyes...

Edited July 28, 2010 by Olé

[BCFChris]

Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear, Mrs Janke, seems you have friends in high places!

I still want to know why Stephen Williams is so interested in architecture!

[Barrs Court Red]

Just went and had a look on their website. "Lib Dems Oppose..." Seemingly everything, going by the new archives.

[Sir Colby-Tit]

Oh dear, Oh dear, Oh dear, Mrs Janke, seems you have friends in high places!

The Bristol Illuminatal?

[SC_Red]

Barbara Janke reacted to the publication of facts by yesterday accusing us of bullying her councillors. It's an odd reaction to the publication of facts, but then maybe these facts hurt. It was also odd that she chose to focus on alleged actions of one or two idiots over and above the very serious facts that were presented calmly for people to draw conclusions from.

Perhaps these facts not only hurt, but were also inconvenient to discuss.

Well, since Barbara seems to think she can complain about her Lib Dem team being attacked by, err.. facts and play the victim card for a lady so powerful, here are some more facts. Barbara, far from being "brow-beaten" by City supporters, actually has a lot more friends in high places than we do. Consider, for a minute, the Local Strategic Partnership for Bristol.

The Bristol Partnership. You probably better know this sort of show as a Quango - packed with unelected businessmen and local figures and costing billions of taxpayer money to run. It's stated aim is delivering Bristol's strategy (that's their strategy to you or I unless you're an unelected businessmen or local figurehead) and they have several executive boards.

Each Bristol Partnership board is designed to bring together the city's key stakeholders for meetings to focus on key strategic aims. The "Prosperous & Ambitious Board" is good fun. Barbara is on the "Prosperous & Ambitious Board"! That's because of course Barbara is all about prosperity and ambition, as she was keen to remind us between whinges yesterday.

Do you know who else is in the select group that meets with Barbara on the Bristol Partnership "Prosperous & Ambitious Board"? Well let me tell you who Barbara hangs out with...

• Mike Bennett (former largest tenant of George Ferguson's Tobacco Factory, fellow Bristol Media board member and former office neighbour to Pete Levy, who voted No last week)
• David Bishop (one of the most senior and best paid unelected council employees, and, err... the subject of a public call to resign in a previous council meeting after he went against all formal advice to act in umm... George Ferguson's interest on a previous contentious planning decision, following highly embarrassing private emails from, err... George Ferguson)
• David Mellor (director of Alec French Architects, yes them again, successful development partner of George Ferguson and employer of Simon Rayner, who voted No last week)

I don't need to add that this cosy club also includes the treasurer of the Merchant Venturers (George Ferguson conspiracy theories gone wild) and several housing and real estate figures. But I tell you what it doesn't include (nor does any other board in this Local Strategic Partnership) and that's anyone from any local football club. Clearly football is not part of the strategy.

Odd that 2 well supported well established local clubs that carry the ambitions of so many people in our city have no role in strategy, yet so many businessmen and friends of George do. Not hard to see why decisions are not taken even handedly (and before Barbara starts yapping about supporting us, the same Lib Dem councillors were voting against us last year too).

For good measure, the "Thriving Neighbourhoods Board" includes secretary of the GBCP, a BS3 group that included the local Green Party councillor and George's rabble rousing daughter, Alice. Now for Barbara's benefit, these are all facts. What people make of them is entirely up to them. It may, at the very least, paint a picture that Georgey boy gets closer to this lot than we do.

Thanks to Red Wardy for the eagle eyes...

brilliant. lets see if Babs can write off the latest set of facts as a conspiracy theory.

[RedUn]

Barbara Janke reacted to the publication of facts by yesterday accusing us of bullying her councillors.

Yep, classic deflection tactics from La Janke. Desperate if you ask me.

And you can't help wondering at her quoting what seems like the party line - "I voted for the stadium" (just like Simon said he did second time round) - well, of course, it makes no odds at all whether you voted for the stadium if you knew you were going to spike the enabling development anyway.

Interesting also to see the incestuous list of names of all those Quangistas!

Anyone remember "Our Friends in the North"? ... this is beginning to look like the sequel.

PS For the benefit of Barbara and friends, I'm the one

who was a life-long Lib / Lib Dem voter until last week.

Edited July 28, 2010 by RedUn

[Nibor]

Barbara Janke reacted to the publication of facts by yesterday accusing us of bullying her councillors. It's an odd reaction to the publication of facts, but then maybe these facts hurt. It was also odd that she chose to focus on alleged actions of one or two idiots over and above the very serious facts that were presented calmly for people to draw conclusions from.

Perhaps these facts not only hurt, but were also inconvenient to discuss.

Well, since Barbara seems to think she can complain about her Lib Dem team being attacked by, err.. facts and play the victim card for a lady so powerful, here are some more facts. Barbara, far from being "brow-beaten" by City supporters, actually has a lot more friends in high places than we do. Consider, for a minute, the Local Strategic Partnership for Bristol.

The Bristol Partnership. You probably better know this sort of show as a Quango - packed with unelected businessmen and local figures and costing billions of taxpayer money to run. It's stated aim is delivering Bristol's strategy (that's their strategy to you or I unless you're an unelected businessmen or local figurehead) and they have several executive boards.

Each Bristol Partnership board is designed to bring together the city's key stakeholders for meetings to focus on key strategic aims. The "Prosperous & Ambitious Board" is good fun. Barbara is on the "Prosperous & Ambitious Board"! That's because of course Barbara is all about prosperity and ambition, as she was keen to remind us between whinges yesterday.

Do you know who else is in the select group that meets with Barbara on the Bristol Partnership "Prosperous & Ambitious Board"? Well let me tell you who Barbara hangs out with...

• Mike Bennett (former largest tenant of George Ferguson's Tobacco Factory, fellow Bristol Media board member and former office neighbour to Pete Levy, who voted No last week)
• David Bishop (one of the most senior and best paid unelected council employees, and, err... the subject of a public call to resign in a previous council meeting after he went against all formal advice to act in umm... George Ferguson's interest on a previous contentious planning decision, following highly embarrassing private emails from, err... George Ferguson)
• David Mellor (director of Alec French Architects, yes them again, successful development partner of George Ferguson and employer of Simon Rayner, who voted No last week)

I don't need to add that this cosy club also includes the treasurer of the Merchant Venturers (George Ferguson conspiracy theories gone wild) and several housing and real estate figures. But I tell you what it doesn't include (nor does any other board in this Local Strategic Partnership) and that's anyone from any local football club. Clearly football is not part of the strategy.

Odd that 2 well supported well established local clubs that carry the ambitions of so many people in our city have no role in strategy, yet so many businessmen and friends of George do. Not hard to see why decisions are not taken even handedly (and before Barbara starts yapping about supporting us, the same Lib Dem councillors were voting against us last year too).

For good measure, the "Thriving Neighbourhoods Board" includes secretary of the GBCP, a BS3 group that included the local Green Party councillor and George's rabble rousing daughter, Alice. Now for Barbara's benefit, these are all facts. What people make of them is entirely up to them. It may, at the very least, paint a picture that Georgey boy gets closer to this lot than we do.

Thanks to Red Wardy for the eagle eyes...

Rob, Ian Hislop's on the phone for you

Seriously - good work. It really is quite concerning to note how a few unelected people seem to continuously crop up in power circles with the same small group of elected officials and the same shady masonic special interests club linking them.

[CotswoldRed]

Boys and Girls, just remember that if you want to make a difference and get things changed in this world of ours then democracy is no longer a necessary means to achieve your 'political' ambitions. Its who you know that matters, clearly.

The sooner these quangos are abolished, the better.

Talk about gravy trains .....

Edited July 28, 2010 by CotswoldRed

[havanatopia]

Thanks again to Ole and now Red Wardy.

What bothers me here is how, in Cynic's reply from B.Janke, all of these conflicts which, on the face of it, appear to contradict the terms of office have to be lodged, as an appeal, with the very same council.

I realise we have to begin from the position of having faith in the overall council to investigate this properly but it seems abundantly clear to me that they have shown, through these very conflicts, that they are incapable of dealing with them responsibly now because they did not either deal with them before or make the issues public for all to see.

So my main question is this; Is the very council that Ole is expertly uncovering as, perhaps, of questionable ethics the only destination for recourse?

Surely the answer to that question has to be a resounding NO. If Sainsbury's wish to fight these issues, rather than to simply make an appeal and continue to work in harmony, then that is their choice but it leaves open the question what group of people wish to tackle this issue in a robust and professional manner? Or, are we to continue living in a city with a council, structure and 'friends in high places' that leave a rather unsavoury flavour in the mouth?

And one final thought; can the code of conduct be of such wide interpretation that rebuttals be made with such confidence. Probably only a lawyer can answer that accurately and if the answer is yes then the code of conduct is an absolute nonsense; we vote blindly and we end up being governed blindly.

[Superjack]

The little runt.

learn how to spell! :0)

Sorry. 'C' and 'R' are on the same side of the keyboard.

[Olé]

Or, are we to continue living in a city with a council, structure and 'friends in high places' that leave a rather unsavoury flavour in the mouth?

I'm just popping down from the watchtower to throw in my own un-researched two cents as opposed to my daily missive. Although I'm happily showing up the Lib Dems for who they are, I really am trying to be apolitical about this and where possible let people draw their own conclusions. I also hesitate to push the 'friends in high places' idea too far. What people might be interpreting as an abuse of power, I actually believe is something quite different. The Lib Dems aren't abusing office, quite the opposite, they're too weak to manage office.

It's true that wherever you look there is but one degree of separation between decision makers and the rewarded, but I don't actually think in Bristol it is some ugly conspiracy made up of back room deals and malevolent double dealing. I actually think it's a lot of weak and naive people who had nothing better to do than become Lib Dem councillors, who now run our city and still have nothing better to do, so latch onto the supposed causes for good that are laid out before them or planted in their ears in passing by Bristol's liberal agitators.

Like George Ferguson for instance.

I don't see any conviction in any of these councillors. They look like their opinion would be blown over by a small gust of wind. But yet they ARE exercising their opinion and their conviction all too frequently and that's why we're getting these stupid decisions like when four Facebook friends from North Bristol who've been on the council only a year, rubbish experts' reports and vote no. It's no coincidence that I started my posting marathon (and was the first to write to Simon Rayner) after I saw his umm... ahh... justification for voting no on Points West.

"I felt that the umm planners report understated some of the effects that the application may have on the errr local community, its services, err air quality umm traffic"

The only abuse of power is these simple-minded novices don't know what to do with it. In Rayner's case, that's when personal professional interest creeps in sub-conciously to fill the void.

[Chappers]

Personally, I think it's a mix of hidden power and weak leadership. Guys like Ferguson know how to influence Councils, and with inept idiots like LibDems, just whisper a few green concerns, and they will vote how you want them to. It's quite scary really, BCC spend money promoting 2018, the paid professionals all support the proposal, most sane individuals accept that a minority will be inconvenienced, but see it as a positive step for Bristol as a whole, with great future possibilities. And yet four timid pipsqueaks can stop all of this because a few more cars might use a few roads, inconveniencing residents in an out of town site (No, I can't work that one out either!). By that warped logic, nothing would ever have got built, after all, Georges development attracts more cars than a derelict building etc.

Keep up the good work, you have definitely got them rattled, and bar a few vocal NIMBY's, I think that most people in and around Bristol are viewing them as incompetent and narrow-minded idiots. We just have to hope that SL and Sainsburys are up for a fight, as I think that the LibDems will stand firm, full of their own self-righteousness and self-importance. It's a pity that it is two years until the next Council election, but as Clegg has just about killed the Lib Dem vote, we will then be well rid of these simpletons.

My big fear is that the appeal fails, we will lose any hope of the World Cup, and SL just gets fed up of spending his money on the project, as every delay means a further wait for any return on his investment, only to be thwarted by these numpties.

Let's hope that Rayner & Co do not try and organise an event at the Bristol Beer Factory!

[Chappers]

The Lib Dems being history makes it worse, they can inflict their green fantasy World on us knowing that they won't get re-elected whatever they do. We have to wait two years before they get 'nul points', and they can inflict a lot of harm in that time.

[Gazred]

From todays EP:

Liberal Democrat councillors held private meetings before Sainsbury's store vote

LIBERAL Democrat councillors held two meetings in private on the day that the Sainsbury's superstore scheme at Ashton Gate was rejected, the Evening Post can reveal. The five Lib Dems who are members of the Development Control (South and East) committee that refused planning permission met during the afternoon in a room at the Council House.

Later, they met again a few minutes before the start of the meeting in the council chamber at 6pm, which debated the Sainsbury's plan.

Four of the Lib Dems voted in favour of refusal while one abstained. The two Tories voted against and the one Labour member abstained.

Members of planning committees cannot be politically whipped, which means they are not allowed to vote along party lines.

Before the debate began, each of the eight councillors on the committee had to say they had read all the papers and were dealing with the issue with an open mind.

The Tory group's deputy leader Peter Abraham said: "My view is that the decision is suspect and that before the planning refusal is issued, we can look at this again with a planning committee from across the whole of the city."

Senior Lib Dem councillor Mark Bailey, the group's chief whip, said: "I can assure you 150,000 per cent that the meetings were absolutely nothing to do with pre-determining the decision."

Planning expert Mike Orr told the Post: "So long as they didn't decide beforehand how they were going to vote and there was no excessive lobbying, then there is nothing to suggest bias which would invalidate the decision."

City council spokesman Peter Holt said: "It is proper for members to discuss matters before a meeting. I understand they discussed the media coverage of the application, amongst other matters.

"Members have been clear there was, however, no predetermination of the planning application in these discussions. Indeed, this was confirmed by each member before the development control committee started."

A planned meeting yesterday between the football club and the city council was called off.

[downendcity]

From todays EP:

Liberal Democrat councillors held private meetings before Sainsbury's store vote

LIBERAL Democrat councillors held two meetings in private on the day that the Sainsbury's superstore scheme at Ashton Gate was rejected, the Evening Post can reveal. The five Lib Dems who are members of the Development Control (South and East) committee that refused planning permission met during the afternoon in a room at the Council House.

Later, they met again a few minutes before the start of the meeting in the council chamber at 6pm, which debated the Sainsbury's plan.

Four of the Lib Dems voted in favour of refusal while one abstained. The two Tories voted against and the one Labour member abstained.

Members of planning committees cannot be politically whipped, which means they are not allowed to vote along party lines.

Before the debate began, each of the eight councillors on the committee had to say they had read all the papers and were dealing with the issue with an open mind.

The Tory group's deputy leader Peter Abraham said: "My view is that the decision is suspect and that before the planning refusal is issued, we can look at this again with a planning committee from across the whole of the city."

Senior Lib Dem councillor Mark Bailey, the group's chief whip, said: "I can assure you 150,000 per cent that the meetings were absolutely nothing to do with pre-determining the decision."

Planning expert Mike Orr told the Post: "So long as they didn't decide beforehand how they were going to vote and there was no excessive lobbying, then there is nothing to suggest bias which would invalidate the decision."

City council spokesman Peter Holt said: "It is proper for members to discuss matters before a meeting. I understand they discussed the media coverage of the application, amongst other matters.

"Members have been clear there was, however, no predetermination of the planning application in these discussions. Indeed, this was confirmed by each member before the development control committee started."

A planned meeting yesterday between the football club and the city council was called off.

Given the high profile of the application in question I can quite understand members discussing issues like media coverage beforehand.

However, if that is the case and reason, then surely all members of the planning committee should have been at any such meeting because they would all have been affected by these issues, irrespective of party policitcs, because planning decisions are meant to be apolitical.

As for the Lib Dem chief whips statement that, " I can assure you150,000% that the meetings were absoultely nothing to do with pre-determining the decision".

For the millionth time - don't exagerate! Anyway, it is mathematically impossible to assure us more than 100%.

Reading all these statements from the leader of the council and these various Lib Dem spokespeople, the expression "methinks he doth protest too much" comes to mind. Anyone else feel the same?

Paraphrasing Winston Churchill. Never in the field of Bristolian endeavour have so many been so royally shafted by so few.

Edited July 29, 2010 by downendcity