North Star and Oakfield do not have "university feeling" (From Swindon Advertiser)

"Mr Crean also challenged the necessity for 23 hectares of employment land to the successful operation of a university."

For goodness sake... read a newspaper... watch the TV! All over Swindon firms are closing,suspending operations and laying off staff. We need more jobs and we need them quickly!
Let's stop **** footing around and get on with the job at hand!

All this talk about Oakfield makes me laugh. The one time I went there it reminded me of the 70s intro to Grange Hill, the one with the giant sausage on a fork. How anyone could consider that place to be a "university" is beyond me!

Building a new industrial estate empty of jobs and companies won't be a fix....

In case i have missed some thing, what does a uni feel like? I know what a headache feels like. I know what the anger i have towards this government feels like. I know what watching the town win feels like. I know what it feels like to see the deductions on my monthly wage slip.

So Mr Rushforth I'd like you to explain. Just in case you don't expand on your statement let me fill in the gaps. The Oakfield and North Star sites don't feel like a uni campus because you'd feel so sick when looking at the financial hole in your coffers from the massive incentives being offered by the developers if this fails to take off. The N/S site might IMHO be the least favourite of the sites due to access and overall size. The Oakfield site on the other hand has a massive amount of land behind it running from Marlowe Ave to Dorcan Way The only obstacle would be the rugby club and I'm sure they would welcome new facilities as a bribe sorry incentive to move. Sure the Old Park School is a bit drab and out dated but you could knock it all down and rebuild. Access to the A419 and M4 just a few miles away the town centre and railway station a few more the other way with decent bus links. Oh and whats on the north side of Greenbridge road?..An industrial estate and a few miles south?.. Dorcan Industrial estate. Sorry, i can't hear you Mr Rushforth.

Poppycock absolute tosh.


keep-bird

Oh and i forgot. On the other side of Dorcan way in between the Esso Garage and the new developement that used to be Brown Brothers is the St Josephs field which is being developed. Now with a bit of joined up thinking (yeah i know that's hard for those in local and central government) but that site could have been used as well.

give-have

a prime site for a prime university
otherwise it is North Star!

Interesting that Mr Rushforth has completely decided against Oakfield without ever having visited the site??? Driving past is not enough.

Still NO anti-Coate people present at the Inquiry today. I wonder why not??

ItsPavAgain wrote:
All this talk about Oakfield makes me laugh. The one time I went there it reminded me of the 70s intro to Grange Hill, the one with the giant sausage on a fork. How anyone could consider that place to be a "university" is beyond me!

because it is a huge site that could be redeveloped without touching the countryside.i think it should go there.wherever it goes it will have to be built.forget what is there now and think of the location

flicky wrote:
Interesting that Mr Rushforth has completely decided against Oakfield without ever having visited the site??? Driving past is not enough.

Still NO anti-Coate people present at the Inquiry today. I wonder why not??

Not interesting at all.

There are lots of places I've never visited, such as Antarctica. I understand, through reading and talking to people, that it's very white and very cold. Do I have to actually go there to get those facts confirmed? No, of course not! No doubt Mr Rushforth has already been told what a crap site Oakfield would be.

As to why you claim no anti Coate people are at the enquiry, how do you no? You are anti Coate aren't you? Are you not at the enquiry? Perhaps you mean something else!

While there are people like you, unable to express themselves clearly and spreading mis-information like it's going out of fashion, we're not worried. We have plenty of well informed and clever people fighting our case regardless of the spurious opposition you and your selfish friends put up.

After all, why have a dog and bark yourself?

Thank you for that AG.
When I wrote "anti Coate" you know perfectly well what I meant. That was "anti save-Coate".

I express myself EXTREMELY clearly, as you well know. So clearly that I write published articles on all sorts of subjects about which i have knowledge.

We have still seen neither you nor your friends, PeeveD and the one with the unpleasant pseudonym, which he has changed at regular intervals, during the collecting of signatures, and subsequently.
Why not, I ask?

You all seem to have strong views which would support the Developers' cause.

The Deputy Vice Chancellor SHOULD have visited the Oakfield site before rejecting it out of hand.

We learnt today that consideration WILL be given to other town sites if the Planning Inspector and subsequently Hazel Blears, the Secretary of State, rejects this present proposal. Uwe IS committed to providing University education in Swindon.

I look forward to seeing you and your two compatriots at the Marriott Hotel very soon.

flicky wrote:
Thank you for that AG.
When I wrote "anti Coate" you know perfectly well what I meant. That was "anti save-Coate".

I express myself EXTREMELY clearly, as you well know. So clearly that I write published articles on all sorts of subjects about which i have knowledge.

We have still seen neither you nor your friends, PeeveD and the one with the unpleasant pseudonym, which he has changed at regular intervals, during the collecting of signatures, and subsequently.
Why not, I ask?

You all seem to have strong views which would support the Developers' cause.

The Deputy Vice Chancellor SHOULD have visited the Oakfield site before rejecting it out of hand.

We learnt today that consideration WILL be given to other town sites if the Planning Inspector and subsequently Hazel Blears, the Secretary of State, rejects this present proposal. Uwe IS committed to providing University education in Swindon.

I look forward to seeing you and your two compatriots at the Marriott Hotel very soon.

I think in your opening statement you admitted you hadn't expressed your very well.

It's Blairs by the way, but never mind.

Of course I meant to say 'yourself'.

Replying so often to 'flicky' and correcting all errors must be catching - I apologise.

flicky wrote:
Thank you for that AG. When I wrote "anti Coate" you know perfectly well what I meant. That was "anti save-Coate". I express myself EXTREMELY clearly, as you well know. So clearly that I write published articles on all sorts of subjects about which i have knowledge. We have still seen neither you nor your friends, PeeveD and the one with the unpleasant pseudonym, which he has changed at regular intervals, during the collecting of signatures, and subsequently. Why not, I ask? You all seem to have strong views which would support the Developers' cause. The Deputy Vice Chancellor SHOULD have visited the Oakfield site before rejecting it out of hand. We learnt today that consideration WILL be given to other town sites if the Planning Inspector and subsequently Hazel Blears, the Secretary of State, rejects this present proposal. Uwe IS committed to providing University education in Swindon. I look forward to seeing you and your two compatriots at the Marriott Hotel very soon.

How do YOU know I haven't attended?
More presumptious claptrap!!

There is no need for the "pro-build" coate lobby to be out in force.
We both know things have already been decided and this series of long talks will change nothing.

As for the Deputy Vice Chancellor not viewing the sites personaly... why the hell should he? Do you not think they have a team of well educated and informed surveyors to take care of the leg work and report back with their findings.
I almost find your naive attitude warming!
Of course it was agreed that consideration would be given to other sites if the Coate plan had failed... the UWE would in no way want to be seen as arrogant,bullying loudmouths... unlike some who support your misguided ideals.
I repeat my earlier comments... having a purpose built university,with housing and a nice shiny new employment area in such a prime location just off the M4 will help further the prosperity of the whole town.
Try telling ex woolworths staff/ex BMW staff/ex postal workers etc why they are not being given the chance of new jobs just because some selfish small minded green brigade bullys want to go and stare at a few birds when the fancy takes them!

Always Grumpy wrote:

flicky wrote: Thank you for that AG. When I wrote "anti Coate" you know perfectly well what I meant. That was "anti save-Coate". I express myself EXTREMELY clearly, as you well know. So clearly that I write published articles on all sorts of subjects about which i have knowledge. We have still seen neither you nor your friends, PeeveD and the one with the unpleasant pseudonym, which he has changed at regular intervals, during the collecting of signatures, and subsequently. Why not, I ask? You all seem to have strong views which would support the Developers' cause. The Deputy Vice Chancellor SHOULD have visited the Oakfield site before rejecting it out of hand. We learnt today that consideration WILL be given to other town sites if the Planning Inspector and subsequently Hazel Blears, the Secretary of State, rejects this present proposal. Uwe IS committed to providing University education in Swindon. I look forward to seeing you and your two compatriots at the Marriott Hotel very soon.

I think in your opening statement you admitted you hadn't expressed your very well. It's Blairs by the way, but never mind.

Actually, Mr AG, you are WRONG!!!!

It is Hazel Blears....not Hazel Blairs.

And I do mind...

Has it occurred to you that you might, also, (Heaven forbid!) be wrong over other facts??

PeeveD wrote:

flicky wrote: Thank you for that AG. When I wrote "anti Coate" you know perfectly well what I meant. That was "anti save-Coate". I express myself EXTREMELY clearly, as you well know. So clearly that I write published articles on all sorts of subjects about which i have knowledge. We have still seen neither you nor your friends, PeeveD and the one with the unpleasant pseudonym, which he has changed at regular intervals, during the collecting of signatures, and subsequently. Why not, I ask? You all seem to have strong views which would support the Developers' cause. The Deputy Vice Chancellor SHOULD have visited the Oakfield site before rejecting it out of hand. We learnt today that consideration WILL be given to other town sites if the Planning Inspector and subsequently Hazel Blears, the Secretary of State, rejects this present proposal. Uwe IS committed to providing University education in Swindon. I look forward to seeing you and your two compatriots at the Marriott Hotel very soon.

How do YOU know I haven't attended? More presumptious claptrap!! There is no need for the "pro-build" coate lobby to be out in force. We both know things have already been decided and this series of long talks will change nothing. As for the Deputy Vice Chancellor not viewing the sites personaly... why the hell should he? Do you not think they have a team of well educated and informed surveyors to take care of the leg work and report back with their findings. I almost find your naive attitude warming! Of course it was agreed that consideration would be given to other sites if the Coate plan had failed... the UWE would in no way want to be seen as arrogant,bullying loudmouths... unlike some who support your misguided ideals. I repeat my earlier comments... having a purpose built university,with housing and a nice shiny new employment area in such a prime location just off the M4 will help further the prosperity of the whole town. Try telling ex woolworths staff/ex BMW staff/ex postal workers etc why they are not being given the chance of new jobs just because some selfish small minded green brigade bullys want to go and stare at a few birds when the fancy takes them!

Mr PeeveD,
I KNOW you haven't attended because I knew EVERY person at the Inquiry today....

That is not "presumptuous claptrap"(definitely councillor-speak) but the truth.

Since, in your words you consider me to be "warmingly naive" why should I assume that "things have already been decided"???

The deputy Vice Chancellor, giving evidence today, tried to scoot over the fact that he had not visited the Oakfield site, merely driven past.
It would be to his embarrassment that this fact was reported in the local paper today.

The 52,000 people who signed the save coate petition would surely not all want to "stare at a few birds." For most people, that was not the principal reason for signing.

PeeveD, Swindon says...
Sod the wildlife... Survival fo the fittest!!!

Okay.
Let's have a cross-country race.
When I win, you can be shot ?

flicky wrote:

PeeveD wrote:

flicky wrote: Thank you for that AG. When I wrote "anti Coate" you know perfectly well what I meant. That was "anti save-Coate". I express myself EXTREMELY clearly, as you well know. So clearly that I write published articles on all sorts of subjects about which i have knowledge. We have still seen neither you nor your friends, PeeveD and the one with the unpleasant pseudonym, which he has changed at regular intervals, during the collecting of signatures, and subsequently. Why not, I ask? You all seem to have strong views which would support the Developers' cause. The Deputy Vice Chancellor SHOULD have visited the Oakfield site before rejecting it out of hand. We learnt today that consideration WILL be given to other town sites if the Planning Inspector and subsequently Hazel Blears, the Secretary of State, rejects this present proposal. Uwe IS committed to providing University education in Swindon. I look forward to seeing you and your two compatriots at the Marriott Hotel very soon.

How do YOU know I haven't attended? More presumptious claptrap!! There is no need for the "pro-build" coate lobby to be out in force. We both know things have already been decided and this series of long talks will change nothing. As for the Deputy Vice Chancellor not viewing the sites personaly... why the hell should he? Do you not think they have a team of well educated and informed surveyors to take care of the leg work and report back with their findings. I almost find your naive attitude warming! Of course it was agreed that consideration would be given to other sites if the Coate plan had failed... the UWE would in no way want to be seen as arrogant,bullying loudmouths... unlike some who support your misguided ideals. I repeat my earlier comments... having a purpose built university,with housing and a nice shiny new employment area in such a prime location just off the M4 will help further the prosperity of the whole town. Try telling ex woolworths staff/ex BMW staff/ex postal workers etc why they are not being given the chance of new jobs just because some selfish small minded green brigade bullys want to go and stare at a few birds when the fancy takes them!

Mr PeeveD, I KNOW you haven't attended because I knew EVERY person at the Inquiry today.... That is not "presumptuous claptrap"(definitely councillor-speak) but the truth. Since, in your words you consider me to be "warmingly naive" why should I assume that "things have already been decided"??? The deputy Vice Chancellor, giving evidence today, tried to scoot over the fact that he had not visited the Oakfield site, merely driven past. It would be to his embarrassment that this fact was reported in the local paper today. The 52,000 people who signed the save coate petition would surely not all want to "stare at a few birds." For most people, that was not the principal reason for signing.

Oh dear.... clearly not paying attention.
1. I didn't say I attended... I have no need to! I wouldn't go and see a football match if I knew the result beforehand!
2.The Vice Chancellor would have no need to muddy his boots looking round either the unsuitable North Star site or the unsuitable Oakfield site. HE HAS SURVEYORS TO DO THAT FOR HIM!
3. The majority of the 52,000 that signed the "petition" only did so because:
A) They think it's a right on cause!
B) They have no idea about what it is exactly they are "protesting" about!
C) A vast number of them had never even heard of Coate! (How many of these warriors have even SEEN the Coate area)

Would they have signed if they knew that many of the signatories live in the Lawns area and by definition are being a tad hypocritical? I mean... surely the Lawns area was once designated as a part of Coate?

Finally... if you started the petition today how many do you think would sign if the were give a straight choice between less unemployment or a couple of birds?

> PeeveD, Swindon says...
> Try telling ex woolworths staff/ex BMW staff/ex postal workers etc why they are not being given the chance of new jobs just because some selfish small minded green brigade bullys want to go and stare at a few birds when the fancy takes them!
>
For heaven's sake, read the stories and do the arithmatic:
1800 houses ~= 3600 new residents. "will provide a few hundred jobs". Therefore, net result ~= 3000 more unemployed.

Don't kid yourselves, the uni will not happen without the houses, because the only profit to be made is from the houses. That's why the uni don't want to build in town, because they know that the houses won't happen, and so they'll have to fork out more money to build. Also, the build in town will be more expensive because they'll have to consider existing services (gas, electricity sewage etc.) on a brown-field site, there are none on a green-field site.

You guys really take us Swindonians for idiots.
If you want a University that is fine by me, but please don't serve me with your half thought arguments, I am not stupid nor naive.
Money is to be made for the project to be sealed.
The real issue here is how much money is going to be made and end up in the pockets of few individuals?

Mr PeeveD,
I KNOW you haven't attended because I knew EVERY person at the Inquiry today....

That is not "presumptuous claptrap"(definitely councillor-speak) but the truth.

Well then Ms Cobb if you personally knew everyone that means that the only people attending are you and your fellow anti-brigade associates. Why should anybody who agrees with the proposals attend? They're obviously happy about the development. So no sign of the gruesome Geordie twosome then after all - never mind.

and the one with the unpleasant pseudonym, which he has changed at regular intervals, during the collecting of signatures, and subsequently.- Who's that then Ms Cobb?

Jock Strap wrote:
and the one with the unpleasant pseudonym, which he has changed at regular intervals, during the collecting of signatures, and subsequently.- Who's that then Ms Cobb?

Hmmmmmm, bit quiet on this one isn't she?

Always Grumpy wrote:

Jock Strap wrote: and the one with the unpleasant pseudonym, which he has changed at regular intervals, during the collecting of signatures, and subsequently.- Who's that then Ms Cobb?

Hmmmmmm, bit quiet on this one isn't she?

Absolutely -still only to be expected - only answers when it suits and avoids answering direct questions as others have astutely pointed out.

Always Grumpy wrote:

Jock Strap wrote: and the one with the unpleasant pseudonym, which he has changed at regular intervals, during the collecting of signatures, and subsequently.- Who's that then Ms Cobb?

Hmmmmmm, bit quiet on this one isn't she?

Mr Jock Strap of Truss you have only to look to your own unpleasant-sounding pseudonym to know that i am talking about YOU!

Is it your intention to offend everyone who reads these posts?

I find your name exceedingly offensive.

I'm sure I am not the only person so to do.

You obviously have problems with your own self esteem, and lack of respect for others' sensibilities, if that is how YOU view yourself!

Have I invited you to call me Ms Cobb?
(Not unless I have taught you over the 35 years i have lived in Swindon.)
I register under the name "flicky" for a purpose.
Perhaps I need to address you as Dicky???

Oh Dear Ms Cobb?, Mrs Cobb? Felicity? what do you prefer? Why do you regidter under the name Flicky - it's not my fault everybody knows who you are? Why should you be offended by my pseudonym there's probably worse on here. What on earth has that got to do with the real issues at stake? i.e. the subject matter of the debate and the reason perhaps you attract so much vitriol is your obsession, in my opinion and obviously that of others who have the same view over this matter,in trying to impose your views as being the only acceptable ones and look out anybody who disagrees. As to whether you should call me "Dicky" or whatever, you can call me what you like -"sticks & stones etc" Actually I quite like that - so when we're sparring verbally on here - you can be Flick & I'll be Dick -who knows a love affair may blossom and trees in Lawn woods could bear a carved heart -shaped symbol declaring Flick's love for Dick?

Jock Strap wrote:
Oh Dear Ms Cobb?, Mrs Cobb? Felicity? what do you prefer? Why do you regidter under the name Flicky - it's not my fault everybody knows who you are? Why should you be offended by my pseudonym there's probably worse on here. What on earth has that got to do with the real issues at stake? i.e. the subject matter of the debate and the reason perhaps you attract so much vitriol is your obsession, in my opinion and obviously that of others who have the same view over this matter,in trying to impose your views as being the only acceptable ones and look out anybody who disagrees. As to whether you should call me "Dicky" or whatever, you can call me what you like -"sticks & stones etc" Actually I quite like that - so when we're sparring verbally on here - you can be Flick & I'll be Dick -who knows a love affair may blossom and trees in Lawn woods could bear a carved heart -shaped symbol declaring Flick's love for Dick?

Aawwwww.... my heart is finding an unknown warmth.

Not unless I have taught you over the 35 years i have lived in Swindon.)

oooh no!!!! perish the thought!!!