GateGate and SignGate...

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Happy Tiger said:
I was bang on about you being a jumped up prick that doesn’t like being challenged or questioned.
Click to expand...

<laugh> I'm more than happy to be challenged or questioned, I've tolerated your ill-informed nonsense for years and attempted to reasonably explain things many times, usually a complete waste of time.

This despite you being a lying ****.

I'm really chilled by the way, just in case you're misreading another post. <ok>
 
  • Like
Reactions: SW3 Chelsea Tiger and Edelman
Chazz Rheinhold said:
Whoa whoa whoa. Where does that dig the poster. It's me who keeps getting personal digs. Not that I give a ****.

The council want the smc. Take it back then.

Do you dispute the smc and the sag meeting said they had info from an Anti terror unit? Yes or no?

Do I think the Allams have used this to dig the council? Yes.

Did you complain and go mental when the council locked the gates on Walton st car park? Yes or no?

I'd love to know how many posters on here actually ever use the footpath. I doubt less than 50% of posters use it on a match day. I bet less than 5% have ever used it at any other time.
Click to expand...

Whoa whoa whoa Chazz. In your case I said had a dig at the person even went on to ask if you thought that Inglis summed up the situation.

Not so sure the council want the SMC but for sure they are not satisfied with the way its working.
At the meeting it was discussed, it's not so clear who and on what evidence suggested a gate.
No i didn't complain about the Walton st. car park. wasn't that just to stop vehicular access? Joyriders and pikeys.
Does it really matter who and how many use the walkway? principles apply
 
It may be worth posting this again

The Chair touched upon the SMC’s proposals to close the stadium footbridges out of hours and that counter terrorism was the rationale behind the proposals, there was general discussion about proposal and the opposition that had been tabled by some local residents and a local Councillor that was still unresolved. RH questioned whether the threat was significant enough to justify the proposals, PC, who is a counter terrorism officer explained that that the access to the footbridges and general access to the stadium out of hours was identified as requiring action following a counter terrorism threat assessment and the identification of the vulnerabilities were was based upon real life intelligence.


This pc is pete curry. Whos title is the Hull City Council sports ground safety officer.
Now is Pete lying here?
Should inglis not be posting on the hdm website but getting on the blower to pete and finding out the info?
 
balkan tiger said:
Whoa whoa whoa Chazz. In your case I said had a dig at the person even went on to ask if you thought that Inglis summed up the situation.

Not so sure the council want the SMC but for sure they are not satisfied with the way its working.
At the meeting it was discussed, it's not so clear who and on what evidence suggested a gate.
No i didn't complain about the Walton st. car park. wasn't that just to stop vehicular access? Joyriders and pikeys.
Does it really matter who and how many use the walkway? principles apply
Click to expand...
So the council gated off summat that wasn't a prow? So...

Anyway you're buying the smc, you said. :emoticon-0140-rofl: You'll have to negotiate a new rent with fc and city.
 
originallambrettaman said:
<laugh> I'm more than happy to be challenged or questioned, I've tolerated your ill-informed nonsense for years and attempted to reasonably explain things many times, usually a complete waste of time.

This despite you being a lying ****.

I'm really chilled by the way, just in case you're misreading another post. <ok>
Click to expand...
That’ll explain why you changed a quote of mine to sommat highly offensive. Refused to apologise. Intercepted and personally dismissed my report of it. Then sneakily deleted it along with all the other evidence.

Oh aye, you’re chilled and don’t mind being challenged. Dead reasonable too. You’re renowned for it.

Lol
 
Chazz Rheinhold said:
So the council gated off summat that wasn't a prow? So...

Anyway you're buying the smc, you said. :emoticon-0140-rofl: You'll have to negotiate a new rent with fc and city.
Click to expand...

Walton street was just vehicle access due to resident complaints I think. So... the same but different.

I made an offer (on here) subject to seeing the books. I still think the SMC could be an attractive business proposition, two teams playing there, sports and events in the Airco arena, pop concerts, things like the monster trucks and stunt motorbikers. If there are suitable venues, weddings, conferences, business meetings. Then to go on further and explore expansion of the complex into retail, hotels and other sports facilities, this would have to be done in co-operation with the HCC of course. Working out a new rent at the current going rate shouldn't be too difficult as there are other examples to follow BUT what to do if the sports club owners refuse to pay?
 
Chazz Rheinhold said:
It may be worth posting this again

The Chair touched upon the SMC’s proposals to close the stadium footbridges out of hours and that counter terrorism was the rationale behind the proposals, there was general discussion about proposal and the opposition that had been tabled by some local residents and a local Councillor that was still unresolved. RH questioned whether the threat was significant enough to justify the proposals, PC, who is a counter terrorism officer explained that that the access to the footbridges and general access to the stadium out of hours was identified as requiring action following a counter terrorism threat assessment and the identification of the vulnerabilities were was based upon real life intelligence.


This pc is pete curry. Whos title is the Hull City Council sports ground safety officer.
Now is Pete lying here?
Should inglis not be posting on the hdm website but getting on the blower to pete and finding out the info?
Click to expand...

Interesting... I don't know enough to comment but someone will be along to explain. I hope.
 
Chazz Rheinhold said:
It may be worth posting this again

The Chair touched upon the SMC’s proposals to close the stadium footbridges out of hours and that counter terrorism was the rationale behind the proposals, there was general discussion about proposal and the opposition that had been tabled by some local residents and a local Councillor that was still unresolved. RH questioned whether the threat was significant enough to justify the proposals, PC, who is a counter terrorism officer explained that that the access to the footbridges and general access to the stadium out of hours was identified as requiring action following a counter terrorism threat assessment and the identification of the vulnerabilities were was based upon real life intelligence.


This pc is pete curry. Whos title is the Hull City Council sports ground safety officer.
Now is Pete lying here?
Should inglis not be posting on the hdm website but getting on the blower to pete and finding out the info?
Click to expand...

The threat detailed at that meeting isn't addressed by a gate at only one end of the footbridge and the police explanation couldn't have been less convincing.

It was like someone trying to convince me Simon Walton was our best ever player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Newland Tiger
originallambrettaman said:
The threat detailed at that meeting isn't addressed by a gate at only one end of the footbridge and the police explanation couldn't have been less convincing.

It was like someone trying to convince me Simon Walton was our best ever player.
Click to expand...
So in your opinion, a lay person, you're dismissing the information and advice of Pete curry the hull city council sports ground safety officer? Who will be privy, I assume, to further sensitive information that he is hardly likely to share at an open meeting? That information based on real life intelligence, according to Pete. Who may have an idea, I would hope.
Who also,I assume, doesn't work for the Allams and so won't be doing their bidding?
 
balkan tiger said:
Walton street was just vehicle access due to resident complaints I think. So... the same but different.

I made an offer (on here) subject to seeing the books. I still think the SMC could be an attractive business proposition, two teams playing there, sports and events in the Airco arena, pop concerts, things like the monster trucks and stunt motorbikers. If there are suitable venues, weddings, conferences, business meetings. Then to go on further and explore expansion of the complex into retail, hotels and other sports facilities, this would have to be done in co-operation with the HCC of course. Working out a new rent at the current going rate shouldn't be too difficult as there are other examples to follow BUT what to do if the sports club owners refuse to pay?
Click to expand...
You forgot to add in the maintenance, operating
and security costs for the stadium 24/7, 52 weeks a year.
 
Last edited:
Chazz Rheinhold said:
So in your opinion, a lay person, you're dismissing the information and advice of Pete curry the hull city council sports ground safety officer? Who will be privy, I assume, to further sensitive information that he is hardly likely to share at an open meeting? That information based on real life intelligence, according to Pete. Who may have an idea, I would hope.
Who also,I assume, doesn't work for the Allams and so won't be doing their bidding?
Click to expand...

As Pete works for the council and the council want the gate opened and it quite obviously wouldn't prevent a terrorist attack anyway, I'm keen to hear an attempt at justifying it.

That's if I'm at the next meeting, apparently Ehab has to attend the next one and he doesn't want me there.

Though from what I hear, there's probably more chance of me being there than Ehab.
 
originallambrettaman said:
As Pete works for the council and the council want the gate opened and it quite obviously wouldn't prevent a terrorist attack anyway, I'm keen to hear an attempt at justifying it.

That's if I'm at the next meeting, apparently Ehab has to attend the next one and he doesn't want me there.

Though from what I hear, there's probably more chance of me being there than Ehab.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Pete says there needs to be something done about access to the footbridges and stadium out of hours and there is intelligence about terror threats.
So what do you think pete means about access.
I'd say that means stopping access.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back