Urgent Please Read Re: Sainsbury's Decision

[Rudolf Hucker]

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."

"150,000 per cent" indeed - are these guys also in charge of our schools?

Interesting article. It may not be a smoking gun but there is sufficient doubt being raised on so many fronts that the right thing to do will be for the planning committee to reconsider its verdict (with a newly constituted team of representatives) ... and that will be where the fun starts. How can they overturn the previous verdict without causing members of the previous committee to lose face?

[Rudolf Hucker]

He probably paid for the Travellers site down Avonmouth, with Maths of that calibre.

The danger is that he and his colleagues take this same Fools & Horses mathematical approach to government ... which is why as a country we're teetering on bankruptcy constantly spending 150,000% of the mere 100% that's been generated through taxation.

Cushty Rodders. This time next year we'll all be millionaires.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Rudolf Hucker

[CliftonCliff]

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.

I agree with everything you say, except that I wouldn't be too sure of the above.

BCC has for years been notorious for its squabbling and plotting both beween and within factions. I have one acquaintance who is currently a councillor and two good friends who both served on the council for lengthy periods in the past, who still have contacts there. The infighting and dirty deals being done under the table were among the chief reasons they give for standing down: they cared about the work they were trying to do to benefit the community, but just were sick of this behaviour. The occasional feedback I still get suggests that it hasn't changed that much, but the impression I get is that because council members have been rightly and publicly condemned over the years for diverting so much time and energy into this kind of useless, damaging and dysfunctional activity, it has been driven underground and has become more secretive, which is arguably more sinister.

Whether this kind of thing has been a feature of this particular issue we may never know, but I do think, despite Janke's protestations about 'bullying', that it's a very good thing that some switched-on people like yourself on the forum have turned the spotlight on matters that might not otherwise have received the attention they merit. I am full of admiration for the way you've researched this very important material and the measured way you've presented it. Thanks so much for your efforts and I hope you can continue to find the time and motivation to stick at it, with our support, because it is clearly having an effect on the political process. If the meeting were to be held again tomorrow, it would be very much harder for that group of people to vote the same way again, and that's largely thanks to the work you've put in. Well done, mate, and I'm among a large number of members on this forum who would be only too pleased to buy you a pint, given the opportunity.

[Rudolf Hucker]

... it's a very good thing that some switched-on people like yourself on the forum have turned the spotlight on matters that might not otherwise have received the attention they merit. I am full of admiration for the way you've researched this very important material and the measured way you've presented it. Thanks so much for your efforts and I hope you can continue to find the time and motivation to stick at it, with our support, because it is clearly having an effect on the political process. If the meeting were to be held again tomorrow, it would be very much harder for that group of people to vote the same way again, and that's largely thanks to the work you've put in. Well done, mate, and I'm among a large number of members on this forum who would be only too pleased to buy you a pint, given the opportunity.

I completely concur Cliff and add my thanks.

[Pedrowe]

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.

I have done a little bit of research into bias and pre-determination of a planning application. I have copied some relevant case law:

The question to be asked in establishing whether bias has occurred is whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. In R (on the application of Georgiou) v Enfield LBC 7/4/04 a third party challenged a local authority permission as there was an appearance of bias. The authority had granted listed building consent for a change of use of a Grade II listed building to use as offices and a consulting room, and for the erection of a mental health nursing home for 60 patients within the curtilage of that building. A resolution had also been passed to grant planning permission for the erection of the nursing home subject to the completion of a section 106 agreement. These proposals had been considered by the members of the authority's conservation advisory group (the CAG), which consisted of elected members of the authority together with representatives of the local community. The claimant contended that these decisions were vitiated by an appearance of bias, in that four members of the authority's planning committee were also members of the CAG and that three of those members (who all voted in favour of granting the consents) had participated in CAG meetings at which support was expressed for the proposals. The court quashed the authority's decisions. It was stated that in dealing with the apparent bias, it was necessary to look beyond pecuniary or personal interests and consider whether, from the point of view of a fair-minded and informed observer, there was a real possibility that the planning committee, or their members, had been biased in approaching the decision, and that they had done so with a closed mind and without considering, impartially, all relevant planning issues. It was also stated that a fair-minded and informed observer would probably have concluded, in the circumstances of the present case, that there had been a real possibility of bias, as a result of the support expressed by the CAG for the proposals in the context of the planning committee's decisions.

The statement of law provided in the Georgiou case was applied in R (Ghadami) v Harlow DC 30/7/04 where a council permission for a major redevelopment of a retail centre was challenged. Planning permission had been granted by a narrow majority of four votes to three. It was alleged that there appeared to be bias and pre-determination by the chairman of the planning committee, based on telephone conversations he had had with the chairman prior to the grant of permission. The court held that there was evidence of apparent bias. From telephone conversations recorded and transcribed by the claimant, it appeared that the chairman was anxious to see the proposed development take place and was seeking to remove the potential blockage or delay that the claimant could cause. In the circumstances, there was a real possibility that the chairman was biased in the sense of approaching the decision with a closed mind and without impartial consideration of all relevant planning issues. As the permission was granted by such a narrow majority, the decision should be quashed.

As a 'fair minded and informal observer' I feel that the Liberal Democrats were against this scheme, and this was shown by the voting pattern. On this basis, I hope someone (Sainsbury's or a Third Party) Judicially Reviews this application! Or the Council see sense and take this application to Full Council to consider as the public cannot have confidence in the decision of the South and East Development Control Committee.

Edited July 29, 2010 by prowe

[Chappers]

The thick 'uns plot. The plot thickens.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Chappers

[Nibor]

As a 'fair minded and informal observer' I feel that the Liberal Democrats were against this scheme, and this was shown by the voting pattern. On this basis, I hope someone (Sainsbury's or a Third Party) Judicially Reviews this application! Or the Council see sense and take this application to Full Council to consider as the public cannot have confidence in the decision of the South and East Development Control Committee.

I think it would be interesting to request all correspondence the four no voters have had (with anybody) on the subject of the sainsburys application and the stadium project. I believe this is available under FOI.

[Geoff65]

I have done a little bit of research into bias and pre-determination of a planning application. I have copied some relevant case law:

From the information you have provided, it appears to fall into 2 categories of predetermination, the first was that some councillors who were on a sub committee were also on the planning committee, this is not the case as far as I can see for Sainsburys application. The second was where the chair of the planning committee was in talks prior to the planning committee with an interested party and more importantly that those conversations were recorded and transcribed as evidence of the perceived predetermination. This directly relates to the Sainsburys application if it can be shown that Simon Rayner or any of his Liberal Councillors were expressing doubts and discussing the retail impact report in their closed meeting -- were minutes taken or not? Is there evidence as per the case law example that you have provided. I say this as Simon Rayner factually got it wrong in the meeting with the example he gave.

[luke_bristol]

Yet another brilliant piece of research Ole, I hope you are in regular contact with the EP and other media, just the google maps image you have posted deserves front page status

[CliftonCliff]

Bloody hell, Ole, how do you find this stuff? I know I've said it once today already, but I make no apology for repeating it: I take my hat off to you! Thank you.

It may well be the case, as others have said, that many of these funny 'coincidences' would not, taken on their own, amount to much as a basis for questioning the integrity of the meeting, but there is pressure mounting all the time due to the sheer cumulative weight of evidence that you have been unearthing; that and the very large numbers of people expressing their concern and their disapproval. Usually something has to give when there is such sustained controversy and public interest. I'm waiting now for someone to crack...

In the mean time, I just wanted to add a question for you or anyone out there who may have the expertise to answer this. It may have been raised before and I've missed it: apologies if that's the case.

I was talking the other evening to a close friend who is a property developer and who owns several commercial premises in fairly high-profile locations such as Park Street and Clifton Village. He has had his run-ins with planners in his time and so knows far more than I about these things. He also happens to be a life-long City supporter.

He has been absent from Bristol for a while and wasn't fully up to speed until our conversation. He was most concerned about the refusal, and also very surprised. As regards the latter, he has quite a bit of inside info on Sainsbury's take on all this, as he is engaged in some business of his own with them. This is in a different part of town and has no connection with AG whatsoever, but it may be of some passing interest that they have put his project (tiny by comparison) on hold, even though they are not linked in any way, because they don't want their name associated with any more local friction about new stores opening, however minor. I find this encouraging, because it seems to suggest that they are not thinking of walking away and want to keep the growing weight of public opinion on their side. He also told me that their planning advisors were caught off-guard as much as everyone else by the outcome; even they didn't see this one coming. I think we can be pretty sure there will be no complacency next time.

Which is where my question comes in. According to my mate, the appeal process carries considerable risk and the outcomes don't always go according to expectation, which I found worrying. However, he also tells me that all Sainsbury's would have to do is 'tweak' the plans in some relatively small way, and resubmit them as a fresh application. It would then be heard, like any other application, in a much shorter time than the appeal process would require - so less delay, but the real attraction of this strategy (assuming my friend has his facts straight) would be that, in the current red-hot political climate, with many people furious and telling their councillors so, and the pro-lobby now fully alerted and ready to speak at any meeting, the panel would find it enormously difficult to repeat their performance of last week.

Sainsbury's planning bods are no mugs and will of course know all this (again, assuming it to be correct) so one wonders if they are currently contemplating this as one of the options available to them. Any thoughts, advice, or further information, anyone?

[Geoff65]

The items that need changing other than the retail impact report not being understood, were: air pollution, traffic and buses.

air pollution: cant do anything about, however the concern I gather was to do with Greville Smyth park and children playing there. The air pollution officer said that moving 15 metres away from the source returns the air pullution to normal background levels. Not sure how far the car park etc is frm Greville Smyth Park but I would hazzard a guess more than 15 metres. One of the Councillors felt that children wouldnt be able to cross the road to get to the park, perhaps she didnt realise that there already is a zebra crossing on Ashton Road?

traffic: a 20% increase in traffic and with road alterations they could be catered for. Note if the Sainsburys went ahead then the Parsons Street gyratory would be eased with the demolition of the old Sainsburys but there would be new traffic generated from the housing and of course new potential traffic problems near the entrance to the new store, hence the alteration of roads surrounding that part of Winterstoke Road.

buses: Opposition due to the fact buses were not entering the site and dropping people off at the front door, if they wanted to get public buses to drop people off there then approval would be needed from First Bus to do this, they may not want to but the Officers said it wasnt necessary and the doubling of the frequency of Sainsburys own buses was sufficient. Also one of the Councillors wanted bicycles to be given to employees at the store.

Pick one of the above to tweak and send it back, personally I cant see the air pollution and traffic being able to be tweaked, leaving the buses.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Geoff65

[CliftonCliff]

The items that need changing other than the retail impact report not being understood, were: air pollution, traffic and buses.

air pollution: cant do anything about, however the concern I gather was to do with Greville Smyth park and children playing there. The air pollution officer said that moving 15 metres away from the source returns the air pullution to normal background levels. Not sure how far the car park etc is frm Greville Smyth Park but I would hazzard a guess more than 15 metres. One of the Councillors felt that children wouldnt be able to cross the road to get to the park, perhaps she didnt realise that there already is a zebra crossing on Ashton Road?

traffic: a 20% increase in traffic and with road alterations they could be catered for. Note if the Sainsburys went ahead then the Parsons Street gyratory would be eased with the demolition of the old Sainsburys but there would be new traffic generated from the housing and of course new potential traffic problems near the entrance to the new store, hence the alteration of roads surrounding that part of Winterstoke Road.

buses: Opposition due to the fact buses were not entering the site and dropping people off at the front door, if they wanted to get public buses to drop people off there then approval would be needed from First Bus to do this, they may not want to but the Officers said it wasnt necessary and the doubling of the frequency of Sainsburys own buses was sufficient. Also one of the Councillors wanted bicycles to be given to employees at the store.

Pick one of the above to tweak and send it back, personally I cant see the air pollution and traffic being able to be tweaked, leaving the buses.

Thanks for that, Geoff. Incidentally, the more I read some of the objections and comments that apparently helped sway the vote, the more incredulous I become. Free bicycles for store employees?! What are these people on?

[Olé]

Now I've been censored! Uh-oh.... all I did today was talk about publicly available facts about the people who spoke for and against the development (and hence volunteered their details into the public domain). All the information I used the council itself published in the depths of its public website this week, albeit in less distilled form.

How on earth have I done something that warranted censure - can a suitably desensitized version be restored?

[Nibor]

Now I've been censored! Uh-oh.... all I did today was talk about publicly available facts about the people who spoke for and against the development (and hence volunteered their details into the public domain). All the information I used the council itself published in the depths of its public website this week, albeit in less distilled form.

How on earth have I done something that warranted censure - can a suitably desensitized version be restored?

Seconded - why is public domain information being censored?

[Guest]

Sorry folks I haven't been around the office for the past couple of days but something went down in the office that meant Geoff had to remove a post or two. Until I can ascertain what has gone on when I'm back in the office tomorrow you'll have to bare with me.

[Nibor]

Sorry folks I haven't been around the office for the past couple of days but something went down in the office that meant Geoff had to remove a post or two.

Ah. I think we can probably guess then. Red trousers having another whinge I expect.

[Guest]

Ah. I think we can probably guess then. Red trousers having another whinge I expect.

No nothing to do with George as far as I know. Once I'm back in with facts to hand will let you know.

We have been very careful this week to watch what has gone on here, generally everyone has been excellent and on the whole very few post have had to been ditched.

[Olé]

Sorry folks I haven't been around the office for the past couple of days but something went down in the office that meant Geoff had to remove a post or two. Until I can ascertain what has gone on when I'm back in the office tomorrow you'll have to bare with me.

No problem Tom, I know how it is - at the very least I'd appreciate a copy returned in private as I do spend a fair old time putting these things together (it's okay, it makes me feel better on 5am train journeys to London) and don't retain a copy with all the details as I've researched them, so it's a bit depressing to see it all evaporate.

Just to be clear I was publishing facts today that the Evening Post already regularly pubishes when it mentions the street of any quoted residents, and the specific details today were all available in the public domain this week directly from the council itself (which shares the individual contributions and representations to every meeting).

No addresses were published, just pins in maps which is no threat to anyone. If you need assistance against any unfounded challenges to the right to publish this information or it's validity, please let me know. Needless to say I will stop these posts until told otherwise as I neither want to cause harm nor waste time on stuff no one can read.

[SC_Red]

all it shows is someone somewhere is shitting themself

[sh1t_ref_again]

One of the main grounds for refusal was the new store would impact upon local traders, where I have some problem understanding this is that the store already exisits, so they are only moving it 300m closer, but as its larger it will carry an increased range of products.

What would be interesting to reasearch is the number and type of shops in the area and whcih are likely now to be affected by the new store. I would have thought if someone wanted an item that Sainsburys (or Asda) sale and wanted to buy it from a supermarket they already would and those who purchase from a little shop on north street will continue if that thier preference. So how much of an impact will it make except for Aldi & Asda?

[SC_Red]

One of the main grounds for refusal was the new store would impact upon local traders, where I have some problem understanding this is that the store already exisits, so they are only moving it 300m closer, but as its larger it will carry an increased range of products.

What would be interesting to reasearch is the number and type of shops in the area and whcih are likely now to be affected by the new store. I would have thought if someone wanted an item that Sainsburys (or Asda) sale and wanted to buy it from a supermarket they already would and those who purchase from a little shop on north street will continue if that thier preference. So how much of an impact will it make except for Aldi & Asda?

whats the Lib Dem obsession with little shops anyway? they employ 2 or 3 people. sainsburys employs hundreds.

[Geoff65]

Here's the official reason Official refusal by the Council

[SC_Red]

Here's the official reason Official refusal by the Council

it would be funny if it wasnt so serious.

The proposed development would be an unsustainable form of development by virtue of the scale of additional retail floorspace proposed in an out-of centre location. Due to its scale and location, the development would result in an unacceptable increase in traffic on the highway network , would increase the need to travel and would reinforce car dependency.

What? Its moving the store about 300 metres. how does that increase the need to travel? **** me. Do they all walk to Waitrose to do there weekly shop then? Unbeliveable. ******* unbelievable.

I hope nobody ever votes Lib Dem ever agin. They are not fit to decide anyhting.

[Olé]

For seven days I have posted only public domain facts about people who made it their business to get in other people's business (namely free trade between Bristol City and Sainsbury's).

Now apparently where facts are concerned, certain people don't like people putting their own business on show. Whoever has gone running to the poor board operators is both a coward and a hypocrite.

Words fail me about people who actually spend their lives wanting a say on everyone else's business but go running and complaining if anyone comes near their own feeble, naïve, duplicitous existences.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Olé

[Guest surreyred]

I think the alleged effects on other shops in the area is a real red herring.

Sainsburys has a large store in the area that has been trading for some time. So other traders in the area who are competing with Sainsburys have either, already gone out of business, are selling goods/services that are not in direct competition with the supermarket, or have a unique selling proposition which attracts customers to them from the supermarket.

Moving the supermarket a short distance does not change any of this. The increase in size of the supermarket will make a difference, but customers tend to remain pretty loyal to a supermarket brands so any increase in size will have only a minnor effect. The gamble Sainsburys are taking is that the larger store will attract more people from a much wider area.

More people coming to the area to go to Sainsburys means other shops have the chance of attracting more custom if they can persaude people to stay and go to other shops in the locality. Also the old Sainsburys will have houses built on it, so another chance for the other shops to increase custom.

Also the new stadium is not a million miles away. There will be a lot going to it and the connected attractions.Again the more people coming into the area the greater the chance for this shops to incease business.

There is no 'given' for any other business in the area. But if they have a product/service people want and the business know how the large Sainsburys and Stadium is actually a buisness oppertunity.

[Barrs Court Red]

No suprise there Ole.

[Riaz]

For seven days I have posted only public domain facts about people who made it their business to get in other people's business (namely free trade between Bristol City and Sainsbury's).

Now apparently where facts are concerned, certain people don't like people putting their own business on show. Whoever has gone running to the poor board operators is both a coward and a hypocrite.

Words fail me about people who actually spend their lives wanting a say on everyone else's business but go running and complaining if anyone comes near their own feeble, naïve, duplicitous existences.

I cant see why it cant be shown - you only dealt with facts!! Sounds like they are guilty to me and obviously have something to hide.

Also why is the forum removing post that arent slanderous or libelous?????

Top work btw Ole

[Kid in the Riot]

Here's the official reason Official refusal by the Council

Complete and utter gash.

A P P E A L

[Webzcas]

Ole, as long as it is not libelous and is in the public domain, then post it on my politics forum. I have started a thread and stickied it here: http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.co.uk/Forum/world-events/92818-inept-local-politicians.html

This site gets a lot of traffic and ranks very well. It is number one in google for current affairs forum. Also the thread in question is already starting to rank in google for some good niche terms.

Seriously, I have no problem with facts being posted and as my company owns the site which is on a dedicated server, I am not worried about any outside pressure making me pull it. You have my word.

[Olé]

What was removed ?

I posted the background to everyone who spoke or submitted against the proposals at the meeting, it was taken from public domain information which the council is obliged to release after meetings.

It - in my view at least - showed a ridiculous hold the green cabal in a few streets of Southville have over the entire BS3, it showed people speaking against hiding their true agenda, it showed direct associates of Ferguson's proposals speaking supposedly independently and it showed personal interest and a direct association between the Lib Dem voters and one of the petitioners.

It's frustrating to see all that work evaporate because it was the longest I've spent on a post this past 7 days and was what I wanted to highlight from the start - this minority grip over BS3 by a minority of interlinked green activists in Southville. I included an interactive Google map showing approx. location of For and Against speakers so people could see the bias of Southville against the wider BS3 view.

My bet is that it was the prospective Lib Dem councillor who has complained, he works in the tobacco factory alongside our board admins and was petitioning his party friends to vote no as a supposed member of the public... not a bit of it.

[sh1t_ref_again]

Hi Ole

I am surprised and see no reason for what was a very interesting and revealing post has been removed. It Showed though plain facts the very tangled web of green bellied liberal mouth pieces from southville who live now where near the stadium but sought to conspire and influence the hearing.

[Olé]

Daavros, very kind, but I don't save a copy of all my work, I do it for this forum, not a website, I'm gutted it's been removed but hoping that Tom can at least return it to me as I wasted two hours this morning and living amongst these frauds, it was important to me.

[Webzcas]

Ole,

No problem But it is a politics forum and relevant, you have my word I won't pull any information you put on there.

The thread is also very easy to find on google.

For instance: http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4DSGI_en-GBGB310GB310&q=simon+rayner+inept

[chinapig]

I posted the background to everyone who spoke or submitted against the proposals at the meeting, it was taken from public domain information which the council is obliged to release after meetings.

It - in my view at least - showed a ridiculous hold the green cabal in a few streets of Southville have over the entire BS3, it showed people speaking against hiding their true agenda, it showed direct associates of Ferguson's proposals speaking supposedly independently and it showed personal interest and a direct association between the Lib Dem voters and one of the petitioners.

It's frustrating to see all that work evaporate because it was the longest I've spent on a post this past 7 days and was what I wanted to highlight from the start - this minority grip over BS3 by a minority of interlinked green activists in Southville. I included an interactive Google map showing approx. location of For and Against speakers so people could see the bias of Southville against the wider BS3 view.

My bet is that it was the prospective Lib Dem councillor who has complained, he works in the tobacco factory alongside our board admins and was petitioning his party friends to vote no as a supposed member of the public... not a bit of it.

I hardly need tell you how much we all admire you and that you have our full support, I find it deeply ironic that there is finally a movement following the Simon Singh case to change this country's ludicrous libel laws that is supported by the Lib Dems. But we have seen that their principles are for sale to the highest bidder. Indeed the BBC is revealing right now how Clegg conned Cameron by claiming Labour were offfering PR without a referendum when they offered no such thing. So the local mob are in tune with the leader at least.

[Guest stick]

great work Ole

I'm not surprised George Ferguson is so against the whole thing

the man is so up his own arse that if he hasn't thought of an idea then he will shout from the rooftops, well at least from his penthouse on top of the Tobacco Factory

thats probably half the reason he is so against the sainsburys, not because he's worried about north street, more the view from his window

as for the planning committee, is it any surprise Bristol is so far behind all the other major cities in the UK in terms of sports / concert facilities

the greeny lefty, croc wearing, latte drinking metro sexuals believe southville is some form of new "Notting Hill", which must be protected at all costs

best thing we can do is vote the pillocks out at next elections

[Webzcas]

The post in question can now be read here: http://www.politicsandcurrentaffairs.co.uk/Forum/world-events/92818-inept-local-politicians-new-post.html

[havanatopia]

Think a decrease on turnover at about 2 percent for North Street shops. Why don't Sainsburys offer them a market square space in the new AG store say once a month? Will more than well compensate for the loss in turnover for the NS shops and mean great goodwill for Sainsburys as well as increased turnover on the day.

Admirable suggestion Sweden but you would probably find small shops the length and breadth of Britain, close to Sainsbury's, would then request parity. That might be a mammoth task and require a new business plan for the giant supermarket chain. Not that that is a bad idea mind.

[Chivs]

Thanks for that, Geoff. Incidentally, the more I read some of the objections and comments that apparently helped sway the vote, the more incredulous I become. Free bicycles for store employees?! What are these people on?

I think if we all raleigh round it's the chopper for them.

OK. I'm putting my coat on....

[Guest]

Just read it and can't understand why it was pulled from here.

Because I wasn't in the office.. I haven't had chance to find out what happened. As I've explained, let me find out myself then I will explain if required.

[Olé]

Just read it and can't understand why it was pulled from here.

There isn't anything that can be construed to be libellous or defamatory - it's all fact.

Someone is getting a bit twitchy methinks.

Who knows. It certainly wasn't the former prospective Liberal Democrat councillor I referred to who is getting twitchy, as he wasn't even annotated on the local map which I included.

I mean if a Lib Dem who wasn't even on that map was seen to be demanding censorship of what effectively was nothing more than his links to the party, the game really would be up.

So hopefully it was someone else. Hopefully.

I think it's time to call it a day, first Barbara ran to the papers calling publication of facts bullying, then someone - but definitely not a Lib Dem - had me censored, who knows what's next.

It's not liberal and it's not democratic, but it's about the best face-saving exercise you're going to get at this time of night from the hopeless majority party in our awesome city of Bristol.

They're supposed to be running the council but at the moment they seem to be running scared.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Olé

[Webzcas]

A case of Brown Trousers rather than Red?

[Olé]

Concise instructions for anyone referenced in this thread who objects to the publicity

1. Make bed.

2. Lie in it.

[Milo]

Olé, your updates are a great lesson for those who may have been unsure, but in life it is not what you know that matters but who you know. There are so many factors that influence us when we make decisions and the inter-connection of the Lib Dem councillors with anti-stadium campaigners can be argued not necessarily to be evidence of collusion but certainly evidence of a whole series of contacts that will have influenced their decision. At it's most innocent level we can see how difficult it must have been for these councillors to reach an independent view when influential peers are telling them to refuse the application. We all like to be accepted by our peers and voting in favour of the application would have been a tough decision for many of them to make. The way you have so carefully revealed the interconnections has been really interesting and, well, revealing. I've been visualising Mark Thomas on stage as I've read your articles. Who knows where your investigations will lead but at the very least they have given many City fans a great read over the past week and I'd like to join in with so many others in thanking you for the time you've taken to share your investigations with us.

[Olé]

As some of you will have read in the preceding postings, yesterday's collation of facts had to be pulled after a serious complaint was made. This wasn't a Barbara Janke front-of-the-Evening-Post play-the-victim style complaint, but a private, nameless, go-complain-and-place-undue-pressure-on-the-site-operators type complaint.

Serious stuff!

An off-site copy of the posting can be reviewed here: http://www.politicsa...html#post944100

Given that all information was published by the council themselves this week and merely summarised for this thread, it's both disappointing and highly irregular for someone to have reacted in this way given that anyone mentioned was entirely responsible for placing themselves into the public domain by seeking to influence this decision.

I wonder who was rattled and what they have to hide? Last night, without possession of facts but simply knowing the post had been removed, I hypothesised (from a mobile on a train) that based on both the revelation and their location in relation to forum admins, that the complaint may have come from a recent Lib Dem council candidate.

Subsequent to this, I have not learnt anything which enables me to revise this assumption. Presumably the site admins will be able to explicitly correct this if appropriate to do so, or perhaps the Lib Dem can refute it himself if it's wrong. I do hope so, as it creates additional suspicion and mistrust around the Lib Dems which I had not anticipated.

Let's say, simply for arguments sake, that it was this Lib Dem who sought censorship. As you'll see from the message linked above, he was not even included in the mapping of opinion in BS3, the only reference made was that such an obvious political affiliation existed and was not clear when making representations to Lib Dem colleagues.

I mean, surely the wider people of Bristol have a right to know if someone who is demanding a decision from inexperienced Lib Dem councillors, had himself just two and a half months earlier stood and canvassed for the same party for the same role in the Filwood ward, just a year after the people he was petitioning had stood themselves.

But there's nothing there which isn't easily derived from plenty of information in the public domain (details of last weeks meeting and a copy of recent council election results for a start). So it cannot have been him who complained! As that would be covering up an unfortunate (albeit convenient) lack of openness in the style of Simon Rayner.

And since it so CLEARLY WASN'T him, he won't mind if we just "double click" (he's a web developer - he'll like that) on his submission to the planning meeting:

1. His final submission to the meeting of a statement against the plans was submitted very late, just the day before the council met. Given that the Evening Post was already able to publish on the eve of the meeting that his fellow Lib Dem Simon Rayner was taking over as chair, perhaps this was already known and his timing was significant?

2. I note with interest that his was the only statement in just short of 50 submissions in which a recent overtly party political figure was able to address direct party colleagues in both the chair and the majority of the decision making committee, and where he would recommend a course of action which the majority of his Lib Dem colleagues took.

3. He raised a range of concerns about Winterstoke Road, although this seems to be built on the notion that he can combine the effect of multiple existing planning proposals being approved in order to critique the effect of this individual application. Ironically, in a letter to the council a week earlier he challenged the idea that any developments are linked to our World Cup bid, so clearly one minute there is no cause and effect, the next he can produce cause and effect from a range of mutually exclusive decisions!

4. With benefit of hindsight, my map yesterday showed that where the Winterstoke Road area is concerned, only statements in favour of the development had been made, so at a street level, his statements carried no local support.

5. He reverted to type with a stock North Street defence that contends that "a development of this size can only serve to harm the local economy", which says nothing for the estimated 250million investment in South Bristol that participation in the World Cup could generate and the immediate creation of new jobs the development offers.

6. Rather oddly, he concluded his North Street argument by describing the resultant effect he foresees as the "loss of important, skilled and rounded jobs (albeit replaced with some menial, low-paid, low-skilled, low-prospect shelf stacking)." Putting aside the fact that someone who wanted to be elected in Filwood, an area with a fair share of social and unemployment challenges, can be so casual about secure work however menial HE feels it is (and I hope he wasn't counting on votes of supermarket employees) what really is odd is the notion that the businesses he believes are threatened on North Street offer important, skilled and rounded jobs!? Right, so that's waiting on tables in a Deli or bagging fruit in a greengrocers is it? At least superstores offer young people opportunities for supervisory and management roles and actual promotion opportunity.

7. His final contention, as it was in a separate letter to the council a week earlier, was that a portion of land - the Ashton Gate car park - was being given away to the club for free, to make available for this development. The council had already taken time to reply to him directly on the suggestion that this was free, but he still fancied raising it again. The truth is that the club hold a 125 lease on that land which still has 102 years to run. The freehold was simply transferred which is quite a common practice and does not need to be transferred in such a way as to reflect the actual value of the present-day land. From his consternation, he has clearly grossly misjudged the value of land which Bristol City have controlling rights over for another century. Still, if the Lib Dems aren't objecting to things now, they're objecting to things in the year 2112.

So that's settled then. Since he feels he's entitled to make spurious public claims about what is ultimately a private transaction, and do so to direct party political colleagues he is seeking to influence as a 'member of the public', he quite clearly simply CANNOT have been the one to have complained about any aspect of privacy or claim made in yesterday's posting, as that would make him a hypocrite who wants to air out other people's business, but not his own.

Therefore I will wait with anticipation for any news of who might have resorted to demanding censorship of inconvenient facts, because it would be highly embarrassing if it was a party that claim to be either liberal or democratic......

In the meantime, a little tip for people who may or may not stand for council election and who may or may not object to web publication of information about themselves. Try and be a bit more careful with where you send your own information! For instance, as a purely hypothetical example (honest), having your details publicly available on the internet offering cash-in-hand work at the Tobacco Factory is probably worth avoiding if seeking civic office. That will be another type of Self Assessment needed then!

Edited July 30, 2010 by Olé

[_Bristol-City_]

Well said, sir.

[Webzcas]

I really really really hope the Evening Post at least are regularly reviewing this thread. This is turning into a house of cards with a big wind heading it's way. The Liberal Democrats being the house of cards.

[phantom]

. . .A..s I've explained, let me find out myself then I will explain if required.

Would have thought an explanation WAS needed, surely if people sharing the TF site can influence what goes on this site, there is a worrying conflict of interests ?

(Curious what the atmosphere is like in the Clik offices at the moment)

[chinapig]

Would have thought an explanation WAS needed, surely if people sharing the TF site can influence what goes on this site, there is a worrying conflict of interests ?

(Curious what the atmosphere is like in the Clik offices at the moment)

Not at all worried about any conflict. We know we can have complete faith in Tom to do the right thing in difficult circumstances.

[Webzcas]

I also agree, an extremely difficult situation for Tom and his company to be in. As a webmaster that runs several sites, a couple of forums and also moderate on others, I know that you have to be careful. No doubt more so, looking after a football forum, where emotions can and do get heated.

But I will say this. Anytime something which could cause issues for Clik and or the admins of this board, you are welcome to post them on that thread on my forum. As long as the information is factual and is not libelous. We have had legal threats before, but none of them have been followed through as they had no grounds. The post that was pulled, also had no grounds for legal action or any other type of action. So to clarify very strongly, whoever objects to it being posted on my site, tough. As it is staying. Same goes for anything else that is deemed to close too the bone to be posted here.

On another note, having voted tactically in the last election for the liberals and then seeing them jump into bed with the tories to form a sham of a coalition, I am now a fully paid up member of the labour party. I predict not only in Bristol will their support get decimated at the next election. Countrywide their support will be eroded. They have sold their souls to the devil nationally and it looks more and more every day they have done the same locally. That is my opinion.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Daavros

[chinapig]

I also agree, an extremely difficult situation for Tom and his company to be in. As a webmaster that runs several sites, a couple of forums and also moderate on others, I know that you have to be careful. No doubt more so, looking after a football forum, where emotions can and do get heated.

But I will say this. Anytime something which could cause issues for Clik and or the admins of this board, you are welcome to post them on that thread on my forum. As long as the information is factual and is not libelous. We have had legal threats before, but none of them have been followed through as they had no grounds. The post that was pulled, also had no grounds for legal action or any other type of action. So to clarify very strongly, whoever objects to it being posted on my site, tough. As it is staying. Same goes for anything else that is deemed to close to the bone to be posted here.

On another note, having voted tactically in the last election for the liberals and then seeing them jump into bed with the tories to form a sham of a coalition, I am now a fully paid up member of the labour party. I predict not only in Bristol will their support get decimated at the next election. Countrywide their support will be eroded. They have sold their souls to the devil nationally and it looks more and more every day they have done the same locally. That is my opinion.

Thanks for your very practical support for Ole on this. I for one shall follow your blog from now on in. We live in interesting political times for sure. I was tempted to vote Lib Dem but having heard Simon Hughes on 5 Live practically begging the Tories for a coalition on the Friday before the election it became clear they were in it for their own ends. No doubt Hughes expected a Ministerial salary. What a shame he didn't get one. The polls I have seen have the Lib Dems at between 13% and 19% already and that is before the extreme Thatcherite policies they so enthusiastically support have bitten. In 5 years' time they will have no Party. The cry will be Asquith, Lloyd George, Beveridge, Jo Grimond, Paddy Ashdown, Charles Kennedy, your boys took a hell of a beating!

Still, this rant should be on your blog I guess.

[Olé]

Not at all worried about any conflict. We know we can have complete faith in Tom to do the right thing in difficult circumstances.

I concur. He has been completely professional about this unlike certain members of a political party and prospective holders of civic office.

If it gives Tom and co comfort and peace of mind, with a link in place to the Day 7 story via Daavros, I'm more than happy to leave it that way. I'd obviously prefer it if certain people who are happy to address City's business in public, could address their own in public and not via Tom.

EDIT: By the way, for the avoidance of doubt, I am not trying to make this story political. Inept is inept is inept. It just happens the Lib Dems are.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Olé

[GeoffA]

[Riaz]

Have come into work this morning to be told that my actions yesterday have pissed a few of people off & there are one or two conspiracy theories being bandied around that are unfair and untrue and it seems as if I need to explain my reasons for removing the post. Firstly let me make the point that I am 100% behind Sainsburys building the new store on the AG site, I think that the people opposed to it are plain wrong (including my landlord here) & have no sympathy for any of their misguided views, I firmly believe that the entire scheme (new Sainsbury's and stadium) will do nothing but good for the city and the area.

Yesterday afternoon, I had someone who works in the building turn up at our office getting pretty irate about the fact that where he lives had been posted on this forum and demanded that the posting be removed, this I did without hesitation as I thought it the right thing to do, Tom has been moaning to me that the information is in the public domain & therefore posting it on a public forum is therefore legal, that may be true but I'm pretty sure that an individual has the right to ask for thier details to be removed from a database, whether right or wrong that was my reasoning. I do not and would never censor this forum I just thought it the right thing to do.

I feel like going on about how much I support this forum but can't be arsed & need to do some work so please if anyone has any problem with this please contact me direct.

Fair enough, can understand the position your were in. But was this persons full address posted. or was it just a pin in a map??

I can understand this persons objections if his full address was posted.... was it???

Edited July 30, 2010 by Riaz

[Webzcas]

Tom has been moaning to me that the information is in the public domain & therefore posting it on a public forum is therefore legal,

Tom is quite correct. The information was also relevant in this debate.

I agree that posting personal information should be avoided at all costs. But it was very relevant to do so if in this case, this information was easily obtainable and in the public domain already. Especially as it is very relevant to this thread and the decision reached by the planning committee last week.

BTW if anyone turns up at my office unannounced which is in the public domain also, they will be escorted out of the building by the boys in blue.

[Olé]

Yesterday afternoon, I had someone who works in the building turn up at our office getting pretty irate about the fact that where he lives had been posted on this forum and demanded that the posting be removed, this I did without hesitation as I thought it the right thing to do, Tom has been moaning to me that the information is in the public domain & therefore posting it on a public forum is therefore legal, that may be true but I'm pretty sure that an individual has the right to ask for thier details to be removed from a database

Geoff - understand your position and actions and nothing more needs to be said. I'm sorry for the inconvenience this has caused.

If someone's address had actually been posted and they asked for it to be removed, your action would be quite understandable.

Just for the record (and this is not directed at you) no one's address was or has been posted, just a map with streets marked off.

It was less a source of an address than, say, a phone book. Furthermore, the person who complained wasn't even bloody on it!!

Now that you have put the facts out in the open, we can stop pussyfooting around and say that prospective Lib Dem councillor for Filwood, Joel Sudworth, has complained so vociferously as to inconvenience you and have information censured on this forum, using a completely misrepresented lie that where he lives had been published, which was NOT the case, when in fact all that was said about him was his clear and close links to the Lib Dem decision makers who he was petitioning at the planning meeting. Clearly that embarrasses him. Why?

Furthermore, the only information about Mr. Sudworth which was posted was information he himself had been only too happy to send in letters to the council, which by the way are in the public domain since the council always publish submissions to public meetings. These contain his mobile phone number and email, publicly available. So my few bits let on relatively little of what he's put out there and he should be directing his frustrations squarely at himself for sticking his nose into planning decisions as a priority over guarding his own personal details.

I have to say his behaviour is extraordinary and should be an utter embarrassment to the Liberal Democrat party.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Olé

[Nibor]

Perhaps if Mr Sudworth doesn't like having his name in the public domain he should think twice about how willing he is to give his opinion to public bodies who have a duty to publish that information.

Perhaps if Mr Sudworth doesn't like being embarrassed in public he should think twice about standing before a planning committee full of Lib Dems and chaired by a Lib Dem as a mere member of the public when in fact he was a (losing) Ljb Dem candidate.

Perhaps Mr Sudworth should also consider that what little is left of his credibility is shattered when he misleads someone who happens to work in the same building as him into removing a post that embarrassed him on entirely spurious grounds.

It is frankly amazing how naive and capable of double standards these people are. They want to influence decisions that affect the whole city but are not prepared to have that and their political leanings and connections to people in power known by the general public. How does that work then?

I am dying to see what Geoff's FOI request for correspondence turns up. And for all you Lib Dems reading, be aware that correspondence can easily be cross checked and that deleting anything subject to an FOI request is a criminal offence. I doubt these people are clued up enough to realise that this stuff is public information so no doubt there will be plenty of little gems in that.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Nibor

[View from the Dolman]

Perhaps the complainant could also be transparent about his blogging and possible interests which may influence his thinking.

[SC_Red]

what an unprofessional bunch.

we've had Rayner wrongly accusing the club of stirring up hatred then deleting it. We've had Janke accusing people of a witch hunt for stating facts and now we have this Sudworth bloke running to an office to make people remove public information.

do none of these people run anything past the Lib Dem press office before they act or do they just act selfishly and impulsivly and bugger the consequences? Given their decision on the Sainsburys proposal I;d say it's definatley the latter.

[Chivs]

Have come into work this morning to be told that my actions yesterday have pissed a few of people off & there are one or two conspiracy theories being bandied around that are unfair and untrue and it seems as if I need to explain my reasons for removing the post. Firstly let me make the point that I am 100% behind Sainsburys building the new store on the AG site, I think that the people opposed to it are plain wrong (including my landlord here) & have no sympathy for any of their misguided views, I firmly believe that the entire scheme (new Sainsbury's and stadium) will do nothing but good for the city and the area.

Yesterday afternoon, I had someone who works in the building turn up at our office getting pretty irate about the fact that where he lives had been posted on this forum and demanded that the posting be removed, this I did without hesitation as I thought it the right thing to do, Tom has been moaning to me that the information is in the public domain & therefore posting it on a public forum is therefore legal, that may be true but I'm pretty sure that an individual has the right to ask for thier details to be removed from a database, whether right or wrong that was my reasoning. I do not and would never censor this forum I just thought it the right thing to do.

I feel like going on about how much I support this forum but can't be arsed & need to do some work so please if anyone has any problem with this please contact me direct.

Geoff,

Sounds like you came under some direct pressure and I'm sure no-one here would have done anything different in the circumstances.

It's easy for us keyboard warriors to moan and whinge when we're not the ones being shouted at by an irate person.

I, for one, think that you, Tom and all your colleagues do a fantastic job on this forum.

Thanks

PS You've got an ampersand missing from your location (no, that's not an euphemism)

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Have come into work this morning to be told that my actions yesterday have pissed a few of people off & there are one or two conspiracy theories being bandied around that are unfair and untrue and it seems as if I need to explain my reasons for removing the post. Firstly let me make the point that I am 100% behind Sainsburys building the new store on the AG site, I think that the people opposed to it are plain wrong (including my landlord here) & have no sympathy for any of their misguided views, I firmly believe that the entire scheme (new Sainsbury's and stadium) will do nothing but good for the city and the area.

Yesterday afternoon, I had someone who works in the building turn up at our office getting pretty irate about the fact that where he lives had been posted on this forum and demanded that the posting be removed, this I did without hesitation as I thought it the right thing to do, Tom has been moaning to me that the information is in the public domain & therefore posting it on a public forum is therefore legal, that may be true but I'm pretty sure that an individual has the right to ask for thier details to be removed from a database, whether right or wrong that was my reasoning. I do not and would never censor this forum I just thought it the right thing to do.

I feel like going on about how much I support this forum but can't be arsed & need to do some work so please if anyone has any problem with this please contact me direct.

So now in being in possession of the full facts and the knowledge that this information is already in the public domain, Will it be re-uploaded?, Seems to me like the right thing to do in hindsight.

[SC_Red]

out of interest - what did Joel Sudworth threaten to do if the post wasn't removed?

[SC_Red]

Get his willy out??

he has one?

[Blagdon red]

Seems like a pretty unpleasant person, this chap (from his actions yesterday and the tone of his Twitter feed). I also find it odd that someone seeking public office thinks it is appropriate to use the f-word on a public communications platform.

See his Tweet for the morning after the Sainsbury's decision (07:06, July 22nd):

Joel Sudworth's Twitter page

Is that the sort of language the LibDems want their prospective councillors spouting in public?

[Guest Bristoliain]

Seems like a pretty unpleasant person, this chap (from his actions yesterday and the tone of his Twitter feed). I also find it odd that someone seeking public office thinks it is appropriate to use the f-word on a public communications platform.

See his Tweet for the morning after the Sainsbury's decision (07:06, July 22nd):

Joel Sudworth's Twitter page

Is that the sort of language the LibDems want their prospective councillors spouting in public?

Bitter, Twisted, Fake.

Anymore words to describe him, he obviuosly trolls this forum as much as we do.

[SC_Red]

Seems like a pretty unpleasant person, this chap (from his actions yesterday and the tone of his Twitter feed). I also find it odd that someone seeking public office thinks it is appropriate to use the f-word on a public communications platform.

See his Tweet for the morning after the Sainsbury's decision (07:06, July 22nd):

Joel Sudworth's Twitter page

Is that the sort of language the LibDems want their prospective councillors spouting in public?

And now he's blocked his twitter page roving he's watching this thread. what a nice chap.

[Guest Bristoliain]

And now he's blocked his twitter page roving he's watching this thread. what a nice chap.

In that case

Oi Sudworth. You're a moron

[Nibor]

And now he's blocked his twitter page roving he's watching this thread. what a nice chap.

I'm sure that'll stop google cache.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_cOl1X1DYggJ:https://twitter.com/joelspuds+joelspuds&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

[Webzcas]

His twitter comments were certainly not comments which I would expect of someone who wishes to hold public office. In fact many of them belied the maturity of a teenager. In fact, if I did not know that Joel Sudworth was a grown man, I would have formed that opinion.

[Nibor]

Ha, ha, ha! Just love some of your politicians. Their own acting makes this look more and more like humour based on disabilities.

This guy isn't a politician, he's a failed wannabe politician.

Imagine, someone _less_ competent than one of our lib dem councillors.

[Guest Zyder9]

Excellent!!

the only thing that him watching us says to me is that - to quote Jose Mourinho

"I think he is one of these people who is a voyeur..............He likes to watch other people............He's worried about us, he's always talking about us"