The judge makes his mind up tomorrow,lets hope it's a good decision for us... Start thinking positive fellow REDS..... http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/story-15360664-detail/story.html Any unwelcome additions will be deleted....
Can't believe we could be back to square one on this, was so convinced that it was done and dusted last week. Anyway, positive: there's gotta be SOME sane people in this messed up legal system that can sort this mess out! (hopeless optimist I'm afraid.)
Sorry to say wize but muppets, dogs and lawyers will probably win the day. Why is the world now filled with protesters against this and that who just enjoy the limelight in which they bask? They sound like they should become professional footballers because their concerns are solely about themselves.
God Wiz! This is a Dickensian 'Bleak House' scenario! The legal beavers are making larger sums in expenses, the longer they can protract this issue. One point I don't quite follow is where the City boundary cuts across the site. From the map I can see the boundary seems to place the majority of the land in North Somerset. Anyway. It looks as though the decision is due very soon. Lets pray that the outcome is favourable. Good Luck all you Reds on this issue.
Given my legal background I wish I could help out and shed more light on the subject for my fellow City fans but without having the full brief I cannot give a decent opinion. From what I have read it seems the council have made an application to strike out the second application under the Civil Procedure Rules. I would assume this is on the grounds that the application was made out of time. This would suggest that the original petition for Judicial Review was in the name of one applicant and since that applicant decided to withdraw any new applications would be deemed out of time. I guess the 'green' argument will be that the applicant for 'bullied' out of making the application for fear of his own personal welfare. If these are the facts and the judge cannot find reasonable grounds to suggest intimidation took place I would say we win The application was out of time and therefore should be struck out! I cannot find any precedent to the contrary where an application made out of time was successful. Fingers crossed my fellow reds!
i was against it when you were hiding behind the world cup bid but as that failed, i honestly hope it works out for you tomorrow. good luck however being a gashead, if it dont work out tomorrow for you i will most likely chuckle for a few seconds. all the best though
So - if the judge rules for us tomorrow is that final I wonder? Can the nimby lawyers just appeal against his decision and keep it going on......and on.........etc
No Robin they can't. I'm 99% sure it's an application to strike out the VG claim. If the judge strikes out the application it's game over for the tree huggers and game on for City! I just hope there's no substance to this harassment claim because if there is the claim will not be struck out and it's not going to reflect well on us when the full judicial review is heard.
What's with the harassment claim. I thought the guys name was kept a secret so no one would have known who they were ?
These are two things pissing me off... * One of these technicalities was the absence of the resident's address on his letters ending his part in the challenge. Other issues included using the wrong form, and the way in which it had been filled out.Mr Goodman urged the court to simply replace one challenger's name with another and continue with the same case as before.He also said there was an issue over costs if the case was discontinued and another started in its place. * If the case continued with a new applicant, then the costs incurred so far would carry over. But if the original resident's case was ended, then the costs involved would be greater than the amount he would receive under legal aid, Mr Goodman said. Tree huggin ,Frog Lovin , Nimby,libee-libbee,green fascist twats are getting away with it......(Sorry,Im getting pissed off)
If the decision is positive today am I correct in assuming that some further decision making process needs to be held in May? Muppets, dog walkers and lawyers rule the roost - as I have said before!
it was suppose to be a secret but somehow someone found out. one of the local residents was on radio bristol soon after the person withdrew his application. he stated that it went through the courts to keep his name anonymous but somehow its been leaked and the guy has been getting all sorts of problems. the guy on the rado wasnt allowed to state exactly what problems as it was a legal matter. but he said the guy is pension age and very scared by the stuff that has happened and so intimidated by it all that he now cant leave the house and couldnt take anymore of what he was getting. it could be lies so im not going to slate anyone. another person came on the show saying his mother is a local resident and was filmed on the local news (bbc/itv) at her front door. this was when the story 1st broke that the plans were to move to ashton vale. she was interviewd by the news asking how she felt about the stadium and she said she was against it being on her doorstep. happy for stadium but just didnt want it where its planned. all she did was state her opinion and nothing else. that night after being on the news her front living room window was smashed by a brick and her car had all tyers slashed. this mother was in her 70's. the radio asked if they went to the police as there was no news on that and he said his mother felt too intimidated as didnt want whoever did it to come back. plus as no one seen who did it what would the police do. again could be lies but what would judge think? when do you find out today?
Judge: "I'm going to let there be a judicial review but I'm not making my final decision until Tuesday so we can slow this down even more! " NOBS!
Spot on Chimpster... http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Conf...icial-review/story-15376287-detail/story.html
