Re: Stadium Site pictures : Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:41 am  

zinser wrote:

I never mentioned the council spending a penny on it, although they have spent and wasted our money on a lot lesser deserving projects over the years.

The Labour council is the reason the thing is still standing. It was they who got it listed. Therefore, it's up to them to do something about it, or not.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Wed Nov 02, 2011 11:00 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

The Labour council is the reason the thing is still standing. It was they who got it listed. Therefore, it's up to them to do something about it, or not.

You (and some notable others) have got to stop these anti-labour rants on here. It's spoilt an otherwise great thread.

Also, the bottle shop was listed by the instigation of local industrial archeaology activists through English Heritage. So if you're going to spout party political crap then at least try and get your facts right. But to be honest I'd rather you didn't mention any political party again as it's very anoying when 1) you consistently get your facts wrong and 2) hijack the thread.

P.S. See what McManus had to say about working with Marie Rimmer and the help and co-operation they had FROM ALL POLITICAL PARTIES to get this stadium to fruition.

SO... enough now enough

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:19 pm  

Donkey OTay wrote: You (and some notable others) have got to stop these anti-labour rants on here. It's spoilt an otherwise great thread. So why did you raise it then? We live in a country which still holds on to the notion of free speech (give or take a libel case) and so I'm entitled to be as 'anti-Labour' as I choose. However, while I will need to look back in time, I do remember reading that it was the (Labour) Council who put forward the Cannington Shaw site for listing, whether or not the local archeological activists pushed for it. The Local Authority is the body responsible for listed buildings in their area anyway. (See paragraph at bottom of page) Of course said activists certainly tried to put the stadium project in jeopardy.

Donkey OTay wrote: You (and some notable others) have got to stop these anti-labour rants on here. It's spoilt an otherwise great thread. So why did you raise it then? We live in a country which still holds on to the notion of free speech (give or take a libel case) and so I'm entitled to be as 'anti-Labour' as I choose. However, while I will need to look back in time, I do remember reading that it was the (Labour) Council who put forward the Cannington Shaw site for listing, whether or not the local archeological activists pushed for it. The Local Authority is the body responsible for listed buildings in their area anyway. (See paragraph at bottom of page) Of course said activists certainly tried to put the stadium project in jeopardy.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:23 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

We live in a country which still holds on to the notion of free speech (give or take a libel case)

I've never shared this thought on free speech. For instance, I still don't dare swear in front of my mum, I avoid telling a female work colleague she has a great rack for fear of a sexual harrasment case and almost never attempt to insight religious and racial hatred.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:25 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

I've never shared this thought on free speech. For instance, I still don't dare swear in front of my mum, I avoid telling a female work colleague she has a great rack for fear of a sexual harrasment case and almost never attempt to insight religious and racial hatred.

Well. I did say give or take a libel case, didn't I?

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:32 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Well. I did say give or take a libel case, didn't I?

You certainly did.

Nice rack, by the way i imagine

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:36 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

You certainly did.

Nice rack, by the way i imagine

Be careful of that kind of comment on an internet forum where children are present. It could be seen as grooming.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:48 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Be careful of that kind of comment on an internet forum where children are present. It could be seen as grooming.

Well, if I get in trouble for that, St Pete is loved.

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:50 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

Well, if I get in trouble for that, St Pete is loved.

LOL

Re: Stadium Site pictures : Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:37 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

Well, if I get in trouble for that, St Pete is loved.

Nah. But he could be fooked.

Or maybe not.