52,000-signature petition ignored – Coate campaign leaders (From Swindon Advertiser)
Get involved! Send photos, video, news & views. Text SWINDON NEWS to 80360 or email us
52,000-signature petition ignored – Coate campaign leaders
2:20pm Thursday 12th March 2009 in News
Jean Saunders with some of the petitions to save Coate Water collected before the public inquiry.
DEVELOPERS have ignored the concerns of 52,000 people opposed to development at Coate, say those campaigning against the proposal.
Swindon Gateway Partnership wants to build a university campus, 1,800 homes and a business park on nearly 200 hecatares near Coate Water.
As both sides in the Coate inquiry gave their final thoughts, protesters admitted they were furious that their petition had not merited a mention in either submission.
Felicity Cobb, who was the driving force behind the petition, said: “I just feel that there are a lot of well-paid people going away feeling very happy with what they have done.
“All of those signatures that took time and effort to get together were just counted as one complaint.
“It was completely brushed aside by Swindon Gateway Partnership (SGP).
“Public opinion is meant to be crucial, so we are always being told by councillors and MPs, and so should have counted for something at this inquiry.”
John Price, of the Richard Jefferies Society, said: “They completely failed to mention the petition, signed by 52,000 people.
“I think Swindon Council really passed up a number of opportunities to challenge the developers, so it was left to us to do it.
“The planning inspector made a point of thanking the people who had attended the inquiries and spoken, so hopefully he will take on board what we said.”
Jean Saunders, who has attended every day of the inquiry, said she was not impressed by the summing-up of Christopher Lockhart-Mummery, representing SGP.
She said: “The only thing he got right was that this is a high-profile site. That is why they want to develop on it but this is also the reason why the majority of Swindon people want to keep it as it is.
“They are worried that this will affect the views from Coate Water that we all love.
“I just hope that the planning inspector appreciates the views of the people of Swindon and will take those on board.”
The inquiry into SGP’s proposal to build near the beauty spot concluded on Tuesday.
Planning inspector David Richards will now consider the evidence and make his recommendation to the Secretary of State by the summer.
Comments(72)
Atomic_Pond
says...
2:34pm Thu 12 Mar 09
IRofE
says...
2:43pm Thu 12 Mar 09
Lets destroy all the parks, lets rot all the concrete building and make swindon a grey Town where empty factories, students and unemployed flourish.
Then may be we could get nuked by some nutter and rebuilt it all from scratch!
dc the 2nd
says...
2:55pm Thu 12 Mar 09
Atomic_Pond
says...
2:55pm Thu 12 Mar 09
There not actually building on Coate Water yes they are building around it but how else do you expect the town to grow and better its self?
AustinField
says...
3:03pm Thu 12 Mar 09
Tonyblairisthedevil
says...
3:05pm Thu 12 Mar 09
IRofE
says...
3:05pm Thu 12 Mar 09
AustinField wrote:At last someone that understands
Yes, let's knock down every historic building and destroy every green space in the town and countryside so that landowners and builders can make a ****-load of money.
:-)
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
says...
4:00pm Thu 12 Mar 09
in Swindon at the last count, so that's somewhere around 2 other people for everyone that doesn't agree with the development.
With the obscene amount of local promotion this petition seems to have had, the silent majority are obviously either indifferent or want the project to go ahead. Certainly, few can claim to have not heard about it.
In these circumstances, I'd say by ignoring this silly petition the developers are doing precisely what the majority of local residents want.
RF1
says...
4:43pm Thu 12 Mar 09
Jock Strap
says...
6:38pm Thu 12 Mar 09
dc the 2nd wrote:DC you're wasting your keying skills -I can't remember how many people have told the anti -brigade that but it must be 100's by now. Just goes to show that if they can't all take on board that fact then nobody is likely to take much notice of a multi page petition with dubious signatories including eveybody's favourite Geordie muppets A & D.
IRofE - they arent building on Coate itself, just next to it. I think the real question here is "what are the NIMBY's going to do when its built?" some kind of re-training scheme perhaps.
FC said -All of those signatures that took time and effort to get together were just counted as one complaint.
Well we all tried to help didn't we Flicks by saying it was all a waste of time - you didn't seriously expect them to treat it as 52 separate complaints when you were all banging the same drum? So then Lady of the Lawns -what next? Purton, Wanborough, The Front Garden -you could join up with that lot and become Fraggle Rockies. But then of course you could all also MYOB? We might save the planet then by lowering our carbon footprint. All the best m' dear.
Felix A
says...
7:14pm Thu 12 Mar 09
Jock Strap
says...
8:24pm Thu 12 Mar 09
Felix A wrote:Obviously then the remaining majority felt no need to actually register their support thus if you like giving absent approval wouldn't you say?
Just for the record - Swindon Borough Council planners reported that they only received ONE letter of support for the planning application.
MrAngry
says...
8:44pm Thu 12 Mar 09
I can't believe how much paper these so called environmentalists have wasted.
itsamess
says...
11:55pm Thu 12 Mar 09
ListenToReason
says...
12:08am Fri 13 Mar 09
Felix A wrote:Well that shows the developer can write then. Look this is a lost cause. The Council stitched this up some time ago. The only way Swindon will get a University is at Coate. The interested colleges do not want to mix wih the "scum" in the Town Centre. Full Stop. Just rubber stamp and move on.
Just for the record - Swindon Borough Council planners reported that they only received ONE letter of support for the planning application.
IRofE
says...
11:24am Fri 13 Mar 09
ListenToReason wrote:they can just take our votes away what difference would it make?
Felix A wrote: Just for the record - Swindon Borough Council planners reported that they only received ONE letter of support for the planning application.Well that shows the developer can write then. Look this is a lost cause. The Council stitched this up some time ago. The only way Swindon will get a University is at Coate. The interested colleges do not want to mix wih the "scum" in the Town Centre. Full Stop. Just rubber stamp and move on.
At the end of the day, it is the councillors and developpers that have the last words, we the voters taxpayers we only here to foot the bill.
At least it is good to know that Swindon is a mini Hitlerian run county.
Jock Strap
says...
12:15pm Fri 13 Mar 09
IRofE wrote:Well you did have Herr Flick batting for your side!
ListenToReason wrote:they can just take our votes away what difference would it make? At the end of the day, it is the councillors and developpers that have the last words, we the voters taxpayers we only here to foot the bill. At least it is good to know that Swindon is a mini Hitlerian run county.Felix A wrote: Just for the record - Swindon Borough Council planners reported that they only received ONE letter of support for the planning application.Well that shows the developer can write then. Look this is a lost cause. The Council stitched this up some time ago. The only way Swindon will get a University is at Coate. The interested colleges do not want to mix wih the "scum" in the Town Centre. Full Stop. Just rubber stamp and move on.
Flicky
says...
12:34pm Fri 13 Mar 09
Jock Strap wrote:
IRofE wrote:Well you did have Herr Flick batting for your side!ListenToReason wrote:they can just take our votes away what difference would it make? At the end of the day, it is the councillors and developpers that have the last words, we the voters taxpayers we only here to foot the bill. At least it is good to know that Swindon is a mini Hitlerian run county.Felix A wrote: Just for the record - Swindon Borough Council planners reported that they only received ONE letter of support for the planning application.Well that shows the developer can write then. Look this is a lost cause. The Council stitched this up some time ago. The only way Swindon will get a University is at Coate. The interested colleges do not want to mix wih the "scum" in the Town Centre. Full Stop. Just rubber stamp and move on.
But not much batting.... we had our hands tied behind our back.... if you remember the rounders reference.
The Inquiry was definitely an UNFAIR contest, which will mean winning will be even sweeter.
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
says...
12:47pm Fri 13 Mar 09
Jock Strap
says...
1:32pm Fri 13 Mar 09
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:You'll be lucky to get her to answer that one!
Why is it unfair Flicky. As already demonstrated, your viewpoint is clearly in the minority.
Flicky you seriously don't still believe the planning inspector will find in your favour(i.e. that of a small minority) after the latest round and summing up do you? And if so why will they?
So there you go Flicky - two questions and two answers please?
Flicky
says...
1:54pm Fri 13 Mar 09
Jock Strap wrote:Was either of you gentlemen at the inquiry?
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote: Why is it unfair Flicky. As already demonstrated, your viewpoint is clearly in the minority.You'll be lucky to get her to answer that one! Flicky you seriously don't still believe the planning inspector will find in your favour(i.e. that of a small minority) after the latest round and summing up do you? And if so why will they? So there you go Flicky - two questions and two answers please?
I think not.
How could you possibly know what the Planning Inspector might or might not have said in his summing up?
Likewise, the two QCs.
(Not everything gets reported, you know).
Had either of you gentlemen been interested enough to attend the Inquiry then the meaning of my words would have been obvious.
So..that is my answer.
I did advise you to attend...
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
says...
2:40pm Fri 13 Mar 09
redrobin
says...
3:28pm Fri 13 Mar 09
Flicky
says...
3:52pm Fri 13 Mar 09
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:And you didn't read my answer!
You didn't answer my question. Whether I was there or not is irrelevant. What the planning inspector may or may not have said is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that your view is in the minority despite what you say, therefore the ladies/gentlemen of the inquiry would have been quite right in dismissing your concerns. You may not agree with it, and that is your right, but stating that it is "unfair" just because you didn't get your own way is quite simply childish. So far I see nothing that should change my opinion here?
stevemac10
says...
3:59pm Fri 13 Mar 09
IRofE
says...
4:08pm Fri 13 Mar 09
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:I am going to illustrate your vision a little:
You didn't answer my question. Whether I was there or not is irrelevant. What the planning inspector may or may not have said is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that your view is in the minority despite what you say, therefore the ladies/gentlemen of the inquiry would have been quite right in dismissing your concerns. You may not agree with it, and that is your right, but stating that it is "unfair" just because you didn't get your own way is quite simply childish. So far I see nothing that should change my opinion here?
In few years time, when you and your children life will be completely managed, monitored and supervised (from TV watching to eating habits etc..) by a bunch of Mandelson like Gestapo officials
You will remember the good old days when voting was an important part of Democracy.
Until then enjoy giving it away piece by piece.
As for the "silent majority" that you are so keen to refer, well did they get consulted? or you just "assume" their approval, thats a great way of governing that you are supporting. I wouldn't want to be living in your household, poor wife!
Flicky
says...
4:10pm Fri 13 Mar 09
No, the unfairness lay in the set-up of the Inquiry, which you NEEDED to attend to understand, which resulted in 70% of time allocated to the Gateway Developers and about 30% to SBC.
What was unfair that if you believe politicians etc then what we, the ordinary people, think SHOULD matter, and since absolutely no notice was taken of 52,000 signatures (and remember we could have greatly exceeded this total),then this was an unfair aspect. But, as I said before, you should have sat through the Inquiry to see the content as a whole...that was what was unfair.
However, as I remarked, a LOT of people earned themselves a fat fee from working for and giving evidence for the Gateway scheme, NONE of whom live here.....nor, probably, are they ever likely to return, except to conduct similar work for high pay.
We who DO live in this town are ENTIRELY dependent on the judgement, skills and persuasive planning jargon of these people, and of the latest whim of the Government.
THAT is what smacks of being unfair...
Always Grumpy
says...
4:18pm Fri 13 Mar 09
Flicky wrote:Still resorting to shouting I see - rather like a small child having a tantrum because they haven't been able to have their own way.
There was nothing "childish" about the way all the 3rd parties conducted themselves. We were polite, listened attentively to hours of planning details. My comment about the set-up being "unfair"(in an earlier article) has nothing to do with not"getting your own way", as you put it. Who knows whose way has been judged to be the appropriate one by David Richards/Hazel Blears?
No, the unfairness lay in the set-up of the Inquiry, which you NEEDED to attend to understand, which resulted in 70% of time allocated to the Gateway Developers and about 30% to SBC.
What was unfair that if you believe politicians etc then what we, the ordinary people, think SHOULD matter, and since absolutely no notice was taken of 52,000 signatures (and remember we could have greatly exceeded this total),then this was an unfair aspect. But, as I said before, you should have sat through the Inquiry to see the content as a whole...that was what was unfair.
However, as I remarked, a LOT of people earned themselves a fat fee from working for and giving evidence for the Gateway scheme, NONE of whom live here.....nor, probably, are they ever likely to return, except to conduct similar work for high pay.
We who DO live in this town are ENTIRELY dependent on the judgement, skills and persuasive planning jargon of these people, and of the latest whim of the Government.
THAT is what smacks of being unfair...
Interestingly, you mentioned people from the Gateway scheme not living here. Rather like the people who signed your pointless petion then!
IRofE
says...
4:34pm Fri 13 Mar 09
Always Grumpy wrote:lets ask the common sense people of Swindon, lets settle this by having a Town referendum vote on the proposal?
Flicky wrote: There was nothing "childish" about the way all the 3rd parties conducted themselves. We were polite, listened attentively to hours of planning details. My comment about the set-up being "unfair"(in an earlier article) has nothing to do with not"getting your own way", as you put it. Who knows whose way has been judged to be the appropriate one by David Richards/Hazel Blears? No, the unfairness lay in the set-up of the Inquiry, which you NEEDED to attend to understand, which resulted in 70% of time allocated to the Gateway Developers and about 30% to SBC. What was unfair that if you believe politicians etc then what we, the ordinary people, think SHOULD matter, and since absolutely no notice was taken of 52,000 signatures (and remember we could have greatly exceeded this total),then this was an unfair aspect. But, as I said before, you should have sat through the Inquiry to see the content as a whole...that was what was unfair. However, as I remarked, a LOT of people earned themselves a fat fee from working for and giving evidence for the Gateway scheme, NONE of whom live here.....nor, probably, are they ever likely to return, except to conduct similar work for high pay. We who DO live in this town are ENTIRELY dependent on the judgement, skills and persuasive planning jargon of these people, and of the latest whim of the Government. THAT is what smacks of being unfair...Still resorting to shouting I see - rather like a small child having a tantrum because they haven't been able to have their own way. Interestingly, you mentioned people from the Gateway scheme not living here. Rather like the people who signed your pointless petion then!
If it is so important why not consult the base?
I would love to see it happening.
AustinField
says...
4:53pm Fri 13 Mar 09
Felix A wrote:I had a peep at the report on the web site. There were 4,521 individual representations submitted in objection to the planning applications, and, as you say, one letter of support. This is in addition to the 52,000 signatures on the petition.
Just for the record - Swindon Borough Council planners reported that they only received ONE letter of support for the planning application.
Politicians base their reasoning that for every one person who bothers to write to them about a matter, there are at least another 20 who share that view.
The silent majority either don't care or they haven't been asked. There is no evidence to suggest that the silent majority support the plans.
PeeveD
says...
5:03pm Fri 13 Mar 09
Flicky wrote:Isn't it strange....
There was nothing "childish" about the way all the 3rd parties conducted themselves. We were polite, listened attentively to hours of planning details. My comment about the set-up being "unfair"(in an earlier article) has nothing to do with not"getting your own way", as you put it. Who knows whose way has been judged to be the appropriate one by David Richards/Hazel Blears? No, the unfairness lay in the set-up of the Inquiry, which you NEEDED to attend to understand, which resulted in 70% of time allocated to the Gateway Developers and about 30% to SBC. What was unfair that if you believe politicians etc then what we, the ordinary people, think SHOULD matter, and since absolutely no notice was taken of 52,000 signatures (and remember we could have greatly exceeded this total),then this was an unfair aspect. But, as I said before, you should have sat through the Inquiry to see the content as a whole...that was what was unfair. However, as I remarked, a LOT of people earned themselves a fat fee from working for and giving evidence for the Gateway scheme, NONE of whom live here.....nor, probably, are they ever likely to return, except to conduct similar work for high pay. We who DO live in this town are ENTIRELY dependent on the judgement, skills and persuasive planning jargon of these people, and of the latest whim of the Government. THAT is what smacks of being unfair...
When you and the motley crew of NIMBYS and the bandwagon jumpers thought you had a chance of halting this soon to be wonderful development you were like the french cockerel... all puffed up plumage and funny noise.
Now when he FACTS are presented in a reasonable and clear fashion by the SGP and with NO support from the Environment Agency/Wilts Wildlife Trust/the Highways Agency etc. your "campaign" falters it has become quite clear that the building will soon commence.
Any chance of you and yours being gracious in defeat or does the fact that you were "supported" by a minority still mean your massively inflated ego cannot let you?
FOR SHAME!
bampi
says...
5:04pm Fri 13 Mar 09
AustinField wrote:What website did you find it on and how did you get to the report? I should like a peep myself.
Felix A wrote: Just for the record - Swindon Borough Council planners reported that they only received ONE letter of support for the planning application.I had a peep at the report on the web site. There were 4,521 individual representations submitted in objection to the planning applications, and, as you say, one letter of support. This is in addition to the 52,000 signatures on the petition. Politicians base their reasoning that for every one person who bothers to write to them about a matter, there are at least another 20 who share that view. The silent majority either don't care or they haven't been asked. There is no evidence to suggest that the silent majority support the plans.
Jock Strap
says...
5:10pm Fri 13 Mar 09
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
says...
5:22pm Fri 13 Mar 09
Flicky wrote:That's because you didn't give one????
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote: You didn't answer my question. Whether I was there or not is irrelevant. What the planning inspector may or may not have said is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that your view is in the minority despite what you say, therefore the ladies/gentlemen of the inquiry would have been quite right in dismissing your concerns. You may not agree with it, and that is your right, but stating that it is "unfair" just because you didn't get your own way is quite simply childish. So far I see nothing that should change my opinion here?And you didn't read my answer!
PeeveD
says...
5:29pm Fri 13 Mar 09
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:Hence the reason the "campaign" failed. I cannot recall one instance when Flicky or her misguided cohorts ever gave an answer to a reasonable question.
Flicky wrote:That's because you didn't give one????The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote: You didn't answer my question. Whether I was there or not is irrelevant. What the planning inspector may or may not have said is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that your view is in the minority despite what you say, therefore the ladies/gentlemen of the inquiry would have been quite right in dismissing your concerns. You may not agree with it, and that is your right, but stating that it is "unfair" just because you didn't get your own way is quite simply childish. So far I see nothing that should change my opinion here?And you didn't read my answer!
Still.... the correct result will soon be in and the ludicrous Flicky and co can booger off and become a fly in sombody elses ointment!
Flicky
says...
6:10pm Fri 13 Mar 09
I hope you feel good about yourselves.
I know I do, whatever the outcome of the Inquiry.
Jock Strap
says...
6:25pm Fri 13 Mar 09
Flicky wrote:Well there you go - belligerent to the end and still failing to answer the questions put to you.
Thanks, gents , for all flailing into the fight. I hope you feel good about yourselves. I know I do, whatever the outcome of the Inquiry.
It does beggar belief I have to say how you were ever a teacher! How on earth did you respond when the kids asked a question. "jones minor I don't like your views or you attitude even if you are correct in what you are saying -take a 100 lines!" You can almost hear it!
Always Grumpy
says...
7:16pm Fri 13 Mar 09
Jock Strap wrote:Sadly Jock Strap I suspect you're right. People like her are so self centred and totally unconcerned regarding the views of the majority that it does almost beggar belief. Her selfishness has been highlighted time and time again during this debate and I hope Swindon does not suffer long term as a result of her actions.
Flicky wrote:Well there you go - belligerent to the end and still failing to answer the questions put to you.
Thanks, gents , for all flailing into the fight. I hope you feel good about yourselves. I know I do, whatever the outcome of the Inquiry.
It does beggar belief I have to say how you were ever a teacher! How on earth did you respond when the kids asked a question. "jones minor I don't like your views or you attitude even if you are correct in what you are saying -take a 100 lines!" You can almost hear it!
Like you, I shudder to think what an appalling impact this woman must have had on children she taught. No doubt they have been scarred for life after coming into contact with her.
Hopefully, when building at Coate starts, she'll disappear back into the woodwork from whence she came and we'll hear no more from her.
We can but hope.
Jiver
says...
8:09pm Fri 13 Mar 09
Can't believe "Batty Benfield" doesn't know about the website.
Whatever the outcome, of the enquiry, I would like to express my sincere thanks and respect, to Flicky, Jean Saunders, The tousands of people that wrote letters of objection, and all else who have fought the planning application.
I will always hold in high regard, those that are prepared to stand up, openly in their beliefs, despite overwhelming odds.
From an administration point of view, the application was always deemed to be in favour of the developers, but Jean has maintained a continual stance throughout, despite the cowardly, abnoxious heckles of those that can only shout through anonymity.
Well done folks, proud of you -X-
Jiver
says...
8:12pm Fri 13 Mar 09
I expect he's just changed his codename.
Still, I see we've still got the Reading "genius" repeating the same old drivel
Jiver
says...
8:20pm Fri 13 Mar 09
He's here already.
Jock Strap
says...
2:27am Sat 14 Mar 09
Always Grumpy
says...
6:40am Sat 14 Mar 09
Jock Strap wrote:This hatchet faced haridan seems to think she knows the identities of everyone and thus uses her vindictive and poisonous tongue to try and attack them. She knows nothing of course and hides behind her true indentity herself.
"abnoxious heckles of those that can only shout through anonymity." -says JIVER! who of course is also usung here true identity to post on here!
She would appear to be a sadly deluded has-been, one-legged tap dancer who's had an affair with a councillor from the Chilterns. He obviously saw through her and ditched her, thus leaving her in such a tragically frail mental state. If she wasn't quite so obnoxious I would feel sorry for her. Happily I don't and welcome everything that's coming to this sad and deluded little person.
No doubt she'll do her usual trick of copying and pasting this and saying something along the lines of 'same to you with brass knobs on'. That's about as far as her originality goes.
AustinField
says...
8:58am Sat 14 Mar 09
bampi wrote:The report is on this page
AustinField wrote:What website did you find it on and how did you get to the report? I should like a peep myself.Felix A wrote: Just for the record - Swindon Borough Council planners reported that they only received ONE letter of support for the planning application.I had a peep at the report on the web site. There were 4,521 individual representations submitted in objection to the planning applications, and, as you say, one letter of support. This is in addition to the 52,000 signatures on the petition. Politicians base their reasoning that for every one person who bothers to write to them about a matter, there are at least another 20 who share that view. The silent majority either don't care or they haven't been asked. There is no evidence to suggest that the silent majority support the plans.
http://ww2.swindon.g
ov.uk/moderngov/ieLi
stDocuments.asp?MId=
3518&J=2
Jiver
says...
12:12pm Sat 14 Mar 09
Duh!
I'm not coming onto this site, "just" to goad certain individuals.
I don't spend hours per day, circling the blog, for any opportunity to mention certain peoples names, therefore I am not "hiding" behind my anonymity in the way that you are.
"No doubt she'll do her usual trick of copying and pasting this and saying something along the lines of 'same to you with brass knobs on'."
Nah! I'll reply to you when and how I feel like it, not when or how you dictate.you're not that important. I'm off out in a minute. I haven't got all day to loiter on the pc like you.
Jiver
says...
12:18pm Sat 14 Mar 09
Always Grumpy
says...
2:20pm Sat 14 Mar 09
Jiver wrote:And so cackled the evil witch as she stirred the pot.
"abnoxious heckles of those that can only shout through anonymity." -says JIVER! who of course is also usung here true identity to post on here!"
Duh!
I'm not coming onto this site, "just" to goad certain individuals.
I don't spend hours per day, circling the blog, for any opportunity to mention certain peoples names, therefore I am not "hiding" behind my anonymity in the way that you are.
"No doubt she'll do her usual trick of copying and pasting this and saying something along the lines of 'same to you with brass knobs on'."
Nah! I'll reply to you when and how I feel like it, not when or how you dictate.you're not that important. I'm off out in a minute. I haven't got all day to loiter on the pc like you.
PeeveD
says...
5:16pm Sat 14 Mar 09
Jiver wrote:I never hold in high regard ANYONE who tries to bully people into agreeing with their point of view even thought they are in a minority. Jean Saunders and Flicky have done nothing but try to emotionally blackmail into backing their cause.
"What website did you find it on and how did you get to the report? I should like a peep myself." Can't believe "Batty Benfield" doesn't know about the website. Whatever the outcome, of the enquiry, I would like to express my sincere thanks and respect, to Flicky, Jean Saunders, The tousands of people that wrote letters of objection, and all else who have fought the planning application. I will always hold in high regard, those that are prepared to stand up, openly in their beliefs, despite overwhelming odds. From an administration point of view, the application was always deemed to be in favour of the developers, but Jean has maintained a continual stance throughout, despite the cowardly, abnoxious heckles of those that can only shout through anonymity. Well done folks, proud of you -X-
Haven't heard Flicky shooting her gob off about the Purton development yet. Could it be that as it's not on her doorstep she doesn't give a ****? The ultimate NIMBY!!!!
Jiver
says...
10:44pm Sat 14 Mar 09
"I never hold in high regard ANYONE who tries to bully people into agreeing with their point of view even thought they are in a minority."
It's terrible when that happens, especially with one way traffic systems, like the one in Reading. know what I mean?
It's like Gravy Davey
Jiver
says...
10:59pm Sat 14 Mar 09
That's lame, even by your standards.
And you reckon I'M the one with only one leg?
Ha Ha
And comparing the Purton development to Coate? Ha Ha Ha. Must have taken a wrong turn off the IDR system, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Come on boys, you know you want me
I Too
says...
11:05pm Sat 14 Mar 09
"This hatchet faced haridan seems to think she knows the identities of everyone"
I saw Jiver, last night.
She's a fit Hottie
Jiver
says...
11:16pm Sat 14 Mar 09
I think he's confused me with an ex-mayors wife, who is older than me.
She is also a lovely person, not deserving of such remarks.
PeeveD
says...
10:43am Sun 15 Mar 09
Jiver wrote:No....really.... NO!
"And so cackled the evil witch as she stirred the pot." That's lame, even by your standards. And you reckon I'M the one with only one leg? Ha Ha And comparing the Purton development to Coate? Ha Ha Ha. Must have taken a wrong turn off the IDR system, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Come on boys, you know you want me
Always Grumpy
says...
11:26am Sun 15 Mar 09
I Too wrote:You mean your guide dog saw her and she made a fuss of it!
Always Grumpy wrote
"This hatchet faced haridan seems to think she knows the identities of everyone"
I saw Jiver, last night.
She's a fit Hottie
Always Grumpy
says...
11:27am Sun 15 Mar 09
Jiver wrote:I think I'd sooner poke blunt sticks into my eyes than want you.
"And so cackled the evil witch as she stirred the pot."
That's lame, even by your standards.
And you reckon I'M the one with only one leg?
Ha Ha
And comparing the Purton development to Coate? Ha Ha Ha. Must have taken a wrong turn off the IDR system, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha.
Come on boys, you know you want me
Jiver
says...
4:28pm Sun 15 Mar 09
I Too
says...
4:41pm Sun 15 Mar 09
Always Grumpy wrote:No. I have regular medicals.
I Too wrote: Always Grumpy wrote "This hatchet faced haridan seems to think she knows the identities of everyone" I saw Jiver, last night. She's a fit HottieYou mean your guide dog saw her and she made a fuss of it!
I'm fit as a fiddle. my eyesight is fine.
Jiver teaches dancing, does competitive running, and works in the legal profession.
Smart, attractive, young, fit, TOTTY
You are passing comments on a subject of which you know nothing.
Jiver
says...
4:59pm Sun 15 Mar 09
Have you don(e) it yet mr Mumpy?
What's taking the time?
I hope your not depending on Dave to find the stick. He'll be queuing in traffic on the IDR system.
Melanie Kim is probably delayed by an alimony settlement issue.
I Too, you naughty flirt. I hope you will be attending my next show, in Uxbridge.
I Too
says...
5:06pm Sun 15 Mar 09
Always Grumpy
says...
7:17pm Sun 15 Mar 09
I Too wrote:If you say so!
Always Grumpy wrote:No. I have regular medicals.
I Too wrote: Always Grumpy wrote "This hatchet faced haridan seems to think she knows the identities of everyone" I saw Jiver, last night. She's a fit HottieYou mean your guide dog saw her and she made a fuss of it!
I'm fit as a fiddle. my eyesight is fine.
Jiver teaches dancing, does competitive running, and works in the legal profession.
Smart, attractive, young, fit, TOTTY
You are passing comments on a subject of which you know nothing.
I much prefer my image of her however.
I Too
says...
8:06pm Mon 16 Mar 09
Always Grumpy wrote:So.. You imagine someone is elderly/ugly, to boost your "cause".
I Too wrote:If you say so! I much prefer my image of her however.Always Grumpy wrote:No. I have regular medicals. I'm fit as a fiddle. my eyesight is fine. Jiver teaches dancing, does competitive running, and works in the legal profession. Smart, attractive, young, fit, TOTTY You are passing comments on a subject of which you know nothing.I Too wrote: Always Grumpy wrote "This hatchet faced haridan seems to think she knows the identities of everyone" I saw Jiver, last night. She's a fit HottieYou mean your guide dog saw her and she made a fuss of it!
You taunt someone that you've never seen, making up stories about them, for your "cause"
You wish ill on people that have done you no harm, for your "cause"
You do sound like an obsessed, sad person.
Always Grumpy
says...
11:11pm Mon 16 Mar 09
I Too wrote:Oh dear, you sound like Achmed the Egyptian. Defending women gives you a buzz does it?
Always Grumpy wrote:So.. You imagine someone is elderly/ugly, to boost your "cause".
I Too wrote:If you say so! I much prefer my image of her however.Always Grumpy wrote:No. I have regular medicals. I'm fit as a fiddle. my eyesight is fine. Jiver teaches dancing, does competitive running, and works in the legal profession. Smart, attractive, young, fit, TOTTY You are passing comments on a subject of which you know nothing.I Too wrote: Always Grumpy wrote "This hatchet faced haridan seems to think she knows the identities of everyone" I saw Jiver, last night. She's a fit HottieYou mean your guide dog saw her and she made a fuss of it!
You taunt someone that you've never seen, making up stories about them, for your "cause"
You wish ill on people that have done you no harm, for your "cause"
You do sound like an obsessed, sad person.
You want to ask your 'friend' jiver about making up things - she does that a lot.
Go and find another cause to champion, you'll soon get fed up of this woman and see what a fool you've been.
Try and come up with some original thoughts of your own as well. It might prove difficult, but have a go.
Have a nice day!
Jiver
says...
4:38pm Tue 17 Mar 09
He's just bitter, at the thought the thought of me being young(ish0 and attractive.
unlike him with his grey scarce hair, yellow teeth, and apalling taste in clothes etc.
I could go on an don an don an don.
I Too
says...
4:59pm Tue 17 Mar 09
11:11pm Mon 16 Mar 09
"Oh dear, you sound like Achmed the Egyptian. Defending women gives you a buzz does it?"
Yes it does. I feel an immense amount of pride, of the fact that I am willing, and able, to stick up for people that are being bullied.
I don't feel the need to persue people, all around a website, with a little gang to back me up.
I am no more afraid of you, than the attractive young lady, to whom you refer, is bothered by your somewhat septic obsession.
The day I feel the need to hunt someone around a website, goading them at every opportunity, I will seek medical attention.
As for
"Try and come up with some original thoughts of your own as well. It might prove difficult, but have a go."
Why don't you practice what you preach?
Get yourself a proper, grown up hobby.
Pull yourself away from the pc.
Stop cowardly picking on individuals, under the safety of a codename, and your little gang.
If you feel so strongly about a campaign. Attend the meetings under your real name and make your point. Otherwise limit your debating to valid points, not childish insults, aimed at people with more courage and respect than you could ever dream of posessing.
I am now going out, so will not be replying to whatever diatribe you decite to resond with.
I've no doubt, you have nothing better to do, but that's your problem, not mine.
You might get over it in time.
Jock Strap
says...
6:33pm Wed 18 Mar 09
so your name really is Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss I Too eh? Well I've heard some funny surnames but never I Too. you should just leave the lovers to their little tiff!
I Too
says...
8:03pm Wed 18 Mar 09
Jock Strap wrote:I'm not the one picking on women, or "hunting in a pack", or desperately making up rude remarks about the appearance of a person I have never seen.
Stop cowardly picking on individuals, under the safety of a codename, and your little gang. so your name really is Mr/Mrs/Ms/Miss I Too eh? Well I've heard some funny surnames but never I Too. you should just leave the lovers to their little tiff!
As I have previously stated, The day I feel the need to hunt someone around a website, goading them at every opportunity, I will seek medical attention.
"leave the lovers to their little tiff!"
Is that a command, or some kind of feeble veiled threat?
Is your comrade not tough enough to answer for himself?
Maybe you've stepped up to the mark, because you might not have to spar on your own.
I expect the other one will join in soon, then you can be extra "brave".
If you feel so strongly about a campaign. Attend the meetings under your real name and make your point. Otherwise limit your debating to valid points, not childish insults, aimed at people with more courage and respect than you could ever dream of posessing.
Jock Strap
says...
11:17am Thu 19 Mar 09
I Too
says...
5:14pm Thu 19 Mar 09
that is why you mention them on irrelevant topics.
That is why you do not debate issues, but choose to make antagonistic remarks at every available opportunity.
Why should a persons appearance bear any weight to a debate?
Why goad those people on a different site?
Why tear into a person as a gang?
The answer is quite simple. you have a bullying obsession, with those people.
If you feel so strongly about a campaign. Attend the meetings under your real name and make your point. Otherwise limit your debating to valid points, not childish insults, aimed at people with more courage and respect than you could ever dream of posessing
Jock Strap
says...
7:14pm Thu 19 Mar 09
I Too
says...
8:01pm Thu 19 Mar 09
Dress it up all you like.
Encourage you denied buddy to use the word haridan a few more times.
What you do is not debating and my pride in defending these people is not a a mere result of objecting to other peoples views. That seems to be an issue that you have rather more difficulty with.
I'm sure you are capable of remembering a few sites, not related to Coate, where you have made derogatory remarks about petitions etc.
What you do is bullying, particularly when done in triplicate.
There is nothing respectful in goading people, because they have enslaved themselves to a cause that they believe in, with no financial, or personal gain to be awarded.
I see no reason to feel less than proud at standing up for people that I feel deserve a little respect, for their hard work.
It is not tunnel vision. it is a different view to yours, but we have witnessed mass housing developments, for decades. Housing is the only guaranteed part of this development.
If you feel so strongly about a campaign. Attend the meetings under your real name and make your point. Otherwise limit your debating to valid points, not childish insults, aimed at people with more courage and respect than you could ever dream of posessing
Jock Strap
says...
12:53am Fri 20 Mar 09
Jock Strap says...
2:29pm Thu 12 Mar 09
And guess what - the news gets better - did you see that Redlands airfield at Wanborough has been granted planning consent for their barn - I'm so pleased that two people who are trying to run a business have overcome the whinging of a couple of NIMBYS who were determined to stop them and foolishly it appears spent money on solicitors fees in an attempt to do so. If I was them I'd want an explanation because it would certainly appear they were given Duff information on the likely success of opposing eh?