Farm Terrace Allotment holders bring campaign to BBC's Inside Out London television programme

Watford mayor Dorothy Thornhill. Picture: BBC iPlayer.

Watford mayor Dorothy Thornhill. Picture: BBC iPlayer.

First published in News
Last updated
Watford Observer: Photograph of the Author by , Web content editor

Campaigners fighting to save an allotment in Watford from being built on have presented their case on television.

The BBC's Inside Out London visited the Farm Terrace Allotments to meet with plot holders, politicians and the chairman of the hospital trust, and the programme was broadcast last night.

Watford Observer:

Presenter Matthew Wright explained how a group of allotment holders was using social media and crowd-funding to stop the council from building on the site.

Watford Borough Council, alongside the local health trust and Kier, is ploughing on with plans to build 700 homes and new health facilities on the land surrounding the hospital, including the allotments.

On the programme, mayor of Watford Dorothy Thornhill said: "This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to redevelop a really hideous, derelict site, and make a completely new community for Watford, including homes, plans to enable our hospital to stay in the town, jobs and quality open spaces people can enjoy."

The health campus proposal was historically a new hospital project with some housing added on.

The plans have been criticised by allotment holders, including Sara Jane Trebar, who suggested their plots would be used to build a car park for Watford football club houses, rather than a hospital.

Ms Thornhill said the most recent "indicative master-plan" showed a balance of 60 per cent housing and 40 per cent hospital use.

Part of the problem is that the hospital trust has not yet completed its "clinical strategy" and cannot be sure what services is wants to keep on the Watford site.

Sam Jones, chief executive of West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust, added: "We are looking at our services now and for the next 15 years. I can’t tell you what is going to go on the allotments but the flexibility enables us to get the right services in the right place."

Watford Observer:

As far as building on the allotments goes, Adam Hundt, partner at Deighton Peirce Glyn, said the secretary of state had to give consent to any council that wants to build on allotments.

The decision hinges on whether the fact that the allotments were still used could be overridden by the public interest in the development going ahead.

Ms Thornhill said: "We are carrying on with the plans because this is too big and important.

"A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it."

Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case.

The programme summed up by suggesting the outcome of the Farm Terrace Allotment decision could change allotment history forever.

Comments (176)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:00pm Tue 4 Mar 14

gusgreen says...

Having watched the clip from the programme I cannot believe just how arrogant our Mayor is and thats on top of the spinning untruthful devious individual she is.
I live in the Cardiff Road estate and do not want 700 houses at the end of the road with NO hospital development nor does anyone on the estate want it, but still we only live here so we do not count do we!!!!!
Having watched the clip from the programme I cannot believe just how arrogant our Mayor is and thats on top of the spinning untruthful devious individual she is. I live in the Cardiff Road estate and do not want 700 houses at the end of the road with NO hospital development nor does anyone on the estate want it, but still we only live here so we do not count do we!!!!! gusgreen
  • Score: 24

5:23pm Tue 4 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Grow your marrows elsewhere, you have been given an alternative site within 2 miles.

These nimby allotment people need to understand this is land that will be used for new homes and the health campus so they are being selfish.
Grow your marrows elsewhere, you have been given an alternative site within 2 miles. These nimby allotment people need to understand this is land that will be used for new homes and the health campus so they are being selfish. ramage1996
  • Score: -30

5:25pm Tue 4 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

New houses near a new London underground station, that land is worth a few quid...
New houses near a new London underground station, that land is worth a few quid... ramage1996
  • Score: -7

5:52pm Tue 4 Mar 14

TRT says...

The health trust's position was vague, as was the mayor's commitment to the hospital part of the plan. "This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to redevelop a really hideous, derelict site, and make a completely new community for Watford, including homes, plans to enable our hospital to stay in the town, jobs and quality open spaces people can enjoy." - that just makes my spin detector go off like a rocket.

Paddock Road is not a suitable alternative to those allotments - it's too far away for a start.

The hospital is in the wrong place. OK, it's sensible to put it in the middle of the population it will be serving, but (1) as it is, it's not in the middle of Watford but on the edge, and (2) if it's expected to serve Hemel and St. Albans as well, then it really is out on the edge. The road links to the hospital site are dire. West Watford will be the most densely populated ward in the whole of Hertfordshire if only 350 of these 700 properties are built. There are more allotments on Vicarage Road, in the Hollywell. You watch - these will go next.

I'm all in favour of investment, and a new hospital, but not where it is planned. That's just wrong. I also believe the mayor and our MP should be out canvassing the health related industry for investment into the health campus, with manufacturing facilities and research laboratories on site too. They, as far as I'm aware, haven't done that. I believe that if they HAD been doing that, they'd be crowing about it in the media, given that they will roll out the publicity wagon and claim credit even when it isn't due to them (e.g. the junction bus station, Network Rail's summer works programme etc).
The health trust's position was vague, as was the mayor's commitment to the hospital part of the plan. "This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to redevelop a really hideous, derelict site, and make a completely new community for Watford, including homes, plans to enable our hospital to stay in the town, jobs and quality open spaces people can enjoy." - that just makes my spin detector go off like a rocket. Paddock Road is not a suitable alternative to those allotments - it's too far away for a start. The hospital is in the wrong place. OK, it's sensible to put it in the middle of the population it will be serving, but (1) as it is, it's not in the middle of Watford but on the edge, and (2) if it's expected to serve Hemel and St. Albans as well, then it really is out on the edge. The road links to the hospital site are dire. West Watford will be the most densely populated ward in the whole of Hertfordshire if only 350 of these 700 properties are built. There are more allotments on Vicarage Road, in the Hollywell. You watch - these will go next. I'm all in favour of investment, and a new hospital, but not where it is planned. That's just wrong. I also believe the mayor and our MP should be out canvassing the health related industry for investment into the health campus, with manufacturing facilities and research laboratories on site too. They, as far as I'm aware, haven't done that. I believe that if they HAD been doing that, they'd be crowing about it in the media, given that they will roll out the publicity wagon and claim credit even when it isn't due to them (e.g. the junction bus station, Network Rail's summer works programme etc). TRT
  • Score: 9

5:52pm Tue 4 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

Hideous Dotty !!!
Hideous Dotty !!! dontknowynot
  • Score: 9

5:56pm Tue 4 Mar 14

BCB69 says...

These so called nimby people have been there a lot longer than ramage1996 I would think, and if you looked at the first proposals it was for the hospital campus to have most of the land, and it now looks as if the new hospital campus will ever happen, have a look now and it is nearly all housing, where are the schools for them not to mention the congestion Etc., and last but not least Dotty you have mislead us once again, but we have found you out once again.
These so called nimby people have been there a lot longer than ramage1996 I would think, and if you looked at the first proposals it was for the hospital campus to have most of the land, and it now looks as if the new hospital campus will ever happen, have a look now and it is nearly all housing, where are the schools for them not to mention the congestion Etc., and last but not least Dotty you have mislead us once again, but we have found you out once again. BCB69
  • Score: 14

5:58pm Tue 4 Mar 14

sjtrebar says...

For those who would like to see the programme themselves here is the link - http://www.bbc.co.uk
/programmes/b0071mkv and check out our web site - http://savefarmterra
ce.wix.com/savefarmt
errace you can also donate at - http://www.gofundme.
com/save-farm-terrac
e . Thank you for your support.
For those who would like to see the programme themselves here is the link - http://www.bbc.co.uk /programmes/b0071mkv and check out our web site - http://savefarmterra ce.wix.com/savefarmt errace you can also donate at - http://www.gofundme. com/save-farm-terrac e . Thank you for your support. sjtrebar
  • Score: 17

6:08pm Tue 4 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Lets hope the Marrow growers accept the site up the road and allow Vicarage Road tub station with west Watford and the new health campus prosper.

West Watford needs help so lets not have a few gardeners on publicly owned land who pay rent to us the tax payer stop it.
Lets hope the Marrow growers accept the site up the road and allow Vicarage Road tub station with west Watford and the new health campus prosper. West Watford needs help so lets not have a few gardeners on publicly owned land who pay rent to us the tax payer stop it. ramage1996
  • Score: -18

6:10pm Tue 4 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

BCB69 wrote:
These so called nimby people have been there a lot longer than ramage1996 I would think, and if you looked at the first proposals it was for the hospital campus to have most of the land, and it now looks as if the new hospital campus will ever happen, have a look now and it is nearly all housing, where are the schools for them not to mention the congestion Etc., and last but not least Dotty you have mislead us once again, but we have found you out once again.
They may have been but think of the jobs and the homes and the health campus rather than you and your mates having the right to sit in your allotment shed.
[quote][p][bold]BCB69[/bold] wrote: These so called nimby people have been there a lot longer than ramage1996 I would think, and if you looked at the first proposals it was for the hospital campus to have most of the land, and it now looks as if the new hospital campus will ever happen, have a look now and it is nearly all housing, where are the schools for them not to mention the congestion Etc., and last but not least Dotty you have mislead us once again, but we have found you out once again.[/p][/quote]They may have been but think of the jobs and the homes and the health campus rather than you and your mates having the right to sit in your allotment shed. ramage1996
  • Score: -9

6:19pm Tue 4 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

"A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it.
Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case."


WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed.

How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.
"A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it. Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case." WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed. How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area. ramage1996
  • Score: -11

6:22pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Wacko Jacko says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Lets hope the Marrow growers accept the site up the road and allow Vicarage Road tub station with west Watford and the new health campus prosper.

West Watford needs help so lets not have a few gardeners on publicly owned land who pay rent to us the tax payer stop it.
Well said ramage, it's not like they aren't being offered perfectly good alternative allotment sites. You have to ask what are most residents concerned about, getting into decent housing or getting an allotment - the answer is obvious. Good quality housing and an improved hospital are the top priorities for Watford residents.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Lets hope the Marrow growers accept the site up the road and allow Vicarage Road tub station with west Watford and the new health campus prosper. West Watford needs help so lets not have a few gardeners on publicly owned land who pay rent to us the tax payer stop it.[/p][/quote]Well said ramage, it's not like they aren't being offered perfectly good alternative allotment sites. You have to ask what are most residents concerned about, getting into decent housing or getting an allotment - the answer is obvious. Good quality housing and an improved hospital are the top priorities for Watford residents. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: -14

6:28pm Tue 4 Mar 14

sjtrebar says...

ramage1996 wrote:
"A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it.
Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case."


WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed.

How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.
Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: "A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it. Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case." WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed. How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.[/p][/quote]Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us. sjtrebar
  • Score: 11

6:29pm Tue 4 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

ramage1996 wrote:
BCB69 wrote:
These so called nimby people have been there a lot longer than ramage1996 I would think, and if you looked at the first proposals it was for the hospital campus to have most of the land, and it now looks as if the new hospital campus will ever happen, have a look now and it is nearly all housing, where are the schools for them not to mention the congestion Etc., and last but not least Dotty you have mislead us once again, but we have found you out once again.
They may have been but think of the jobs and the homes and the health campus rather than you and your mates having the right to sit in your allotment shed.
but its all spin, there is no new hospital, the scheme is viable without the allotments and if they want to build more houses they could do it at the alternative allotment site, therefore no impact on jobs.
It is just like the transfer of wicks HQ no new jobs just shuffled about from Harrow and Northampton
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCB69[/bold] wrote: These so called nimby people have been there a lot longer than ramage1996 I would think, and if you looked at the first proposals it was for the hospital campus to have most of the land, and it now looks as if the new hospital campus will ever happen, have a look now and it is nearly all housing, where are the schools for them not to mention the congestion Etc., and last but not least Dotty you have mislead us once again, but we have found you out once again.[/p][/quote]They may have been but think of the jobs and the homes and the health campus rather than you and your mates having the right to sit in your allotment shed.[/p][/quote]but its all spin, there is no new hospital, the scheme is viable without the allotments and if they want to build more houses they could do it at the alternative allotment site, therefore no impact on jobs. It is just like the transfer of wicks HQ no new jobs just shuffled about from Harrow and Northampton dontknowynot
  • Score: -3

6:33pm Tue 4 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

I as born in west Watford and I wont accept a bunch of fk marrow growers stop jobs, 700 homes and a hospital campus and the local small businesses benefiting..

YOU HAVE BEEN OFFERED AN ALLOTMENT UP THE ROAD, ACCEPT IT.
I as born in west Watford and I wont accept a bunch of fk marrow growers stop jobs, 700 homes and a hospital campus and the local small businesses benefiting.. YOU HAVE BEEN OFFERED AN ALLOTMENT UP THE ROAD, ACCEPT IT. ramage1996
  • Score: -17

6:48pm Tue 4 Mar 14

BCB69 says...

dontknowynot wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
BCB69 wrote:
These so called nimby people have been there a lot longer than ramage1996 I would think, and if you looked at the first proposals it was for the hospital campus to have most of the land, and it now looks as if the new hospital campus will ever happen, have a look now and it is nearly all housing, where are the schools for them not to mention the congestion Etc., and last but not least Dotty you have mislead us once again, but we have found you out once again.
They may have been but think of the jobs and the homes and the health campus rather than you and your mates having the right to sit in your allotment shed.
but its all spin, there is no new hospital, the scheme is viable without the allotments and if they want to build more houses they could do it at the alternative allotment site, therefore no impact on jobs.
It is just like the transfer of wicks HQ no new jobs just shuffled about from Harrow and Northampton
I do not happen to have an allotment or a shed, and the so called mates are human beings who grow their own veg Etc. and feed their families and friends along with being out in the open, we are loosing more and more of our recreational spaces and as said there will be no jobs and the houses could be built on the alternative allotment site and as I said don't pin your hopes on a new hospital, its all about money and what the land is worth, money before people I think not.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCB69[/bold] wrote: These so called nimby people have been there a lot longer than ramage1996 I would think, and if you looked at the first proposals it was for the hospital campus to have most of the land, and it now looks as if the new hospital campus will ever happen, have a look now and it is nearly all housing, where are the schools for them not to mention the congestion Etc., and last but not least Dotty you have mislead us once again, but we have found you out once again.[/p][/quote]They may have been but think of the jobs and the homes and the health campus rather than you and your mates having the right to sit in your allotment shed.[/p][/quote]but its all spin, there is no new hospital, the scheme is viable without the allotments and if they want to build more houses they could do it at the alternative allotment site, therefore no impact on jobs. It is just like the transfer of wicks HQ no new jobs just shuffled about from Harrow and Northampton[/p][/quote]I do not happen to have an allotment or a shed, and the so called mates are human beings who grow their own veg Etc. and feed their families and friends along with being out in the open, we are loosing more and more of our recreational spaces and as said there will be no jobs and the houses could be built on the alternative allotment site and as I said don't pin your hopes on a new hospital, its all about money and what the land is worth, money before people I think not. BCB69
  • Score: 4

7:02pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Mr Barrow says...

I'm all in favour of allotments but why should one group be able to stop this vital project? My wife has given birth to our 2 fantastic kids there in the last few years. It's obvious that the staff do a great job but we need bigger and better facilities. The allotment holders have been offered alternative sites, 70% of locals want this to go ahead and this investment will also bring in new affordable homes and jobs. Dorothy Thornhill should stick to her guns. She was elected to represent all of us, not just a very vocal minority!
I'm all in favour of allotments but why should one group be able to stop this vital project? My wife has given birth to our 2 fantastic kids there in the last few years. It's obvious that the staff do a great job but we need bigger and better facilities. The allotment holders have been offered alternative sites, 70% of locals want this to go ahead and this investment will also bring in new affordable homes and jobs. Dorothy Thornhill should stick to her guns. She was elected to represent all of us, not just a very vocal minority! Mr Barrow
  • Score: -12

7:07pm Tue 4 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Mr Barrow wrote:
I'm all in favour of allotments but why should one group be able to stop this vital project? My wife has given birth to our 2 fantastic kids there in the last few years. It's obvious that the staff do a great job but we need bigger and better facilities. The allotment holders have been offered alternative sites, 70% of locals want this to go ahead and this investment will also bring in new affordable homes and jobs. Dorothy Thornhill should stick to her guns. She was elected to represent all of us, not just a very vocal minority!
70% of local residents.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Barrow[/bold] wrote: I'm all in favour of allotments but why should one group be able to stop this vital project? My wife has given birth to our 2 fantastic kids there in the last few years. It's obvious that the staff do a great job but we need bigger and better facilities. The allotment holders have been offered alternative sites, 70% of locals want this to go ahead and this investment will also bring in new affordable homes and jobs. Dorothy Thornhill should stick to her guns. She was elected to represent all of us, not just a very vocal minority![/p][/quote]70% of local residents. ramage1996
  • Score: -7

7:07pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
Lets hope the Marrow growers accept the site up the road and allow Vicarage Road tub station with west Watford and the new health campus prosper.

West Watford needs help so lets not have a few gardeners on publicly owned land who pay rent to us the tax payer stop it.
Well said ramage, it's not like they aren't being offered perfectly good alternative allotment sites. You have to ask what are most residents concerned about, getting into decent housing or getting an allotment - the answer is obvious. Good quality housing and an improved hospital are the top priorities for Watford residents.
Nice to see Farm Terrace on the news and the wider public seeing what is happening instead being buried under carpet.

Just which part of this development has got a brand new hospital in place apart from 700 homes.

The mayor has clearly stated that the hospital is 'decoupled' ie dead in the water. 18 months away the Trust may well decide that the site for a super hospital - with all that stuff about economies of scale etc - has many have said is not the best if the plan is to close Hemel and St Albans.

I often wonder if you guys ever sat an English comprehension exam because the allotment holders have never said they are against progress.

Misinformation is the modern day scourge which explains why so many don't bother to vote and ordinary people are constantly lied to with promises eg neighbourhood policing, community schools when Free Schools can choose their intake.
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Lets hope the Marrow growers accept the site up the road and allow Vicarage Road tub station with west Watford and the new health campus prosper. West Watford needs help so lets not have a few gardeners on publicly owned land who pay rent to us the tax payer stop it.[/p][/quote]Well said ramage, it's not like they aren't being offered perfectly good alternative allotment sites. You have to ask what are most residents concerned about, getting into decent housing or getting an allotment - the answer is obvious. Good quality housing and an improved hospital are the top priorities for Watford residents.[/p][/quote]Nice to see Farm Terrace on the news and the wider public seeing what is happening instead being buried under carpet. Just which part of this development has got a brand new hospital in place apart from 700 homes. The mayor has clearly stated that the hospital is 'decoupled' ie dead in the water. 18 months away the Trust may well decide that the site for a super hospital - with all that stuff about economies of scale etc - has many have said is not the best if the plan is to close Hemel and St Albans. I often wonder if you guys ever sat an English comprehension exam because the allotment holders have never said they are against progress. Misinformation is the modern day scourge which explains why so many don't bother to vote and ordinary people are constantly lied to with promises eg neighbourhood policing, community schools when Free Schools can choose their intake. Cuetip
  • Score: 6

7:15pm Tue 4 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

If any of you have been to Hemel hospital which as the other major hospital in the area recently, half the building have been boarded up, A&E closed down and only a skeleton service.

They are selling off the land, its at tender.
If any of you have been to Hemel hospital which as the other major hospital in the area recently, half the building have been boarded up, A&E closed down and only a skeleton service. They are selling off the land, its at tender. ramage1996
  • Score: 4

7:27pm Tue 4 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

Mr Barrow wrote:
I'm all in favour of allotments but why should one group be able to stop this vital project? My wife has given birth to our 2 fantastic kids there in the last few years. It's obvious that the staff do a great job but we need bigger and better facilities. The allotment holders have been offered alternative sites, 70% of locals want this to go ahead and this investment will also bring in new affordable homes and jobs. Dorothy Thornhill should stick to her guns. She was elected to represent all of us, not just a very vocal minority!
because
1) its the law
2) there is no vital project just a housing devolopment
3) if there were a vital project it could be completed without useing the allotment site.
4) its yet more over development ont flood plane
5) its more compact housing in an area that already has oversubscribed schools and doctors surgeries
[quote][p][bold]Mr Barrow[/bold] wrote: I'm all in favour of allotments but why should one group be able to stop this vital project? My wife has given birth to our 2 fantastic kids there in the last few years. It's obvious that the staff do a great job but we need bigger and better facilities. The allotment holders have been offered alternative sites, 70% of locals want this to go ahead and this investment will also bring in new affordable homes and jobs. Dorothy Thornhill should stick to her guns. She was elected to represent all of us, not just a very vocal minority![/p][/quote]because 1) its the law 2) there is no vital project just a housing devolopment 3) if there were a vital project it could be completed without useing the allotment site. 4) its yet more over development ont flood plane 5) its more compact housing in an area that already has oversubscribed schools and doctors surgeries dontknowynot
  • Score: 4

7:49pm Tue 4 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Mr Barrow wrote:
I'm all in favour of allotments but why should one group be able to stop this vital project? My wife has given birth to our 2 fantastic kids there in the last few years. It's obvious that the staff do a great job but we need bigger and better facilities. The allotment holders have been offered alternative sites, 70% of locals want this to go ahead and this investment will also bring in new affordable homes and jobs. Dorothy Thornhill should stick to her guns. She was elected to represent all of us, not just a very vocal minority!
because
1) its the law
2) there is no vital project just a housing devolopment
3) if there were a vital project it could be completed without useing the allotment site.
4) its yet more over development ont flood plane
5) its more compact housing in an area that already has oversubscribed schools and doctors surgeries
1) Its a health campus
2) Yes it is the law, it has been passed so you are right
3) Its 700 houses
4) Local small businesses will benefit
5) West Watford is a deprived area and needs regeneration
6) When the new development happens and the new underground station opens that land is prime property o you can jolly well walk 1.5 miles up the road to your garden shed
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Barrow[/bold] wrote: I'm all in favour of allotments but why should one group be able to stop this vital project? My wife has given birth to our 2 fantastic kids there in the last few years. It's obvious that the staff do a great job but we need bigger and better facilities. The allotment holders have been offered alternative sites, 70% of locals want this to go ahead and this investment will also bring in new affordable homes and jobs. Dorothy Thornhill should stick to her guns. She was elected to represent all of us, not just a very vocal minority![/p][/quote]because 1) its the law 2) there is no vital project just a housing devolopment 3) if there were a vital project it could be completed without useing the allotment site. 4) its yet more over development ont flood plane 5) its more compact housing in an area that already has oversubscribed schools and doctors surgeries[/p][/quote]1) Its a health campus 2) Yes it is the law, it has been passed so you are right 3) Its 700 houses 4) Local small businesses will benefit 5) West Watford is a deprived area and needs regeneration 6) When the new development happens and the new underground station opens that land is prime property o you can jolly well walk 1.5 miles up the road to your garden shed ramage1996
  • Score: -8

7:56pm Tue 4 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

The trouble with allotment holdrs are is that they think they own their 'plot', it is owned by the council.
The trouble with allotment holdrs are is that they think they own their 'plot', it is owned by the council. ramage1996
  • Score: -4

7:58pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Mr Barrow says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Mr Barrow wrote:
I'm all in favour of allotments but why should one group be able to stop this vital project? My wife has given birth to our 2 fantastic kids there in the last few years. It's obvious that the staff do a great job but we need bigger and better facilities. The allotment holders have been offered alternative sites, 70% of locals want this to go ahead and this investment will also bring in new affordable homes and jobs. Dorothy Thornhill should stick to her guns. She was elected to represent all of us, not just a very vocal minority!
because
1) its the law
2) there is no vital project just a housing devolopment
3) if there were a vital project it could be completed without useing the allotment site.
4) its yet more over development ont flood plane
5) its more compact housing in an area that already has oversubscribed schools and doctors surgeries
It is just factually incorrect to say this is "no vital project". Who knows more about the health benefits of this project - the local NHS Trust (who want the allotment land included in the project) or allotment holders (who obviously come to this from a particular perspective)?

I don't understand why you say "because its the law". The government has ruled that the land can be used. If you go for a Judicial Review surely the courts will decide who is right? Your 3rd point is also inaccurate. Use of the allotment land certainly does not suggest that this isn't a vital project. 4th point - do you mean flood plain?
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Barrow[/bold] wrote: I'm all in favour of allotments but why should one group be able to stop this vital project? My wife has given birth to our 2 fantastic kids there in the last few years. It's obvious that the staff do a great job but we need bigger and better facilities. The allotment holders have been offered alternative sites, 70% of locals want this to go ahead and this investment will also bring in new affordable homes and jobs. Dorothy Thornhill should stick to her guns. She was elected to represent all of us, not just a very vocal minority![/p][/quote]because 1) its the law 2) there is no vital project just a housing devolopment 3) if there were a vital project it could be completed without useing the allotment site. 4) its yet more over development ont flood plane 5) its more compact housing in an area that already has oversubscribed schools and doctors surgeries[/p][/quote]It is just factually incorrect to say this is "no vital project". Who knows more about the health benefits of this project - the local NHS Trust (who want the allotment land included in the project) or allotment holders (who obviously come to this from a particular perspective)? I don't understand why you say "because its the law". The government has ruled that the land can be used. If you go for a Judicial Review surely the courts will decide who is right? Your 3rd point is also inaccurate. Use of the allotment land certainly does not suggest that this isn't a vital project. 4th point - do you mean flood plain? Mr Barrow
  • Score: -1

9:13pm Tue 4 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

@mr Barrow
It’s a comment, didn’t realise the spelling and grammar police were out, but never mind, you get the jest or you would not be able to pull me up on it would you???
The law as amended was put in place specifically to stop houses being built on allotment sites, it has not been repelled and therefore should be adhered to.
In respect of the new hospital buildings they just are not happening anytime soon both the trust and Mayor accept this as true. There is however a major property development building more houses in an already highly populated area.
The case will go to court and whilst judicial revue is unpredictable I would say they have a good chance of overturning the decision,
As to the Vital project they do fail to say what it is, it certainly is not a be hospital or new hospital facility’s because they are not in the immediate or even medium term plans for the development.
Maybe you could enlighten me as to what Vital and presumably imminent improvements building on the allotments will give
@mr Barrow It’s a comment, didn’t realise the spelling and grammar police were out, but never mind, you get the jest or you would not be able to pull me up on it would you??? The law as amended was put in place specifically to stop houses being built on allotment sites, it has not been repelled and therefore should be adhered to. In respect of the new hospital buildings they just are not happening anytime soon both the trust and Mayor accept this as true. There is however a major property development building more houses in an already highly populated area. The case will go to court and whilst judicial revue is unpredictable I would say they have a good chance of overturning the decision, As to the Vital project they do fail to say what it is, it certainly is not a be hospital or new hospital facility’s because they are not in the immediate or even medium term plans for the development. Maybe you could enlighten me as to what Vital and presumably imminent improvements building on the allotments will give dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

10:03pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Andrew1963 says...

Can I ask if anyone has seen the detailed planning application for the site? A couple of issues:- how will the residents in the 700 new homes drive in and out the site as the plans I have seen does not allow them to use the new link road across oxhey park to Dalton way. Following county councillor and mp interventions on flooding in lower high street, and a new desire not to build on the flood plain, how will this plan now be considered by environment agency? The link road is on the flood plain and will generate lots of run off. The building on the sides of the valley (allotments) will generate extra run off and considering Wiggenhall road flooded recently I can see the current aspirations for the redevelopment of the. Cardiff Road Infustrial estate having to provide even more flood water storage area than presently envisaged. Finally if the hospital is having 700 houses, offices, retail, etc between its site and the link road, it will in effective be land locked on its current site, which must make it more expensive to redevelop and. More problematic too. Plus 700 new voters on the door step will start to impact on the decisions the politicians will accept on any future hospital development. Plus as time goes on the current hospital looks more vulnerable, as the policy is to sell of land at hospitals that can not expand and once the Cardiff road area is developed, Watford has little scope to expand to the new vision mega size acute hospitals. Look at the site on google earth and compare it to Northwick Park which is three times the size. All in all there looks to me to be lots of questions about the viability and type of development that will occur.
Can I ask if anyone has seen the detailed planning application for the site? A couple of issues:- how will the residents in the 700 new homes drive in and out the site as the plans I have seen does not allow them to use the new link road across oxhey park to Dalton way. Following county councillor and mp interventions on flooding in lower high street, and a new desire not to build on the flood plain, how will this plan now be considered by environment agency? The link road is on the flood plain and will generate lots of run off. The building on the sides of the valley (allotments) will generate extra run off and considering Wiggenhall road flooded recently I can see the current aspirations for the redevelopment of the. Cardiff Road Infustrial estate having to provide even more flood water storage area than presently envisaged. Finally if the hospital is having 700 houses, offices, retail, etc between its site and the link road, it will in effective be land locked on its current site, which must make it more expensive to redevelop and. More problematic too. Plus 700 new voters on the door step will start to impact on the decisions the politicians will accept on any future hospital development. Plus as time goes on the current hospital looks more vulnerable, as the policy is to sell of land at hospitals that can not expand and once the Cardiff road area is developed, Watford has little scope to expand to the new vision mega size acute hospitals. Look at the site on google earth and compare it to Northwick Park which is three times the size. All in all there looks to me to be lots of questions about the viability and type of development that will occur. Andrew1963
  • Score: 10

10:45pm Tue 4 Mar 14

TRT says...

There isn't a detailed plan for the new version of the project, at least not one that's been made public. The older one which was pretty much ready to go before the planning committee had a lot of detail about the actual hospital in it. The new plan is just an outline. There are probably plans being drawn up for the housing right now. Nothing about the hospital buildings because they don't know what they need. Before they based the drawings on replacing every bit of the old hospital. There were wards, clinics, labs, service areas, diagnostic areas etc.

They aren't all 700 houses, by the way, most of them will be multi-tenant blocks.
There isn't a detailed plan for the new version of the project, at least not one that's been made public. The older one which was pretty much ready to go before the planning committee had a lot of detail about the actual hospital in it. The new plan is just an outline. There are probably plans being drawn up for the housing right now. Nothing about the hospital buildings because they don't know what they need. Before they based the drawings on replacing every bit of the old hospital. There were wards, clinics, labs, service areas, diagnostic areas etc. They aren't all 700 houses, by the way, most of them will be multi-tenant blocks. TRT
  • Score: 3

11:22pm Tue 4 Mar 14

#UKMum says...

Hasn't Watford had enough of Dorothy and her Yellow Brick Roads yet? She has learnt nothing from the recent flood situation. We have Victorian drainage not coping with the water at the moment. Imagine another concrete jungle and the accompanying extra run-off. Further the latest theory about dealing with increased rainfall is to have more hedge and trees as that allows 65% more soak away than grass. Ask Dorothy if she has heard the latest advice about replacing concrete with gravel. Dorothy needs to look beyond the Rainbow of housing projects which has kept her afloat for the last few years to a brave new world where she goes off to other pastures green.
Hasn't Watford had enough of Dorothy and her Yellow Brick Roads yet? She has learnt nothing from the recent flood situation. We have Victorian drainage not coping with the water at the moment. Imagine another concrete jungle and the accompanying extra run-off. Further the latest theory about dealing with increased rainfall is to have more hedge and trees as that allows 65% more soak away than grass. Ask Dorothy if she has heard the latest advice about replacing concrete with gravel. Dorothy needs to look beyond the Rainbow of housing projects which has kept her afloat for the last few years to a brave new world where she goes off to other pastures green. #UKMum
  • Score: 2

11:39pm Tue 4 Mar 14

#UKMum says...

ramage1996 says...
Grow your marrows elsewhere,

Dear Boy marrows are so last season. Try to keep up please. It's First Early Swifts, Red Currants, Rasberries, wild garlic and strawberries this year. We will be making apple chutney from the apple crop and our chutney is pretty unbelievable as well. Oh well I guess you will be wading into TESCOs then.
ramage1996 says... Grow your marrows elsewhere, Dear Boy marrows are so last season. Try to keep up please. It's First Early Swifts, Red Currants, Rasberries, wild garlic and strawberries this year. We will be making apple chutney from the apple crop and our chutney is pretty unbelievable as well. Oh well I guess you will be wading into TESCOs then. #UKMum
  • Score: 3

1:08am Wed 5 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Referring to people that have a different view point to you in a sneering way, doesn't help your argument. Nor does being factually incorrect. The allotment holders haven't been offered a site within two miles as you state in one of your earlier comments. Even if they had, it wouldn't fulfil legal requirements.

On the subject of 'legal matters' the last campaign didn't fail. In fact, the Farm Terrace Allotment Holders won their case and Eric Pickles had to admit he had made a legally incorrect judgement. I assume you believe in the rule of law?

You state that West Watford needs help. How is building another 700+ houses in the second most dense area of Watford going to help? I went along to one of the 'consultations'. Kier have no idea how they are going to accomodate the additional traffic. Nor do they have any idea how they are going to deal with the flooding implications of building on the flood plain.

As to the allotments, the council, Kier, and the Hospital trust, all agree, the plans will go ahead even if the allotment holders win their case. Further more, they agree they have always known that was the case. Just to rub more salt in the wound for the allotment holders though, their land isn't primarily being considered for use by the hospital. Instead it will be a car park for the football club.

Personally, I'd rather more marrows despite not actually liking marrow myself.
Referring to people that have a different view point to you in a sneering way, doesn't help your argument. Nor does being factually incorrect. The allotment holders haven't been offered a site within two miles as you state in one of your earlier comments. Even if they had, it wouldn't fulfil legal requirements. On the subject of 'legal matters' the last campaign didn't fail. In fact, the Farm Terrace Allotment Holders won their case and Eric Pickles had to admit he had made a legally incorrect judgement. I assume you believe in the rule of law? You state that West Watford needs help. How is building another 700+ houses in the second most dense area of Watford going to help? I went along to one of the 'consultations'. Kier have no idea how they are going to accomodate the additional traffic. Nor do they have any idea how they are going to deal with the flooding implications of building on the flood plain. As to the allotments, the council, Kier, and the Hospital trust, all agree, the plans will go ahead even if the allotment holders win their case. Further more, they agree they have always known that was the case. Just to rub more salt in the wound for the allotment holders though, their land isn't primarily being considered for use by the hospital. Instead it will be a car park for the football club. Personally, I'd rather more marrows despite not actually liking marrow myself. Su Murray
  • Score: 4

1:14am Wed 5 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Su Murray wrote:
Referring to people that have a different view point to you in a sneering way, doesn't help your argument. Nor does being factually incorrect. The allotment holders haven't been offered a site within two miles as you state in one of your earlier comments. Even if they had, it wouldn't fulfil legal requirements.

On the subject of 'legal matters' the last campaign didn't fail. In fact, the Farm Terrace Allotment Holders won their case and Eric Pickles had to admit he had made a legally incorrect judgement. I assume you believe in the rule of law?

You state that West Watford needs help. How is building another 700+ houses in the second most dense area of Watford going to help? I went along to one of the 'consultations'. Kier have no idea how they are going to accomodate the additional traffic. Nor do they have any idea how they are going to deal with the flooding implications of building on the flood plain.

As to the allotments, the council, Kier, and the Hospital trust, all agree, the plans will go ahead even if the allotment holders win their case. Further more, they agree they have always known that was the case. Just to rub more salt in the wound for the allotment holders though, their land isn't primarily being considered for use by the hospital. Instead it will be a car park for the football club.

Personally, I'd rather more marrows despite not actually liking marrow myself.
My previous post was primarily a reply to Ramage 1996. Watford Observer please will you sort out your sign in/password stuff?
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: Referring to people that have a different view point to you in a sneering way, doesn't help your argument. Nor does being factually incorrect. The allotment holders haven't been offered a site within two miles as you state in one of your earlier comments. Even if they had, it wouldn't fulfil legal requirements. On the subject of 'legal matters' the last campaign didn't fail. In fact, the Farm Terrace Allotment Holders won their case and Eric Pickles had to admit he had made a legally incorrect judgement. I assume you believe in the rule of law? You state that West Watford needs help. How is building another 700+ houses in the second most dense area of Watford going to help? I went along to one of the 'consultations'. Kier have no idea how they are going to accomodate the additional traffic. Nor do they have any idea how they are going to deal with the flooding implications of building on the flood plain. As to the allotments, the council, Kier, and the Hospital trust, all agree, the plans will go ahead even if the allotment holders win their case. Further more, they agree they have always known that was the case. Just to rub more salt in the wound for the allotment holders though, their land isn't primarily being considered for use by the hospital. Instead it will be a car park for the football club. Personally, I'd rather more marrows despite not actually liking marrow myself.[/p][/quote]My previous post was primarily a reply to Ramage 1996. Watford Observer please will you sort out your sign in/password stuff? Su Murray
  • Score: 1

8:22am Wed 5 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Grow your marrows elsewhere, you have been given an alternative site within 2 miles.

These nimby allotment people need to understand this is land that will be used for new homes and the health campus so they are being selfish.
Could you just explain what the "Health Campus" is, exactly?
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Grow your marrows elsewhere, you have been given an alternative site within 2 miles. These nimby allotment people need to understand this is land that will be used for new homes and the health campus so they are being selfish.[/p][/quote]Could you just explain what the "Health Campus" is, exactly? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -5

8:42am Wed 5 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ramage1996 wrote:
I as born in west Watford and I wont accept a bunch of fk marrow growers stop jobs, 700 homes and a hospital campus and the local small businesses benefiting..

YOU HAVE BEEN OFFERED AN ALLOTMENT UP THE ROAD, ACCEPT IT.
Vote Dotty, get ramage1996 and others like it.

I don't think anyone has campaigned against Dotty as Mayor any harder than Dotty herself or her sycophants on this site.

If you don't like what's going on, and I don't like what's going on, then Dotty must go.

In May there is a mayoral election.

I am standing as Mayor and I stand four-square with SJT on this issue. You have two votes. Make one of them Ukip or Labour if you want to stop this sort of thing happening in your town.

The Tories and LibDems support this deceptive scheme, Ukip and Labour oppose it, and what's more Ukip have made pledges to stop this abuse. I hope the Labour party follow Ukip in pledging to reverse this abuse of power and save Farm Terrace allotments rather than just complain about it.

I doubt Labour will get a Mayor, but I think we should know what they would do if they they did get a Mayor. The same goes for the Conservatives, assuming they put someone up for Mayor.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: I as born in west Watford and I wont accept a bunch of fk marrow growers stop jobs, 700 homes and a hospital campus and the local small businesses benefiting.. YOU HAVE BEEN OFFERED AN ALLOTMENT UP THE ROAD, ACCEPT IT.[/p][/quote]Vote Dotty, get ramage1996 and others like it. I don't think anyone has campaigned against Dotty as Mayor any harder than Dotty herself or her sycophants on this site. If you don't like what's going on, and I don't like what's going on, then Dotty must go. In May there is a mayoral election. I am standing as Mayor and I stand four-square with SJT on this issue. You have two votes. Make one of them Ukip or Labour if you want to stop this sort of thing happening in your town. The Tories and LibDems support this deceptive scheme, Ukip and Labour oppose it, and what's more Ukip have made pledges to stop this abuse. I hope the Labour party follow Ukip in pledging to reverse this abuse of power and save Farm Terrace allotments rather than just complain about it. I doubt Labour will get a Mayor, but I think we should know what they would do if they they did get a Mayor. The same goes for the Conservatives, assuming they put someone up for Mayor. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -5

8:45am Wed 5 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Mr Barrow wrote:
I'm all in favour of allotments but why should one group be able to stop this vital project? My wife has given birth to our 2 fantastic kids there in the last few years. It's obvious that the staff do a great job but we need bigger and better facilities. The allotment holders have been offered alternative sites, 70% of locals want this to go ahead and this investment will also bring in new affordable homes and jobs. Dorothy Thornhill should stick to her guns. She was elected to represent all of us, not just a very vocal minority!
What vital project?

Please be explicit.

Are you saying there will be a big shiny new hospital?
[quote][p][bold]Mr Barrow[/bold] wrote: I'm all in favour of allotments but why should one group be able to stop this vital project? My wife has given birth to our 2 fantastic kids there in the last few years. It's obvious that the staff do a great job but we need bigger and better facilities. The allotment holders have been offered alternative sites, 70% of locals want this to go ahead and this investment will also bring in new affordable homes and jobs. Dorothy Thornhill should stick to her guns. She was elected to represent all of us, not just a very vocal minority![/p][/quote]What vital project? Please be explicit. Are you saying there will be a big shiny new hospital? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -11

8:47am Wed 5 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Mr Barrow wrote:
I'm all in favour of allotments but why should one group be able to stop this vital project? My wife has given birth to our 2 fantastic kids there in the last few years. It's obvious that the staff do a great job but we need bigger and better facilities. The allotment holders have been offered alternative sites, 70% of locals want this to go ahead and this investment will also bring in new affordable homes and jobs. Dorothy Thornhill should stick to her guns. She was elected to represent all of us, not just a very vocal minority!
because
1) its the law
2) there is no vital project just a housing devolopment
3) if there were a vital project it could be completed without useing the allotment site.
4) its yet more over development ont flood plane
5) its more compact housing in an area that already has oversubscribed schools and doctors surgeries
See, you are capable of sensible posts. I hope you keep it up.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Barrow[/bold] wrote: I'm all in favour of allotments but why should one group be able to stop this vital project? My wife has given birth to our 2 fantastic kids there in the last few years. It's obvious that the staff do a great job but we need bigger and better facilities. The allotment holders have been offered alternative sites, 70% of locals want this to go ahead and this investment will also bring in new affordable homes and jobs. Dorothy Thornhill should stick to her guns. She was elected to represent all of us, not just a very vocal minority![/p][/quote]because 1) its the law 2) there is no vital project just a housing devolopment 3) if there were a vital project it could be completed without useing the allotment site. 4) its yet more over development ont flood plane 5) its more compact housing in an area that already has oversubscribed schools and doctors surgeries[/p][/quote]See, you are capable of sensible posts. I hope you keep it up. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 0

8:54am Wed 5 Mar 14

#UKMum says...

My understanding of a 'Health Campus' is one which has research laboratories as well as training facilities for medical staf and perhaps specialized medical service firmsf. Ms Thornhill fails to mention any of this in any public statement she makes. All we have heard about is more restaurants, supermarkets and more shops and 700 living units. What kind of a world is Dorothy building here? An extremely sedentary lifestyle in an overcrowded urban landscape? Yeah right that's so healthy isn't it.
My understanding of a 'Health Campus' is one which has research laboratories as well as training facilities for medical staf and perhaps specialized medical service firmsf. Ms Thornhill fails to mention any of this in any public statement she makes. All we have heard about is more restaurants, supermarkets and more shops and 700 living units. What kind of a world is Dorothy building here? An extremely sedentary lifestyle in an overcrowded urban landscape? Yeah right that's so healthy isn't it. #UKMum
  • Score: 3

10:21am Wed 5 Mar 14

garston tony says...

The rights and wrongs of the development aside, the Mayor is bad enough in the local press but someone had to give her a platform where she could be seen by people all over the south east. Well done. NOT!
The rights and wrongs of the development aside, the Mayor is bad enough in the local press but someone had to give her a platform where she could be seen by people all over the south east. Well done. NOT! garston tony
  • Score: 1

11:06am Wed 5 Mar 14

njm211270 says...

Where are the new schools, doctor surgeries, road access STOP BUILDING IN WATFORD PLEASE
Where are the new schools, doctor surgeries, road access STOP BUILDING IN WATFORD PLEASE njm211270
  • Score: 2

11:07am Wed 5 Mar 14

TRT says...

garston tony wrote:
The rights and wrongs of the development aside, the Mayor is bad enough in the local press but someone had to give her a platform where she could be seen by people all over the south east. Well done. NOT!
The BBC had to present a balanced report, and they were duty bound to invite a response from the interested parties. I thought it showed her as quite unintelligent and the spin she was coming out with was obviously carefully crafted to sound good without much content.
The only positive commitment she showed was in the bit where she said they were pushing ahead with the building regardless, which was crafted to sound like it was regardless of the legal challenge (which is in itself incredibly ill advised and could be dreadfully expensive), but in fact what she said was that they are going to push ahead regardless of the fact that the hospital trust haven't made any decisions about what health services they will retain at Watford. If you listen to the Sam Jones bit, you'll actually hear that things aren't looking good for the future of health provision at the hospital even given the development.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: The rights and wrongs of the development aside, the Mayor is bad enough in the local press but someone had to give her a platform where she could be seen by people all over the south east. Well done. NOT![/p][/quote]The BBC had to present a balanced report, and they were duty bound to invite a response from the interested parties. I thought it showed her as quite unintelligent and the spin she was coming out with was obviously carefully crafted to sound good without much content. The only positive commitment she showed was in the bit where she said they were pushing ahead with the building regardless, which was crafted to sound like it was regardless of the legal challenge (which is in itself incredibly ill advised and could be dreadfully expensive), but in fact what she said was that they are going to push ahead regardless of the fact that the hospital trust haven't made any decisions about what health services they will retain at Watford. If you listen to the Sam Jones bit, you'll actually hear that things aren't looking good for the future of health provision at the hospital even given the development. TRT
  • Score: 6

11:09am Wed 5 Mar 14

TRT says...

njm211270 wrote:
Where are the new schools, doctor surgeries, road access STOP BUILDING IN WATFORD PLEASE
Well, to be fair, these new homes are going to be pretty close to a hospital... And they are building an access road... across a rugby field / flood plain.
[quote][p][bold]njm211270[/bold] wrote: Where are the new schools, doctor surgeries, road access STOP BUILDING IN WATFORD PLEASE[/p][/quote]Well, to be fair, these new homes are going to be pretty close to a hospital... And they are building an access road... across a rugby field / flood plain. TRT
  • Score: 3

11:23am Wed 5 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

njm211270 wrote:
Where are the new schools, doctor surgeries, road access STOP BUILDING IN WATFORD PLEASE
nimby
[quote][p][bold]njm211270[/bold] wrote: Where are the new schools, doctor surgeries, road access STOP BUILDING IN WATFORD PLEASE[/p][/quote]nimby ramage1996
  • Score: -2

11:56am Wed 5 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ramage1996 wrote:
njm211270 wrote:
Where are the new schools, doctor surgeries, road access STOP BUILDING IN WATFORD PLEASE
nimby
The only other person I have heard use this insult over the "Health Campus" is Peter Jeffree, the Park LibDem councillor.

It was a pathetic comment then and it is a pathetic comment now.

"Where intelligent discourse has failed, use insults".
----- It's so LibDem.
----- It's so failed politician.

It's time we threw this political arrogance out of Watford.

It's time we threw the LibDems out of Watford.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]njm211270[/bold] wrote: Where are the new schools, doctor surgeries, road access STOP BUILDING IN WATFORD PLEASE[/p][/quote]nimby[/p][/quote]The only other person I have heard use this insult over the "Health Campus" is Peter Jeffree, the Park LibDem councillor. It was a pathetic comment then and it is a pathetic comment now. "Where intelligent discourse has failed, use insults". ----- It's so LibDem. ----- It's so failed politician. It's time we threw this political arrogance out of Watford. It's time we threw the LibDems out of Watford. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -4

12:16pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
njm211270 wrote:
Where are the new schools, doctor surgeries, road access STOP BUILDING IN WATFORD PLEASE
nimby
The only other person I have heard use this insult over the "Health Campus" is Peter Jeffree, the Park LibDem councillor.

It was a pathetic comment then and it is a pathetic comment now.

"Where intelligent discourse has failed, use insults".
----- It's so LibDem.
----- It's so failed politician.

It's time we threw this political arrogance out of Watford.

It's time we threw the LibDems out of Watford.
We don't want racist homophobic scum in Watford Mr Cox..

http://www.mirror.co
.uk/news/uk-news/ugl
y-face-ukip-sunday-m
irror-1531879
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]njm211270[/bold] wrote: Where are the new schools, doctor surgeries, road access STOP BUILDING IN WATFORD PLEASE[/p][/quote]nimby[/p][/quote]The only other person I have heard use this insult over the "Health Campus" is Peter Jeffree, the Park LibDem councillor. It was a pathetic comment then and it is a pathetic comment now. "Where intelligent discourse has failed, use insults". ----- It's so LibDem. ----- It's so failed politician. It's time we threw this political arrogance out of Watford. It's time we threw the LibDems out of Watford.[/p][/quote]We don't want racist homophobic scum in Watford Mr Cox.. http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/ugl y-face-ukip-sunday-m irror-1531879 ramage1996
  • Score: 4

12:23pm Wed 5 Mar 14

TRT says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
njm211270 wrote:
Where are the new schools, doctor surgeries, road access STOP BUILDING IN WATFORD PLEASE
nimby
The only other person I have heard use this insult over the "Health Campus" is Peter Jeffree, the Park LibDem councillor.

It was a pathetic comment then and it is a pathetic comment now.

"Where intelligent discourse has failed, use insults".
----- It's so LibDem.
----- It's so failed politician.

It's time we threw this political arrogance out of Watford.

It's time we threw the LibDems out of Watford.
We don't want racist homophobic scum in Watford Mr Cox..

http://www.mirror.co

.uk/news/uk-news/ugl

y-face-ukip-sunday-m

irror-1531879
This is a democracy... shall we vote on that?
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]njm211270[/bold] wrote: Where are the new schools, doctor surgeries, road access STOP BUILDING IN WATFORD PLEASE[/p][/quote]nimby[/p][/quote]The only other person I have heard use this insult over the "Health Campus" is Peter Jeffree, the Park LibDem councillor. It was a pathetic comment then and it is a pathetic comment now. "Where intelligent discourse has failed, use insults". ----- It's so LibDem. ----- It's so failed politician. It's time we threw this political arrogance out of Watford. It's time we threw the LibDems out of Watford.[/p][/quote]We don't want racist homophobic scum in Watford Mr Cox.. http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/ugl y-face-ukip-sunday-m irror-1531879[/p][/quote]This is a democracy... shall we vote on that? TRT
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

TRT wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
njm211270 wrote:
Where are the new schools, doctor surgeries, road access STOP BUILDING IN WATFORD PLEASE
nimby
The only other person I have heard use this insult over the "Health Campus" is Peter Jeffree, the Park LibDem councillor.

It was a pathetic comment then and it is a pathetic comment now.

"Where intelligent discourse has failed, use insults".
----- It's so LibDem.
----- It's so failed politician.

It's time we threw this political arrogance out of Watford.

It's time we threw the LibDems out of Watford.
We don't want racist homophobic scum in Watford Mr Cox..

http://www.mirror.co


.uk/news/uk-news/ugl


y-face-ukip-sunday-m


irror-1531879
This is a democracy... shall we vote on that?
If you want to vote for a racist homophobic party then that's up to you.

Maybe if this party gets in the ethnic minorities in west Watford where these allotments are will be encouraged to go back to 'bongo bongo land'?
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]njm211270[/bold] wrote: Where are the new schools, doctor surgeries, road access STOP BUILDING IN WATFORD PLEASE[/p][/quote]nimby[/p][/quote]The only other person I have heard use this insult over the "Health Campus" is Peter Jeffree, the Park LibDem councillor. It was a pathetic comment then and it is a pathetic comment now. "Where intelligent discourse has failed, use insults". ----- It's so LibDem. ----- It's so failed politician. It's time we threw this political arrogance out of Watford. It's time we threw the LibDems out of Watford.[/p][/quote]We don't want racist homophobic scum in Watford Mr Cox.. http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/ugl y-face-ukip-sunday-m irror-1531879[/p][/quote]This is a democracy... shall we vote on that?[/p][/quote]If you want to vote for a racist homophobic party then that's up to you. Maybe if this party gets in the ethnic minorities in west Watford where these allotments are will be encouraged to go back to 'bongo bongo land'? ramage1996
  • Score: 2

12:32pm Wed 5 Mar 14

rew001 says...

I saw the programme and thought it was largely nonsense with a desparate presenter saying things like this changing government policy. Why would it? A very long established law has been followed, it's obvious a government department made a bit of a ****-up over a technicality but that has been corrected and the allotment holders have lost. If they had any commonsense they would accept the new plots they are being offered and let the council get on with redeveloping the complete eyesore which that part of the town is.
I regard the ability to provide new hospital facilities as being far more important than allotment holders who are being offered new plots. There is more than enough allotment land in Watford.
I saw the programme and thought it was largely nonsense with a desparate presenter saying things like this changing government policy. Why would it? A very long established law has been followed, it's obvious a government department made a bit of a ****-up over a technicality but that has been corrected and the allotment holders have lost. If they had any commonsense they would accept the new plots they are being offered and let the council get on with redeveloping the complete eyesore which that part of the town is. I regard the ability to provide new hospital facilities as being far more important than allotment holders who are being offered new plots. There is more than enough allotment land in Watford. rew001
  • Score: -6

12:38pm Wed 5 Mar 14

BCB69 says...

ramage1996 wrote:
BCB69 wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
BCB69 wrote:
These so called nimby people have been there a lot longer than ramage1996 I would think, and if you looked at the first proposals it was for the hospital campus to have most of the land, and it now looks as if the new hospital campus will ever happen, have a look now and it is nearly all housing, where are the schools for them not to mention the congestion Etc., and last but not least Dotty you have mislead us once again, but we have found you out once again.
They may have been but think of the jobs and the homes and the health campus rather than you and your mates having the right to sit in your allotment shed.
but its all spin, there is no new hospital, the scheme is viable without the allotments and if they want to build more houses they could do it at the alternative allotment site, therefore no impact on jobs.
It is just like the transfer of wicks HQ no new jobs just shuffled about from Harrow and Northampton
I do not happen to have an allotment or a shed, and the so called mates are human beings who grow their own veg Etc. and feed their families and friends along with being out in the open, we are loosing more and more of our recreational spaces and as said there will be no jobs and the houses could be built on the alternative allotment site and as I said don't pin your hopes on a new hospital, its all about money and what the land is worth, money before people I think not.
I dont give a fk that your mates grow veg, Watford is the only A&E in the area and is in need of the health campus also, Hemel hospital has been mothballed its a ghost town as has other hospitals in the area so Watford is a hub for those in this part of Herts.

You veg growers need only move 1.5 miles up the road, ffs get over it.
Please get it into your brain, these people are not my mates they are someone's Father- Mother- Grandfather and the alternative allotment site is 2 + miles away, also whatever the outcome of this debate is, if you think you will see a new Watford General hospital built on this site, keep on dreaming.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCB69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCB69[/bold] wrote: These so called nimby people have been there a lot longer than ramage1996 I would think, and if you looked at the first proposals it was for the hospital campus to have most of the land, and it now looks as if the new hospital campus will ever happen, have a look now and it is nearly all housing, where are the schools for them not to mention the congestion Etc., and last but not least Dotty you have mislead us once again, but we have found you out once again.[/p][/quote]They may have been but think of the jobs and the homes and the health campus rather than you and your mates having the right to sit in your allotment shed.[/p][/quote]but its all spin, there is no new hospital, the scheme is viable without the allotments and if they want to build more houses they could do it at the alternative allotment site, therefore no impact on jobs. It is just like the transfer of wicks HQ no new jobs just shuffled about from Harrow and Northampton[/p][/quote]I do not happen to have an allotment or a shed, and the so called mates are human beings who grow their own veg Etc. and feed their families and friends along with being out in the open, we are loosing more and more of our recreational spaces and as said there will be no jobs and the houses could be built on the alternative allotment site and as I said don't pin your hopes on a new hospital, its all about money and what the land is worth, money before people I think not.[/p][/quote]I dont give a fk that your mates grow veg, Watford is the only A&E in the area and is in need of the health campus also, Hemel hospital has been mothballed its a ghost town as has other hospitals in the area so Watford is a hub for those in this part of Herts. You veg growers need only move 1.5 miles up the road, ffs get over it.[/p][/quote]Please get it into your brain, these people are not my mates they are someone's Father- Mother- Grandfather and the alternative allotment site is 2 + miles away, also whatever the outcome of this debate is, if you think you will see a new Watford General hospital built on this site, keep on dreaming. BCB69
  • Score: -2

12:39pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Do not vote for Mr Cox.

http://www.theguardi
an.com/politics/2013
/apr/25/some-ukip-ca
ndidates-possible-bn
p-members
Do not vote for Mr Cox. http://www.theguardi an.com/politics/2013 /apr/25/some-ukip-ca ndidates-possible-bn p-members ramage1996
  • Score: -3

12:39pm Wed 5 Mar 14

TRT says...

"If you want to vote for a racist homophobic party then that's up to you."

I didn't say who I would be voting for; I just got incensed by your speaking for the whole of Watford without a democratic mandate to do so. But then I couldn't have expected much more from you based on your previous abrasive comments in these hallowed columns.
"If you want to vote for a racist homophobic party then that's up to you." I didn't say who I would be voting for; I just got incensed by your speaking for the whole of Watford without a democratic mandate to do so. But then I couldn't have expected much more from you based on your previous abrasive comments in these hallowed columns. TRT
  • Score: 1

12:41pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

BCB69 wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
BCB69 wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
BCB69 wrote:
These so called nimby people have been there a lot longer than ramage1996 I would think, and if you looked at the first proposals it was for the hospital campus to have most of the land, and it now looks as if the new hospital campus will ever happen, have a look now and it is nearly all housing, where are the schools for them not to mention the congestion Etc., and last but not least Dotty you have mislead us once again, but we have found you out once again.
They may have been but think of the jobs and the homes and the health campus rather than you and your mates having the right to sit in your allotment shed.
but its all spin, there is no new hospital, the scheme is viable without the allotments and if they want to build more houses they could do it at the alternative allotment site, therefore no impact on jobs.
It is just like the transfer of wicks HQ no new jobs just shuffled about from Harrow and Northampton
I do not happen to have an allotment or a shed, and the so called mates are human beings who grow their own veg Etc. and feed their families and friends along with being out in the open, we are loosing more and more of our recreational spaces and as said there will be no jobs and the houses could be built on the alternative allotment site and as I said don't pin your hopes on a new hospital, its all about money and what the land is worth, money before people I think not.
I dont give a fk that your mates grow veg, Watford is the only A&E in the area and is in need of the health campus also, Hemel hospital has been mothballed its a ghost town as has other hospitals in the area so Watford is a hub for those in this part of Herts.

You veg growers need only move 1.5 miles up the road, ffs get over it.
Please get it into your brain, these people are not my mates they are someone's Father- Mother- Grandfather and the alternative allotment site is 2 + miles away, also whatever the outcome of this debate is, if you think you will see a new Watford General hospital built on this site, keep on dreaming.
" these people are not my mates they are someone's Father- Mother- Grandfather"

Im more concerned about my Father - Mother - Grandfather having a new hospital to go too.
[quote][p][bold]BCB69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCB69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCB69[/bold] wrote: These so called nimby people have been there a lot longer than ramage1996 I would think, and if you looked at the first proposals it was for the hospital campus to have most of the land, and it now looks as if the new hospital campus will ever happen, have a look now and it is nearly all housing, where are the schools for them not to mention the congestion Etc., and last but not least Dotty you have mislead us once again, but we have found you out once again.[/p][/quote]They may have been but think of the jobs and the homes and the health campus rather than you and your mates having the right to sit in your allotment shed.[/p][/quote]but its all spin, there is no new hospital, the scheme is viable without the allotments and if they want to build more houses they could do it at the alternative allotment site, therefore no impact on jobs. It is just like the transfer of wicks HQ no new jobs just shuffled about from Harrow and Northampton[/p][/quote]I do not happen to have an allotment or a shed, and the so called mates are human beings who grow their own veg Etc. and feed their families and friends along with being out in the open, we are loosing more and more of our recreational spaces and as said there will be no jobs and the houses could be built on the alternative allotment site and as I said don't pin your hopes on a new hospital, its all about money and what the land is worth, money before people I think not.[/p][/quote]I dont give a fk that your mates grow veg, Watford is the only A&E in the area and is in need of the health campus also, Hemel hospital has been mothballed its a ghost town as has other hospitals in the area so Watford is a hub for those in this part of Herts. You veg growers need only move 1.5 miles up the road, ffs get over it.[/p][/quote]Please get it into your brain, these people are not my mates they are someone's Father- Mother- Grandfather and the alternative allotment site is 2 + miles away, also whatever the outcome of this debate is, if you think you will see a new Watford General hospital built on this site, keep on dreaming.[/p][/quote]" these people are not my mates they are someone's Father- Mother- Grandfather" Im more concerned about my Father - Mother - Grandfather having a new hospital to go too. ramage1996
  • Score: 5

1:22pm Wed 5 Mar 14

BCB69 says...

ramage1996 wrote:
BCB69 wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
BCB69 wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
BCB69 wrote:
These so called nimby people have been there a lot longer than ramage1996 I would think, and if you looked at the first proposals it was for the hospital campus to have most of the land, and it now looks as if the new hospital campus will ever happen, have a look now and it is nearly all housing, where are the schools for them not to mention the congestion Etc., and last but not least Dotty you have mislead us once again, but we have found you out once again.
They may have been but think of the jobs and the homes and the health campus rather than you and your mates having the right to sit in your allotment shed.
but its all spin, there is no new hospital, the scheme is viable without the allotments and if they want to build more houses they could do it at the alternative allotment site, therefore no impact on jobs.
It is just like the transfer of wicks HQ no new jobs just shuffled about from Harrow and Northampton
I do not happen to have an allotment or a shed, and the so called mates are human beings who grow their own veg Etc. and feed their families and friends along with being out in the open, we are loosing more and more of our recreational spaces and as said there will be no jobs and the houses could be built on the alternative allotment site and as I said don't pin your hopes on a new hospital, its all about money and what the land is worth, money before people I think not.
I dont give a fk that your mates grow veg, Watford is the only A&E in the area and is in need of the health campus also, Hemel hospital has been mothballed its a ghost town as has other hospitals in the area so Watford is a hub for those in this part of Herts.

You veg growers need only move 1.5 miles up the road, ffs get over it.
Please get it into your brain, these people are not my mates they are someone's Father- Mother- Grandfather and the alternative allotment site is 2 + miles away, also whatever the outcome of this debate is, if you think you will see a new Watford General hospital built on this site, keep on dreaming.
" these people are not my mates they are someone's Father- Mother- Grandfather"

Im more concerned about my Father - Mother - Grandfather having a new hospital to go too.
They will have one but not in Watford.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCB69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCB69[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCB69[/bold] wrote: These so called nimby people have been there a lot longer than ramage1996 I would think, and if you looked at the first proposals it was for the hospital campus to have most of the land, and it now looks as if the new hospital campus will ever happen, have a look now and it is nearly all housing, where are the schools for them not to mention the congestion Etc., and last but not least Dotty you have mislead us once again, but we have found you out once again.[/p][/quote]They may have been but think of the jobs and the homes and the health campus rather than you and your mates having the right to sit in your allotment shed.[/p][/quote]but its all spin, there is no new hospital, the scheme is viable without the allotments and if they want to build more houses they could do it at the alternative allotment site, therefore no impact on jobs. It is just like the transfer of wicks HQ no new jobs just shuffled about from Harrow and Northampton[/p][/quote]I do not happen to have an allotment or a shed, and the so called mates are human beings who grow their own veg Etc. and feed their families and friends along with being out in the open, we are loosing more and more of our recreational spaces and as said there will be no jobs and the houses could be built on the alternative allotment site and as I said don't pin your hopes on a new hospital, its all about money and what the land is worth, money before people I think not.[/p][/quote]I dont give a fk that your mates grow veg, Watford is the only A&E in the area and is in need of the health campus also, Hemel hospital has been mothballed its a ghost town as has other hospitals in the area so Watford is a hub for those in this part of Herts. You veg growers need only move 1.5 miles up the road, ffs get over it.[/p][/quote]Please get it into your brain, these people are not my mates they are someone's Father- Mother- Grandfather and the alternative allotment site is 2 + miles away, also whatever the outcome of this debate is, if you think you will see a new Watford General hospital built on this site, keep on dreaming.[/p][/quote]" these people are not my mates they are someone's Father- Mother- Grandfather" Im more concerned about my Father - Mother - Grandfather having a new hospital to go too.[/p][/quote]They will have one but not in Watford. BCB69
  • Score: -6

1:34pm Wed 5 Mar 14

TRT says...

To get back to the matter in hand... the extra housing was included to make the project financially viable and reduce the risk exposure of other partners e.g. Kier. In other words extra houses = extra money = extra for the hospital.
BUT the hospital don't know what they want to do with that money. They don't know how much it will be, they don't know how much they will have to find to contribute. There are too many don't knows in this plan.
The original plan was for a new hospital, in its entirety. The location of the existing hospital was to become town housing. Now we are seeing possible space for possible new clinics, departments or services. There's not enough space in these plans for a new hospital to be built before the old buildings close. We're seeing diminishing returns for increasing costs.
To get back to the matter in hand... the extra housing was included to make the project financially viable and reduce the risk exposure of other partners e.g. Kier. In other words extra houses = extra money = extra for the hospital. BUT the hospital don't know what they want to do with that money. They don't know how much it will be, they don't know how much they will have to find to contribute. There are too many don't knows in this plan. The original plan was for a new hospital, in its entirety. The location of the existing hospital was to become town housing. Now we are seeing possible space for possible new clinics, departments or services. There's not enough space in these plans for a new hospital to be built before the old buildings close. We're seeing diminishing returns for increasing costs. TRT
  • Score: 5

2:48pm Wed 5 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
njm211270 wrote:
Where are the new schools, doctor surgeries, road access STOP BUILDING IN WATFORD PLEASE
nimby
The only other person I have heard use this insult over the "Health Campus" is Peter Jeffree, the Park LibDem councillor.

It was a pathetic comment then and it is a pathetic comment now.

"Where intelligent discourse has failed, use insults".
----- It's so LibDem.
----- It's so failed politician.

It's time we threw this political arrogance out of Watford.

It's time we threw the LibDems out of Watford.
Stuff of nonsense parlour game is back

ramage 1996 is wrong on the Colne flood plain housing estate IMHO, does it matter if he/she is a Libdem cllr or not, not really its a silly game and not needed.

looking at the maths thou voting UKIP will not dent the Libdem in Watford, The only party that is getting close is Labour, locally however the Libdems will be pleased if come 2015b they are still in power as they will be then hoping to benefit from an anti Lab vote when Lab get back in.
Sad really but thats about it
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]njm211270[/bold] wrote: Where are the new schools, doctor surgeries, road access STOP BUILDING IN WATFORD PLEASE[/p][/quote]nimby[/p][/quote]The only other person I have heard use this insult over the "Health Campus" is Peter Jeffree, the Park LibDem councillor. It was a pathetic comment then and it is a pathetic comment now. "Where intelligent discourse has failed, use insults". ----- It's so LibDem. ----- It's so failed politician. It's time we threw this political arrogance out of Watford. It's time we threw the LibDems out of Watford.[/p][/quote]Stuff of nonsense parlour game is back ramage 1996 is wrong on the Colne flood plain housing estate IMHO, does it matter if he/she is a Libdem cllr or not, not really its a silly game and not needed. looking at the maths thou voting UKIP will not dent the Libdem in Watford, The only party that is getting close is Labour, locally however the Libdems will be pleased if come 2015b they are still in power as they will be then hoping to benefit from an anti Lab vote when Lab get back in. Sad really but thats about it dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

3:15pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

DKYN

I think you are forgetting that Ukip polls across the party spectrum and even from non-voters, so Ukip is certainly a serious threat to the LibDems here in Watford, in every ward.

Sadly for Labour, Labour is not strong enough across Watford to really be in with a shout of winning the Mayor.

That's why a vote for Ukip, even if it is a secondary vote in the Mayoral election, is important.

For Labour supporters, if Jagtar does not get elected for Labour, it is a choice of a Ukip Mayor or a LibDem Mayor.

I and Ukip would treat Labour fairly, as we would all the other parties. We would look at issues and proposals based on their merits, not where they come from.

Do you get that treatment from the LibDems?

Really, this is something you need to consider if you want positive change in Watford. Conservatives need to consider this as well, as do the LibDems.
DKYN I think you are forgetting that Ukip polls across the party spectrum and even from non-voters, so Ukip is certainly a serious threat to the LibDems here in Watford, in every ward. Sadly for Labour, Labour is not strong enough across Watford to really be in with a shout of winning the Mayor. That's why a vote for Ukip, even if it is a secondary vote in the Mayoral election, is important. For Labour supporters, if Jagtar does not get elected for Labour, it is a choice of a Ukip Mayor or a LibDem Mayor. I and Ukip would treat Labour fairly, as we would all the other parties. We would look at issues and proposals based on their merits, not where they come from. Do you get that treatment from the LibDems? Really, this is something you need to consider if you want positive change in Watford. Conservatives need to consider this as well, as do the LibDems. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -5

3:38pm Wed 5 Mar 14

TRT says...

If there's no clear overall majority, do we get a hung mayor?
If there's no clear overall majority, do we get a hung mayor? TRT
  • Score: -2

4:08pm Wed 5 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

TRT wrote:
If there's no clear overall majority, do we get a hung mayor?
something like that.
Clearly it is the cllrs that get to vote on stuff, and an elected mayor really cannot do anything without a majority or at least a sizable minority and support of minor parties. the target is 16 seats and the Mayoral casting vote.

This is however an aside to the issue of Colne flood plain housing estate, whose fate will be decided at Judicial review.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: If there's no clear overall majority, do we get a hung mayor?[/p][/quote]something like that. Clearly it is the cllrs that get to vote on stuff, and an elected mayor really cannot do anything without a majority or at least a sizable minority and support of minor parties. the target is 16 seats and the Mayoral casting vote. This is however an aside to the issue of Colne flood plain housing estate, whose fate will be decided at Judicial review. dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Wacko Jacko says...

sjtrebar wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
"A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it.
Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case."


WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed.

How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.
Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.
And this is from the vindictive tweeter who's been trolling the Mayor in a deeply offensive way for the past couple of years, as well as misrepresenting the facts.What hypocrisy.
[quote][p][bold]sjtrebar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: "A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it. Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case." WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed. How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.[/p][/quote]Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.[/p][/quote]And this is from the vindictive tweeter who's been trolling the Mayor in a deeply offensive way for the past couple of years, as well as misrepresenting the facts.What hypocrisy. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: 1

5:38pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
DKYN

I think you are forgetting that Ukip polls across the party spectrum and even from non-voters, so Ukip is certainly a serious threat to the LibDems here in Watford, in every ward.

Sadly for Labour, Labour is not strong enough across Watford to really be in with a shout of winning the Mayor.

That's why a vote for Ukip, even if it is a secondary vote in the Mayoral election, is important.

For Labour supporters, if Jagtar does not get elected for Labour, it is a choice of a Ukip Mayor or a LibDem Mayor.

I and Ukip would treat Labour fairly, as we would all the other parties. We would look at issues and proposals based on their merits, not where they come from.

Do you get that treatment from the LibDems?

Really, this is something you need to consider if you want positive change in Watford. Conservatives need to consider this as well, as do the LibDems.
Anti ethnic minorities
Anti gay
Anti women
Anti health campus

If thats what you want to vote for vote Ukip.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: DKYN I think you are forgetting that Ukip polls across the party spectrum and even from non-voters, so Ukip is certainly a serious threat to the LibDems here in Watford, in every ward. Sadly for Labour, Labour is not strong enough across Watford to really be in with a shout of winning the Mayor. That's why a vote for Ukip, even if it is a secondary vote in the Mayoral election, is important. For Labour supporters, if Jagtar does not get elected for Labour, it is a choice of a Ukip Mayor or a LibDem Mayor. I and Ukip would treat Labour fairly, as we would all the other parties. We would look at issues and proposals based on their merits, not where they come from. Do you get that treatment from the LibDems? Really, this is something you need to consider if you want positive change in Watford. Conservatives need to consider this as well, as do the LibDems.[/p][/quote]Anti ethnic minorities Anti gay Anti women Anti health campus If thats what you want to vote for vote Ukip. ramage1996
  • Score: 2

5:42pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Wacko Jacko says...

rew001 wrote:
I saw the programme and thought it was largely nonsense with a desparate presenter saying things like this changing government policy. Why would it? A very long established law has been followed, it's obvious a government department made a bit of a ****-up over a technicality but that has been corrected and the allotment holders have lost. If they had any commonsense they would accept the new plots they are being offered and let the council get on with redeveloping the complete eyesore which that part of the town is.
I regard the ability to provide new hospital facilities as being far more important than allotment holders who are being offered new plots. There is more than enough allotment land in Watford.
I agree, but you know what it's like with allotment holders, they just love digging. Sadly for them they're just digging themselves further into a hole on this issue.
[quote][p][bold]rew001[/bold] wrote: I saw the programme and thought it was largely nonsense with a desparate presenter saying things like this changing government policy. Why would it? A very long established law has been followed, it's obvious a government department made a bit of a ****-up over a technicality but that has been corrected and the allotment holders have lost. If they had any commonsense they would accept the new plots they are being offered and let the council get on with redeveloping the complete eyesore which that part of the town is. I regard the ability to provide new hospital facilities as being far more important than allotment holders who are being offered new plots. There is more than enough allotment land in Watford.[/p][/quote]I agree, but you know what it's like with allotment holders, they just love digging. Sadly for them they're just digging themselves further into a hole on this issue. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: 0

5:57pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

All that money wasted, 26k in total wasted, just because they dont want to move 1.5 miles up the road for a new hospital benefiting the whole community.

Very selfish people on these farm allotments, and very sad you have wasted 26 grand which you could have given your children.
All that money wasted, 26k in total wasted, just because they dont want to move 1.5 miles up the road for a new hospital benefiting the whole community. Very selfish people on these farm allotments, and very sad you have wasted 26 grand which you could have given your children. ramage1996
  • Score: -3

6:52pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
DKYN

I think you are forgetting that Ukip polls across the party spectrum and even from non-voters, so Ukip is certainly a serious threat to the LibDems here in Watford, in every ward.

Sadly for Labour, Labour is not strong enough across Watford to really be in with a shout of winning the Mayor.

That's why a vote for Ukip, even if it is a secondary vote in the Mayoral election, is important.

For Labour supporters, if Jagtar does not get elected for Labour, it is a choice of a Ukip Mayor or a LibDem Mayor.

I and Ukip would treat Labour fairly, as we would all the other parties. We would look at issues and proposals based on their merits, not where they come from.

Do you get that treatment from the LibDems?

Really, this is something you need to consider if you want positive change in Watford. Conservatives need to consider this as well, as do the LibDems.
Anti ethnic minorities
Anti gay
Anti women
Anti health campus

If thats what you want to vote for vote Ukip.
We have ethnic minorities, women and gay people in our party. We don't go around shouting it from the rooftops because we are inclusive and our people get recognised on merit, not anything else. It's just not that big a deal for us, anyone can join provided they have not been a member of any extremist party in the past.

So, just what is your problem? Why the constant lies and aggression? Have you thought of seeing someone about anger management?

As for the Health Campus, Ukip is all for health facilities, but we do draw the line at pretending there will be a new hospital just to get past objections to a huge housing estate that will even swallow up allotments that are supposed to be protected by law.

Ukip, decent people trying to do a good job. Clearly your lot have got a lot to learn, but then your party does have the reputation of playing dirty and I am sure you have learnt this from the best your party has to offer.

Ukip, an altogether better way of doing things, without the lies and aggression other parties rely upon.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: DKYN I think you are forgetting that Ukip polls across the party spectrum and even from non-voters, so Ukip is certainly a serious threat to the LibDems here in Watford, in every ward. Sadly for Labour, Labour is not strong enough across Watford to really be in with a shout of winning the Mayor. That's why a vote for Ukip, even if it is a secondary vote in the Mayoral election, is important. For Labour supporters, if Jagtar does not get elected for Labour, it is a choice of a Ukip Mayor or a LibDem Mayor. I and Ukip would treat Labour fairly, as we would all the other parties. We would look at issues and proposals based on their merits, not where they come from. Do you get that treatment from the LibDems? Really, this is something you need to consider if you want positive change in Watford. Conservatives need to consider this as well, as do the LibDems.[/p][/quote]Anti ethnic minorities Anti gay Anti women Anti health campus If thats what you want to vote for vote Ukip.[/p][/quote]We have ethnic minorities, women and gay people in our party. We don't go around shouting it from the rooftops because we are inclusive and our people get recognised on merit, not anything else. It's just not that big a deal for us, anyone can join provided they have not been a member of any extremist party in the past. So, just what is your problem? Why the constant lies and aggression? Have you thought of seeing someone about anger management? As for the Health Campus, Ukip is all for health facilities, but we do draw the line at pretending there will be a new hospital just to get past objections to a huge housing estate that will even swallow up allotments that are supposed to be protected by law. Ukip, decent people trying to do a good job. Clearly your lot have got a lot to learn, but then your party does have the reputation of playing dirty and I am sure you have learnt this from the best your party has to offer. Ukip, an altogether better way of doing things, without the lies and aggression other parties rely upon. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -6

7:06pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Racist..

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2520012/Send-home-In
-shocking-video-UKIP
-councillor-key-Fara
ge-ally-launches-ast
onishing-racist-rant
--tells-MoS-I-stand-
word.html

http://www.mirror.co
.uk/news/uk-news/ugl
y-face-ukip-sunday-m
irror-1531879
....................
....................
...
Anti gay..

http://www.theguardi
an.com/society/2014/
jan/19/ukip-councill
or-gay-people-spirit
ual-disease-pray-hea
led-david-silvester

http://www.politics.
co.uk/news/2014/01/2
8/ukip-donor-takes-o
ut-bizarre-anti-gay-
advert
....................
....................
..

Anti women..

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/women/womens-
politics/10231661/Uk
ips-Godfrey-Bloom-Wh
y-on-earth-would-a-w
oman-ever-vote-for-U
kip-the-ultimate-old
-boys-club.html

http://blogs.spectat
or.co.uk/coffeehouse
/2013/04/godfrey-blo
om-women-in-the-work
place-and-the-ukip-v
ote/
....................
....................
.............

Fascist..

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2429047/UKIP-bunch-m
orons-fascists-says-
man-FOUNDED-anti-EU-
party-20-years-ago.h
tml

http://blogs.telegra
ph.co.uk/news/danhod
ges/100261889/ukip-a
re-now-a-racist-part
y/




We don't want your type in Watford Mr Cox.
Racist.. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2520012/Send-home-In -shocking-video-UKIP -councillor-key-Fara ge-ally-launches-ast onishing-racist-rant --tells-MoS-I-stand- word.html http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/ugl y-face-ukip-sunday-m irror-1531879 .................... .................... ... Anti gay.. http://www.theguardi an.com/society/2014/ jan/19/ukip-councill or-gay-people-spirit ual-disease-pray-hea led-david-silvester http://www.politics. co.uk/news/2014/01/2 8/ukip-donor-takes-o ut-bizarre-anti-gay- advert .................... .................... .. Anti women.. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/women/womens- politics/10231661/Uk ips-Godfrey-Bloom-Wh y-on-earth-would-a-w oman-ever-vote-for-U kip-the-ultimate-old -boys-club.html http://blogs.spectat or.co.uk/coffeehouse /2013/04/godfrey-blo om-women-in-the-work place-and-the-ukip-v ote/ .................... .................... ............. Fascist.. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2429047/UKIP-bunch-m orons-fascists-says- man-FOUNDED-anti-EU- party-20-years-ago.h tml http://blogs.telegra ph.co.uk/news/danhod ges/100261889/ukip-a re-now-a-racist-part y/ We don't want your type in Watford Mr Cox. ramage1996
  • Score: 4

7:35pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Lucy60 says...

Watford needs new sites for schools - there is a brownfield site in this development area that could have been used for education. The green area and allotments could have been left so that the mayor could have achieved her desired 'legacy' to make Watford 'green'!! and then she would not be tied up in the deal with the developer - who will always be the winner when dealing with local councils - and relying on consultants for the spin. The Council are the custodians of our land not the owners. So much for democracy -listen to the spin - 'Health' does not equal 'hospital' - 're provisioning' does not mean 'rebuilding' 'and 'things could change' is another way of saying there are no plans.
Development plans growing from 300 to 700 (and growing?) dwellings is greed not a service to residents (didn't see the parking plans for this)
And why having your husband as the portfolio holder for such projects does not constitute a conflict of interests is beyond me!
Watford needs new sites for schools - there is a brownfield site in this development area that could have been used for education. The green area and allotments could have been left so that the mayor could have achieved her desired 'legacy' to make Watford 'green'!! and then she would not be tied up in the deal with the developer - who will always be the winner when dealing with local councils - and relying on consultants for the spin. The Council are the custodians of our land not the owners. So much for democracy -listen to the spin - 'Health' does not equal 'hospital' - 're provisioning' does not mean 'rebuilding' 'and 'things could change' is another way of saying there are no plans. Development plans growing from 300 to 700 (and growing?) dwellings is greed not a service to residents (didn't see the parking plans for this) And why having your husband as the portfolio holder for such projects does not constitute a conflict of interests is beyond me! Lucy60
  • Score: 6

7:58pm Wed 5 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
sjtrebar wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
"A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it.
Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case."


WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed.

How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.
Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.
And this is from the vindictive tweeter who's been trolling the Mayor in a deeply offensive way for the past couple of years, as well as misrepresenting the facts.What hypocrisy.
My understanding is that being vindictive generally is not a good ploy when fundraising and that Sara Jane has been rather good at the fundraising lark. Might I suggest that probably the Mayor is no shrinking violet and.not averse to stepping on toes, in fact thas how come she got into this mess in the first place.
As for the 70% might need a spade full of salt, 70% of what when asked what question?
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sjtrebar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: "A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it. Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case." WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed. How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.[/p][/quote]Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.[/p][/quote]And this is from the vindictive tweeter who's been trolling the Mayor in a deeply offensive way for the past couple of years, as well as misrepresenting the facts.What hypocrisy.[/p][/quote]My understanding is that being vindictive generally is not a good ploy when fundraising and that Sara Jane has been rather good at the fundraising lark. Might I suggest that probably the Mayor is no shrinking violet and.not averse to stepping on toes, in fact thas how come she got into this mess in the first place. As for the 70% might need a spade full of salt, 70% of what when asked what question? dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

8:43pm Wed 5 Mar 14

#UKMum says...

' ramage1996 says...
Racist..
We don't want your type in Watford Mr Cox.'

Allow me to enlighten you about one Nick Clegg. Clegg is the main reason the LibDems are openly referred to now as the FibDems. What's more Mr Clegg
a) has refused to grasp the nettle of sexual harassment in his party. http://www.theguardi
an.com/politics/2014
/jan/18/nick-clegg-a
ide-quits-lib-dems-l
ord-rennard
b) broke tuition fee pledge - http://www.theguardi
an.com/politics/2012
/sep/19/nick-clegg-a
pologies-tuition-fee
s-pledge
c) ultra quiet about abusive Cyril Smith - http://www.theguardi
an.com/politics/2013
/feb/27/nick-clegg-i
gnored-letters-lawye
rs-cyril-smith

People in glass houses and all that - and I have never voted UKIP in my life! But FibDems don't float my boat anymore really after reading behind some of what you have posted here just now. When in a hole the best thing to do is stop digging.
' ramage1996 says... Racist.. We don't want your type in Watford Mr Cox.' Allow me to enlighten you about one Nick Clegg. Clegg is the main reason the LibDems are openly referred to now as the FibDems. What's more Mr Clegg a) has refused to grasp the nettle of sexual harassment in his party. http://www.theguardi an.com/politics/2014 /jan/18/nick-clegg-a ide-quits-lib-dems-l ord-rennard b) broke tuition fee pledge - http://www.theguardi an.com/politics/2012 /sep/19/nick-clegg-a pologies-tuition-fee s-pledge c) ultra quiet about abusive Cyril Smith - http://www.theguardi an.com/politics/2013 /feb/27/nick-clegg-i gnored-letters-lawye rs-cyril-smith People in glass houses and all that - and I have never voted UKIP in my life! But FibDems don't float my boat anymore really after reading behind some of what you have posted here just now. When in a hole the best thing to do is stop digging. #UKMum
  • Score: -1

8:48pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

#UKMum wrote:
' ramage1996 says...
Racist..
We don't want your type in Watford Mr Cox.'

Allow me to enlighten you about one Nick Clegg. Clegg is the main reason the LibDems are openly referred to now as the FibDems. What's more Mr Clegg
a) has refused to grasp the nettle of sexual harassment in his party. http://www.theguardi

an.com/politics/2014

/jan/18/nick-clegg-a

ide-quits-lib-dems-l

ord-rennard
b) broke tuition fee pledge - http://www.theguardi

an.com/politics/2012

/sep/19/nick-clegg-a

pologies-tuition-fee

s-pledge
c) ultra quiet about abusive Cyril Smith - http://www.theguardi

an.com/politics/2013

/feb/27/nick-clegg-i

gnored-letters-lawye

rs-cyril-smith

People in glass houses and all that - and I have never voted UKIP in my life! But FibDems don't float my boat anymore really after reading behind some of what you have posted here just now. When in a hole the best thing to do is stop digging.
I vote Labour, I agree with you I wouldnt have the fib dems in power, and they used to split the left of centre vote but no more.
I love the kippers splitting the right of centre vote by the way, you carry on taking those tory votes #UKMum
[quote][p][bold]#UKMum[/bold] wrote: ' ramage1996 says... Racist.. We don't want your type in Watford Mr Cox.' Allow me to enlighten you about one Nick Clegg. Clegg is the main reason the LibDems are openly referred to now as the FibDems. What's more Mr Clegg a) has refused to grasp the nettle of sexual harassment in his party. http://www.theguardi an.com/politics/2014 /jan/18/nick-clegg-a ide-quits-lib-dems-l ord-rennard b) broke tuition fee pledge - http://www.theguardi an.com/politics/2012 /sep/19/nick-clegg-a pologies-tuition-fee s-pledge c) ultra quiet about abusive Cyril Smith - http://www.theguardi an.com/politics/2013 /feb/27/nick-clegg-i gnored-letters-lawye rs-cyril-smith People in glass houses and all that - and I have never voted UKIP in my life! But FibDems don't float my boat anymore really after reading behind some of what you have posted here just now. When in a hole the best thing to do is stop digging.[/p][/quote]I vote Labour, I agree with you I wouldnt have the fib dems in power, and they used to split the left of centre vote but no more. I love the kippers splitting the right of centre vote by the way, you carry on taking those tory votes #UKMum ramage1996
  • Score: 3

9:00pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Former banker on the EU pay packet gravy train with dodgy off shore non tax paying dealings, why would anyone want to vote for Farage or someone that represented his racist, homophobic party?
Former banker on the EU pay packet gravy train with dodgy off shore non tax paying dealings, why would anyone want to vote for Farage or someone that represented his racist, homophobic party? ramage1996
  • Score: 3

9:18pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Racist..

http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

2520012/Send-home-In

-shocking-video-UKIP

-councillor-key-Fara

ge-ally-launches-ast

onishing-racist-rant

--tells-MoS-I-stand-

word.html

http://www.mirror.co

.uk/news/uk-news/ugl

y-face-ukip-sunday-m

irror-1531879
....................

....................

...
Anti gay..

http://www.theguardi

an.com/society/2014/

jan/19/ukip-councill

or-gay-people-spirit

ual-disease-pray-hea

led-david-silvester

http://www.politics.

co.uk/news/2014/01/2

8/ukip-donor-takes-o

ut-bizarre-anti-gay-

advert
....................

....................

..

Anti women..

http://www.telegraph

.co.uk/women/womens-

politics/10231661/Uk

ips-Godfrey-Bloom-Wh

y-on-earth-would-a-w

oman-ever-vote-for-U

kip-the-ultimate-old

-boys-club.html

http://blogs.spectat

or.co.uk/coffeehouse

/2013/04/godfrey-blo

om-women-in-the-work

place-and-the-ukip-v

ote/
....................

....................

.............

Fascist..

http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

2429047/UKIP-bunch-m

orons-fascists-says-

man-FOUNDED-anti-EU-

party-20-years-ago.h

tml

http://blogs.telegra

ph.co.uk/news/danhod

ges/100261889/ukip-a

re-now-a-racist-part

y/




We don't want your type in Watford Mr Cox.
Do you think anyone believes these lies anymore?

I don't think they do.

Let's wait for Clegg vs Farage, where the truth will out.

Marvellous thing, the truth. You should try it sometime.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Racist.. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2520012/Send-home-In -shocking-video-UKIP -councillor-key-Fara ge-ally-launches-ast onishing-racist-rant --tells-MoS-I-stand- word.html http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/ugl y-face-ukip-sunday-m irror-1531879 .................... .................... ... Anti gay.. http://www.theguardi an.com/society/2014/ jan/19/ukip-councill or-gay-people-spirit ual-disease-pray-hea led-david-silvester http://www.politics. co.uk/news/2014/01/2 8/ukip-donor-takes-o ut-bizarre-anti-gay- advert .................... .................... .. Anti women.. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/women/womens- politics/10231661/Uk ips-Godfrey-Bloom-Wh y-on-earth-would-a-w oman-ever-vote-for-U kip-the-ultimate-old -boys-club.html http://blogs.spectat or.co.uk/coffeehouse /2013/04/godfrey-blo om-women-in-the-work place-and-the-ukip-v ote/ .................... .................... ............. Fascist.. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2429047/UKIP-bunch-m orons-fascists-says- man-FOUNDED-anti-EU- party-20-years-ago.h tml http://blogs.telegra ph.co.uk/news/danhod ges/100261889/ukip-a re-now-a-racist-part y/ We don't want your type in Watford Mr Cox.[/p][/quote]Do you think anyone believes these lies anymore? I don't think they do. Let's wait for Clegg vs Farage, where the truth will out. Marvellous thing, the truth. You should try it sometime. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -4

9:19pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Lucy60 wrote:
Watford needs new sites for schools - there is a brownfield site in this development area that could have been used for education. The green area and allotments could have been left so that the mayor could have achieved her desired 'legacy' to make Watford 'green'!! and then she would not be tied up in the deal with the developer - who will always be the winner when dealing with local councils - and relying on consultants for the spin. The Council are the custodians of our land not the owners. So much for democracy -listen to the spin - 'Health' does not equal 'hospital' - 're provisioning' does not mean 'rebuilding' 'and 'things could change' is another way of saying there are no plans.
Development plans growing from 300 to 700 (and growing?) dwellings is greed not a service to residents (didn't see the parking plans for this)
And why having your husband as the portfolio holder for such projects does not constitute a conflict of interests is beyond me!
Well said.
[quote][p][bold]Lucy60[/bold] wrote: Watford needs new sites for schools - there is a brownfield site in this development area that could have been used for education. The green area and allotments could have been left so that the mayor could have achieved her desired 'legacy' to make Watford 'green'!! and then she would not be tied up in the deal with the developer - who will always be the winner when dealing with local councils - and relying on consultants for the spin. The Council are the custodians of our land not the owners. So much for democracy -listen to the spin - 'Health' does not equal 'hospital' - 're provisioning' does not mean 'rebuilding' 'and 'things could change' is another way of saying there are no plans. Development plans growing from 300 to 700 (and growing?) dwellings is greed not a service to residents (didn't see the parking plans for this) And why having your husband as the portfolio holder for such projects does not constitute a conflict of interests is beyond me![/p][/quote]Well said. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -4

9:22pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Clegg vs Farage, wow battle of the heavyweights!!!!!!!!
!!

Does anyone other than kippers praying they might get one seat in Westminster or fib dem mps praying to keep their seats care about this debate?
Clegg vs Farage, wow battle of the heavyweights!!!!!!!! !! Does anyone other than kippers praying they might get one seat in Westminster or fib dem mps praying to keep their seats care about this debate? ramage1996
  • Score: 1

9:23pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Back to the allotments. Well done SJT for keeping this campaign going, against the might of the LibDmes in Watford.

What is Labours pledge on these allotments if elected? Anything, or just complaining?

Jagtar's pretty quiet really.
Back to the allotments. Well done SJT for keeping this campaign going, against the might of the LibDmes in Watford. What is Labours pledge on these allotments if elected? Anything, or just complaining? Jagtar's pretty quiet really. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -3

9:27pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Mr Cox is the 65k salary plus expenses anything to do with you wanting to be mayor? A bit like Farage picking up his massive EU salary and never turning up to vote?

Id have Dotty of you any day of the week.
Mr Cox is the 65k salary plus expenses anything to do with you wanting to be mayor? A bit like Farage picking up his massive EU salary and never turning up to vote? Id have Dotty of you any day of the week. ramage1996
  • Score: 5

9:42pm Wed 5 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Back to the allotments. Well done SJT for keeping this campaign going, against the might of the LibDmes in Watford.

What is Labours pledge on these allotments if elected? Anything, or just complaining?

Jagtar's pretty quiet really.
Mr Cox you have the nerve to say “Jagtar's pretty quiet really”.

I really do think you are so deluded that you think commenting on the WO site is a campaigning tool.

You spend so much time commenting on every story you really must think this helps your campaign.

You are not reaching more than a handful of the electorate this way.

If this is the extent of your campaign I don’t think the other parties have anything to worry about.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Back to the allotments. Well done SJT for keeping this campaign going, against the might of the LibDmes in Watford. What is Labours pledge on these allotments if elected? Anything, or just complaining? Jagtar's pretty quiet really.[/p][/quote]Mr Cox you have the nerve to say “Jagtar's pretty quiet really”. I really do think you are so deluded that you think commenting on the WO site is a campaigning tool. You spend so much time commenting on every story you really must think this helps your campaign. You are not reaching more than a handful of the electorate this way. If this is the extent of your campaign I don’t think the other parties have anything to worry about. yellow hornet
  • Score: 8

9:45pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Mr Cox is the 65k salary plus expenses anything to do with you wanting to be mayor? A bit like Farage picking up his massive EU salary and never turning up to vote?

Id have Dotty of you any day of the week.
No, funnily enough, it isn't.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Mr Cox is the 65k salary plus expenses anything to do with you wanting to be mayor? A bit like Farage picking up his massive EU salary and never turning up to vote? Id have Dotty of you any day of the week.[/p][/quote]No, funnily enough, it isn't. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -7

9:46pm Wed 5 Mar 14

TRT says...

ramage1996 wrote:
All that money wasted, 26k in total wasted, just because they dont want to move 1.5 miles up the road for a new hospital benefiting the whole community.

Very selfish people on these farm allotments, and very sad you have wasted 26 grand which you could have given your children.
And how much is that compared to the amount the development group have wasted on drawing up plans time and again only to scrap them, not in the face of opposition from the allotment holders but as a result of greedy developers eyeing up additional profits, incompetent hospital managers who squander their meagre allowance from the public purse on more and more management consultants and finally in the face of a government who see fit to squeeze and squeeze and squeeze until there's not enough money to ensure that there's enough ambulances to meet the targets they set whilst allowing bankers to gamble and award themselves multi-million pound bonuses.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: All that money wasted, 26k in total wasted, just because they dont want to move 1.5 miles up the road for a new hospital benefiting the whole community. Very selfish people on these farm allotments, and very sad you have wasted 26 grand which you could have given your children.[/p][/quote]And how much is that compared to the amount the development group have wasted on drawing up plans time and again only to scrap them, not in the face of opposition from the allotment holders but as a result of greedy developers eyeing up additional profits, incompetent hospital managers who squander their meagre allowance from the public purse on more and more management consultants and finally in the face of a government who see fit to squeeze and squeeze and squeeze until there's not enough money to ensure that there's enough ambulances to meet the targets they set whilst allowing bankers to gamble and award themselves multi-million pound bonuses. TRT
  • Score: 2

9:48pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

TRT wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
All that money wasted, 26k in total wasted, just because they dont want to move 1.5 miles up the road for a new hospital benefiting the whole community.

Very selfish people on these farm allotments, and very sad you have wasted 26 grand which you could have given your children.
And how much is that compared to the amount the development group have wasted on drawing up plans time and again only to scrap them, not in the face of opposition from the allotment holders but as a result of greedy developers eyeing up additional profits, incompetent hospital managers who squander their meagre allowance from the public purse on more and more management consultants and finally in the face of a government who see fit to squeeze and squeeze and squeeze until there's not enough money to ensure that there's enough ambulances to meet the targets they set whilst allowing bankers to gamble and award themselves multi-million pound bonuses.
Bankers like Farage?
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: All that money wasted, 26k in total wasted, just because they dont want to move 1.5 miles up the road for a new hospital benefiting the whole community. Very selfish people on these farm allotments, and very sad you have wasted 26 grand which you could have given your children.[/p][/quote]And how much is that compared to the amount the development group have wasted on drawing up plans time and again only to scrap them, not in the face of opposition from the allotment holders but as a result of greedy developers eyeing up additional profits, incompetent hospital managers who squander their meagre allowance from the public purse on more and more management consultants and finally in the face of a government who see fit to squeeze and squeeze and squeeze until there's not enough money to ensure that there's enough ambulances to meet the targets they set whilst allowing bankers to gamble and award themselves multi-million pound bonuses.[/p][/quote]Bankers like Farage? ramage1996
  • Score: 7

9:54pm Wed 5 Mar 14

TRT says...

@ramage. You misspelled something there. I'm no lover of UKIP, but I do support democracy, openness and fairplay. Do I believe UKIP would stick to their promises of such? Not for a moment - I'm far too cynical for that. Politicians lie, and that hypocrisy annoys me. So having the public lied to in such a blatant fashion as has happened over this "health campus" makes my blood boil.
@ramage. You misspelled something there. I'm no lover of UKIP, but I do support democracy, openness and fairplay. Do I believe UKIP would stick to their promises of such? Not for a moment - I'm far too cynical for that. Politicians lie, and that hypocrisy annoys me. So having the public lied to in such a blatant fashion as has happened over this "health campus" makes my blood boil. TRT
  • Score: 0

10:00pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

TRT wrote:
@ramage. You misspelled something there. I'm no lover of UKIP, but I do support democracy, openness and fairplay. Do I believe UKIP would stick to their promises of such? Not for a moment - I'm far too cynical for that. Politicians lie, and that hypocrisy annoys me. So having the public lied to in such a blatant fashion as has happened over this "health campus" makes my blood boil.
Farage will bottle standing for Westminster he wont want to give up his cushy Euro MP salary that he is apparently so against, he wont stand as he knows that he will have someone stand against him of considerable prominence.

You Kipper lot who vote for Nigel (off shore tax haven) Farage have his cushy EU MP slalary are mugs, he is mugging you off, if he doesnt stand for the UK elections you will look rather stupid and can cry using the daily mail to wipe away your tears x
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: @ramage. You misspelled something there. I'm no lover of UKIP, but I do support democracy, openness and fairplay. Do I believe UKIP would stick to their promises of such? Not for a moment - I'm far too cynical for that. Politicians lie, and that hypocrisy annoys me. So having the public lied to in such a blatant fashion as has happened over this "health campus" makes my blood boil.[/p][/quote]Farage will bottle standing for Westminster he wont want to give up his cushy Euro MP salary that he is apparently so against, he wont stand as he knows that he will have someone stand against him of considerable prominence. You Kipper lot who vote for Nigel (off shore tax haven) Farage have his cushy EU MP slalary are mugs, he is mugging you off, if he doesnt stand for the UK elections you will look rather stupid and can cry using the daily mail to wipe away your tears x ramage1996
  • Score: 4

10:08pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

yellow hornet wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Back to the allotments. Well done SJT for keeping this campaign going, against the might of the LibDmes in Watford.

What is Labours pledge on these allotments if elected? Anything, or just complaining?

Jagtar's pretty quiet really.
Mr Cox you have the nerve to say “Jagtar's pretty quiet really”.

I really do think you are so deluded that you think commenting on the WO site is a campaigning tool.

You spend so much time commenting on every story you really must think this helps your campaign.

You are not reaching more than a handful of the electorate this way.

If this is the extent of your campaign I don’t think the other parties have anything to worry about.
Hmmm.

Everything I have seen and heard would disagree with your statement. The other parties seem very worried indeed. Hence all the attacks and lies about Ukip from party trolls.

Labour in particular seem very worried, as do the LibDems.

The LibDems have even brought a guide out on how to try to counter the Ukip threat. It's been leaked to the press.

It's looking good for Ukip in 2014. Watch this space and if you're really lucky you will get a Ukip Mayor replacing the failed LibDem one.

Vote Ukip. Get Ukip.
[quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Back to the allotments. Well done SJT for keeping this campaign going, against the might of the LibDmes in Watford. What is Labours pledge on these allotments if elected? Anything, or just complaining? Jagtar's pretty quiet really.[/p][/quote]Mr Cox you have the nerve to say “Jagtar's pretty quiet really”. I really do think you are so deluded that you think commenting on the WO site is a campaigning tool. You spend so much time commenting on every story you really must think this helps your campaign. You are not reaching more than a handful of the electorate this way. If this is the extent of your campaign I don’t think the other parties have anything to worry about.[/p][/quote]Hmmm. Everything I have seen and heard would disagree with your statement. The other parties seem very worried indeed. Hence all the attacks and lies about Ukip from party trolls. Labour in particular seem very worried, as do the LibDems. The LibDems have even brought a guide out on how to try to counter the Ukip threat. It's been leaked to the press. It's looking good for Ukip in 2014. Watch this space and if you're really lucky you will get a Ukip Mayor replacing the failed LibDem one. Vote Ukip. Get Ukip. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -8

10:18pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Exactly..

VOTE UKIP GET UKIP.

Racist..

http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

2520012/Send-home-In

-shocking-video-UKIP

-councillor-key-Fara

ge-ally-launches-ast

onishing-racist-rant

--tells-MoS-I-stand-

word.html

http://www.mirror.co

.uk/news/uk-news/ugl

y-face-ukip-sunday-m

irror-1531879
....................

....................

...
Anti gay..

http://www.theguardi

an.com/society/2014/

jan/19/ukip-councill

or-gay-people-spirit

ual-disease-pray-hea

led-david-silvester

http://www.politics.

co.uk/news/2014/01/2

8/ukip-donor-takes-o

ut-bizarre-anti-gay-

advert
....................

....................

..

Anti women..

http://www.telegraph

.co.uk/women/womens-

politics/10231661/Uk

ips-Godfrey-Bloom-Wh

y-on-earth-would-a-w

oman-ever-vote-for-U

kip-the-ultimate-old

-boys-club.html

http://blogs.spectat

or.co.uk/coffeehouse

/2013/04/godfrey-blo

om-women-in-the-work

place-and-the-ukip-v

ote/
....................

....................

.............

Fascist..

http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

2429047/UKIP-bunch-m

orons-fascists-says-

man-FOUNDED-anti-EU-

party-20-years-ago.h

tml

http://blogs.telegra

ph.co.uk/news/danhod

ges/100261889/ukip-a

re-now-a-racist-part

y/
Exactly.. VOTE UKIP GET UKIP. Racist.. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2520012/Send-home-In -shocking-video-UKIP -councillor-key-Fara ge-ally-launches-ast onishing-racist-rant --tells-MoS-I-stand- word.html http://www.mirror.co .uk/news/uk-news/ugl y-face-ukip-sunday-m irror-1531879 .................... .................... ... Anti gay.. http://www.theguardi an.com/society/2014/ jan/19/ukip-councill or-gay-people-spirit ual-disease-pray-hea led-david-silvester http://www.politics. co.uk/news/2014/01/2 8/ukip-donor-takes-o ut-bizarre-anti-gay- advert .................... .................... .. Anti women.. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/women/womens- politics/10231661/Uk ips-Godfrey-Bloom-Wh y-on-earth-would-a-w oman-ever-vote-for-U kip-the-ultimate-old -boys-club.html http://blogs.spectat or.co.uk/coffeehouse /2013/04/godfrey-blo om-women-in-the-work place-and-the-ukip-v ote/ .................... .................... ............. Fascist.. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2429047/UKIP-bunch-m orons-fascists-says- man-FOUNDED-anti-EU- party-20-years-ago.h tml http://blogs.telegra ph.co.uk/news/danhod ges/100261889/ukip-a re-now-a-racist-part y/ ramage1996
  • Score: 4

1:20am Thu 6 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

personally around here I reckon vote UKIP get Libdem

but never mind that on the subject of the Colne flood plain housing estate, I fail to see why it is so vital.
personally around here I reckon vote UKIP get Libdem but never mind that on the subject of the Colne flood plain housing estate, I fail to see why it is so vital. dontknowynot
  • Score: 2

7:34am Thu 6 Mar 14

sjtrebar says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
sjtrebar wrote:
ramage1996 wrote: "A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it. Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case." WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed. How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.
Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.
And this is from the vindictive tweeter who's been trolling the Mayor in a deeply offensive way for the past couple of years, as well as misrepresenting the facts.What hypocrisy.
Please show me these "vindictive" tweets. Oh that's right, you can't because they do not exist! Now please stop with the nasty personal comments about myself and my family or you will find yourself in another court case - a liable one! COUNCILLOR!
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sjtrebar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: "A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it. Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case." WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed. How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.[/p][/quote]Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.[/p][/quote]And this is from the vindictive tweeter who's been trolling the Mayor in a deeply offensive way for the past couple of years, as well as misrepresenting the facts.What hypocrisy.[/p][/quote]Please show me these "vindictive" tweets. Oh that's right, you can't because they do not exist! Now please stop with the nasty personal comments about myself and my family or you will find yourself in another court case - a liable one! COUNCILLOR! sjtrebar
  • Score: -1

8:41am Thu 6 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Back to the allotments. Well done SJT for keeping this campaign going, against the might of the LibDmes in Watford.

What is Labours pledge on these allotments if elected? Anything, or just complaining?

Jagtar's pretty quiet really.
Mr Cox you have the nerve to say “Jagtar's pretty quiet really”.

I really do think you are so deluded that you think commenting on the WO site is a campaigning tool.

You spend so much time commenting on every story you really must think this helps your campaign.

You are not reaching more than a handful of the electorate this way.

If this is the extent of your campaign I don’t think the other parties have anything to worry about.
Hmmm.

Everything I have seen and heard would disagree with your statement. The other parties seem very worried indeed. Hence all the attacks and lies about Ukip from party trolls.

Labour in particular seem very worried, as do the LibDems.

The LibDems have even brought a guide out on how to try to counter the Ukip threat. It's been leaked to the press.

It's looking good for Ukip in 2014. Watch this space and if you're really lucky you will get a Ukip Mayor replacing the failed LibDem one.

Vote Ukip. Get Ukip.
This is yet another story that Phil Cox has hijacked for self-promotion.

Mr Cox If you were interested in the Farm Terrace campaign you wouldn't side-line the issue with UKIP propaganda that has nothing to do with the story.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Back to the allotments. Well done SJT for keeping this campaign going, against the might of the LibDmes in Watford. What is Labours pledge on these allotments if elected? Anything, or just complaining? Jagtar's pretty quiet really.[/p][/quote]Mr Cox you have the nerve to say “Jagtar's pretty quiet really”. I really do think you are so deluded that you think commenting on the WO site is a campaigning tool. You spend so much time commenting on every story you really must think this helps your campaign. You are not reaching more than a handful of the electorate this way. If this is the extent of your campaign I don’t think the other parties have anything to worry about.[/p][/quote]Hmmm. Everything I have seen and heard would disagree with your statement. The other parties seem very worried indeed. Hence all the attacks and lies about Ukip from party trolls. Labour in particular seem very worried, as do the LibDems. The LibDems have even brought a guide out on how to try to counter the Ukip threat. It's been leaked to the press. It's looking good for Ukip in 2014. Watch this space and if you're really lucky you will get a Ukip Mayor replacing the failed LibDem one. Vote Ukip. Get Ukip.[/p][/quote]This is yet another story that Phil Cox has hijacked for self-promotion. Mr Cox If you were interested in the Farm Terrace campaign you wouldn't side-line the issue with UKIP propaganda that has nothing to do with the story. yellow hornet
  • Score: 6

9:11am Thu 6 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

That's why my comment of 9:23 last night tried to get this thread back on subject and I also asked where Labour stood. Others then changed the subject.

It's all very well Labour saying "It's not good enough" but then not promising to do anything about it.

SJT needs action. A Ukip Mayor would produce action to save the allotments.

Labour has stayed quiet on the subject. Labour would, as usual, do nothing.

If Labour wanted to match our commitment to save these allotments they are fully aware of the Ukip position and could have matched us.

But NO, they haven't. Labour has stayed quiet. Jagtar knows we are saying this but refuses to match us.

Labour are full of hot air but when it comes to actually doing something about it they are found wanting.

Just face it, Ukip are more on the side of working class people than Labour are.

Labour are more about green taxes and sucking up to the EU.

The people are just there to vote them in every once in a while.

And the people are getting fed up of being taken for granted by their political leaders. That's why they are giving their vote to Ukip, the party of the people run by the people.

The Labour party of 2014 is not the Labour party of old. How many millionaires are there on the Labour front bench? How many have done a proper job, or any job, before entering politics?

I've been a cleaner, shop worker, van driver, delivery man, postman, IT professional and now small businessman. Lots of different jobs.

And now I'm standing for Ukip and I'm standing up for Sara Jane Trebar and the other allotment holders because I firmly believe, as do my party, that what has happened is wrong.

I don't expect SJT to vote for me, but I would like her to consider which parties did the right thing and which parties did not over this important point of principle.

A vote for Ukip in the Mayoral election has a real chance of electing a Ukip Mayor and putting Dotty out of power.

Ukip are not racist or any of the other things the failed LibDems and failed Labour parties are saying about us. They are only saying these things because they are so scared of Ukip smashing the political system and getting real people elected.

Vote Ukip, Get Ukip and that's the only way these allotments will get saved in Watford.

I challenge Labour to match our pledge.

I wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently.

I know it's only just March but surely he's had time to come up with an idea by now. I'm still waiting for some idea, some action from Jagtar, the Mayoral candidate for Labour.

If he's like this now, can you imagine what he will be like if elected?

This year it's likely to be a LibDem or Ukip Mayor.

Your choice, which one would you prefer?

Hint: Only one would do the right thing and save the allotments. Only one would listen to the people and work for the people. One drives a car, the other drives a bulldozer.
That's why my comment of 9:23 last night tried to get this thread back on subject and I also asked where Labour stood. Others then changed the subject. It's all very well Labour saying "It's not good enough" but then not promising to do anything about it. SJT needs action. A Ukip Mayor would produce action to save the allotments. Labour has stayed quiet on the subject. Labour would, as usual, do nothing. If Labour wanted to match our commitment to save these allotments they are fully aware of the Ukip position and could have matched us. But NO, they haven't. Labour has stayed quiet. Jagtar knows we are saying this but refuses to match us. Labour are full of hot air but when it comes to actually doing something about it they are found wanting. Just face it, Ukip are more on the side of working class people than Labour are. Labour are more about green taxes and sucking up to the EU. The people are just there to vote them in every once in a while. And the people are getting fed up of being taken for granted by their political leaders. That's why they are giving their vote to Ukip, the party of the people run by the people. The Labour party of 2014 is not the Labour party of old. How many millionaires are there on the Labour front bench? How many have done a proper job, or any job, before entering politics? I've been a cleaner, shop worker, van driver, delivery man, postman, IT professional and now small businessman. Lots of different jobs. And now I'm standing for Ukip and I'm standing up for Sara Jane Trebar and the other allotment holders because I firmly believe, as do my party, that what has happened is wrong. I don't expect SJT to vote for me, but I would like her to consider which parties did the right thing and which parties did not over this important point of principle. A vote for Ukip in the Mayoral election has a real chance of electing a Ukip Mayor and putting Dotty out of power. Ukip are not racist or any of the other things the failed LibDems and failed Labour parties are saying about us. They are only saying these things because they are so scared of Ukip smashing the political system and getting real people elected. Vote Ukip, Get Ukip and that's the only way these allotments will get saved in Watford. I challenge Labour to match our pledge. I wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently. I know it's only just March but surely he's had time to come up with an idea by now. I'm still waiting for some idea, some action from Jagtar, the Mayoral candidate for Labour. If he's like this now, can you imagine what he will be like if elected? This year it's likely to be a LibDem or Ukip Mayor. Your choice, which one would you prefer? Hint: Only one would do the right thing and save the allotments. Only one would listen to the people and work for the people. One drives a car, the other drives a bulldozer. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -8

9:26am Thu 6 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
That's why my comment of 9:23 last night tried to get this thread back on subject and I also asked where Labour stood. Others then changed the subject.

It's all very well Labour saying "It's not good enough" but then not promising to do anything about it.

SJT needs action. A Ukip Mayor would produce action to save the allotments.

Labour has stayed quiet on the subject. Labour would, as usual, do nothing.

If Labour wanted to match our commitment to save these allotments they are fully aware of the Ukip position and could have matched us.

But NO, they haven't. Labour has stayed quiet. Jagtar knows we are saying this but refuses to match us.

Labour are full of hot air but when it comes to actually doing something about it they are found wanting.

Just face it, Ukip are more on the side of working class people than Labour are.

Labour are more about green taxes and sucking up to the EU.

The people are just there to vote them in every once in a while.

And the people are getting fed up of being taken for granted by their political leaders. That's why they are giving their vote to Ukip, the party of the people run by the people.

The Labour party of 2014 is not the Labour party of old. How many millionaires are there on the Labour front bench? How many have done a proper job, or any job, before entering politics?

I've been a cleaner, shop worker, van driver, delivery man, postman, IT professional and now small businessman. Lots of different jobs.

And now I'm standing for Ukip and I'm standing up for Sara Jane Trebar and the other allotment holders because I firmly believe, as do my party, that what has happened is wrong.

I don't expect SJT to vote for me, but I would like her to consider which parties did the right thing and which parties did not over this important point of principle.

A vote for Ukip in the Mayoral election has a real chance of electing a Ukip Mayor and putting Dotty out of power.

Ukip are not racist or any of the other things the failed LibDems and failed Labour parties are saying about us. They are only saying these things because they are so scared of Ukip smashing the political system and getting real people elected.

Vote Ukip, Get Ukip and that's the only way these allotments will get saved in Watford.

I challenge Labour to match our pledge.

I wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently.

I know it's only just March but surely he's had time to come up with an idea by now. I'm still waiting for some idea, some action from Jagtar, the Mayoral candidate for Labour.

If he's like this now, can you imagine what he will be like if elected?

This year it's likely to be a LibDem or Ukip Mayor.

Your choice, which one would you prefer?

Hint: Only one would do the right thing and save the allotments. Only one would listen to the people and work for the people. One drives a car, the other drives a bulldozer.
This is yet another story that Phil Cox has hijacked for self-promotion.

Mr Cox If you were interested in the Farm Terrace campaign you wouldn't side-line the issue with UKIP propaganda that has nothing to do with the story
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: That's why my comment of 9:23 last night tried to get this thread back on subject and I also asked where Labour stood. Others then changed the subject. It's all very well Labour saying "It's not good enough" but then not promising to do anything about it. SJT needs action. A Ukip Mayor would produce action to save the allotments. Labour has stayed quiet on the subject. Labour would, as usual, do nothing. If Labour wanted to match our commitment to save these allotments they are fully aware of the Ukip position and could have matched us. But NO, they haven't. Labour has stayed quiet. Jagtar knows we are saying this but refuses to match us. Labour are full of hot air but when it comes to actually doing something about it they are found wanting. Just face it, Ukip are more on the side of working class people than Labour are. Labour are more about green taxes and sucking up to the EU. The people are just there to vote them in every once in a while. And the people are getting fed up of being taken for granted by their political leaders. That's why they are giving their vote to Ukip, the party of the people run by the people. The Labour party of 2014 is not the Labour party of old. How many millionaires are there on the Labour front bench? How many have done a proper job, or any job, before entering politics? I've been a cleaner, shop worker, van driver, delivery man, postman, IT professional and now small businessman. Lots of different jobs. And now I'm standing for Ukip and I'm standing up for Sara Jane Trebar and the other allotment holders because I firmly believe, as do my party, that what has happened is wrong. I don't expect SJT to vote for me, but I would like her to consider which parties did the right thing and which parties did not over this important point of principle. A vote for Ukip in the Mayoral election has a real chance of electing a Ukip Mayor and putting Dotty out of power. Ukip are not racist or any of the other things the failed LibDems and failed Labour parties are saying about us. They are only saying these things because they are so scared of Ukip smashing the political system and getting real people elected. Vote Ukip, Get Ukip and that's the only way these allotments will get saved in Watford. I challenge Labour to match our pledge. I wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently. I know it's only just March but surely he's had time to come up with an idea by now. I'm still waiting for some idea, some action from Jagtar, the Mayoral candidate for Labour. If he's like this now, can you imagine what he will be like if elected? This year it's likely to be a LibDem or Ukip Mayor. Your choice, which one would you prefer? Hint: Only one would do the right thing and save the allotments. Only one would listen to the people and work for the people. One drives a car, the other drives a bulldozer.[/p][/quote]This is yet another story that Phil Cox has hijacked for self-promotion. Mr Cox If you were interested in the Farm Terrace campaign you wouldn't side-line the issue with UKIP propaganda that has nothing to do with the story yellow hornet
  • Score: 11

9:28am Thu 6 Mar 14

TRT says...

Phil, it's a shame you walk under the UKIP banner. Other people under the same banner have sullied the party as a whole, which reflects badly on individuals. There is an alternative union of independents that seeks to gain national recognition and the associated press coverage. TUSC has mainly attracted trade union and socialist members, so it's not everyone's cup of tea, but as a party active at local through national level, it offers support to candidates seeking to restore true democracy from our current plutocracy in sheep's clothing. Government by and for the millions, not the millionaires.
Phil, it's a shame you walk under the UKIP banner. Other people under the same banner have sullied the party as a whole, which reflects badly on individuals. There is an alternative union of independents that seeks to gain national recognition and the associated press coverage. TUSC has mainly attracted trade union and socialist members, so it's not everyone's cup of tea, but as a party active at local through national level, it offers support to candidates seeking to restore true democracy from our current plutocracy in sheep's clothing. Government by and for the millions, not the millionaires. TRT
  • Score: -1

10:04am Thu 6 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

yellow hornet wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
That's why my comment of 9:23 last night tried to get this thread back on subject and I also asked where Labour stood. Others then changed the subject.

It's all very well Labour saying "It's not good enough" but then not promising to do anything about it.

SJT needs action. A Ukip Mayor would produce action to save the allotments.

Labour has stayed quiet on the subject. Labour would, as usual, do nothing.

If Labour wanted to match our commitment to save these allotments they are fully aware of the Ukip position and could have matched us.

But NO, they haven't. Labour has stayed quiet. Jagtar knows we are saying this but refuses to match us.

Labour are full of hot air but when it comes to actually doing something about it they are found wanting.

Just face it, Ukip are more on the side of working class people than Labour are.

Labour are more about green taxes and sucking up to the EU.

The people are just there to vote them in every once in a while.

And the people are getting fed up of being taken for granted by their political leaders. That's why they are giving their vote to Ukip, the party of the people run by the people.

The Labour party of 2014 is not the Labour party of old. How many millionaires are there on the Labour front bench? How many have done a proper job, or any job, before entering politics?

I've been a cleaner, shop worker, van driver, delivery man, postman, IT professional and now small businessman. Lots of different jobs.

And now I'm standing for Ukip and I'm standing up for Sara Jane Trebar and the other allotment holders because I firmly believe, as do my party, that what has happened is wrong.

I don't expect SJT to vote for me, but I would like her to consider which parties did the right thing and which parties did not over this important point of principle.

A vote for Ukip in the Mayoral election has a real chance of electing a Ukip Mayor and putting Dotty out of power.

Ukip are not racist or any of the other things the failed LibDems and failed Labour parties are saying about us. They are only saying these things because they are so scared of Ukip smashing the political system and getting real people elected.

Vote Ukip, Get Ukip and that's the only way these allotments will get saved in Watford.

I challenge Labour to match our pledge.

I wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently.

I know it's only just March but surely he's had time to come up with an idea by now. I'm still waiting for some idea, some action from Jagtar, the Mayoral candidate for Labour.

If he's like this now, can you imagine what he will be like if elected?

This year it's likely to be a LibDem or Ukip Mayor.

Your choice, which one would you prefer?

Hint: Only one would do the right thing and save the allotments. Only one would listen to the people and work for the people. One drives a car, the other drives a bulldozer.
This is yet another story that Phil Cox has hijacked for self-promotion.

Mr Cox If you were interested in the Farm Terrace campaign you wouldn't side-line the issue with UKIP propaganda that has nothing to do with the story
How can you even say that? Nothing to do with the story. This is all about the story.

Here are the parties positions.


LibDem - bulldoze the allotments, build houses, call it a health campus.
Conservatives - I agree with Dotty (RH seems on board, but then he is a developer himself).
Labour - This is an abuse of power.
Ukip - This is an abuse of power. We would save the allotments if at all possible, reversing what the LibDems are doing on their destruction.

This is a story about historic allotments that are loved by their users. They are protected by law but Dotty has used smoke and mirrors to build on what we call allotments, what she calls prime building land.

Why on earth is it somehow not relevant to point out to readers what the party positions are on this issue?

In case you hadn't noticed, there is an election coming up in May and it's important people who are good enough to go out and vote know what they are voting for. It's called democracy.

Sure some trolls are out there lying about Ukip, mainly Labour and LibDem, but the truth is also out there. Ukip is a party of fine and decent people, many of whom are fed up of the way the other parties treat people, their voters, and have found a better way, a party that believes in power for the people and common sense policies.

Some people try to portray Ukip as mad. For those that understand the real Ukip, not the troll lies, we think you would be mad to vote for any other party.

Voting Labour for instance is voting for uncontrolled immigration which produces unemployment and lower wages. There's plenty of evidence to back that up. particularly at the lower end of the wage spectrum and the first-time jobs that our youth are chasing. Since when was that a Labour policy? More to the point, who would vote for it?

Ukip, a better way, whichever way you look at it.
[quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: That's why my comment of 9:23 last night tried to get this thread back on subject and I also asked where Labour stood. Others then changed the subject. It's all very well Labour saying "It's not good enough" but then not promising to do anything about it. SJT needs action. A Ukip Mayor would produce action to save the allotments. Labour has stayed quiet on the subject. Labour would, as usual, do nothing. If Labour wanted to match our commitment to save these allotments they are fully aware of the Ukip position and could have matched us. But NO, they haven't. Labour has stayed quiet. Jagtar knows we are saying this but refuses to match us. Labour are full of hot air but when it comes to actually doing something about it they are found wanting. Just face it, Ukip are more on the side of working class people than Labour are. Labour are more about green taxes and sucking up to the EU. The people are just there to vote them in every once in a while. And the people are getting fed up of being taken for granted by their political leaders. That's why they are giving their vote to Ukip, the party of the people run by the people. The Labour party of 2014 is not the Labour party of old. How many millionaires are there on the Labour front bench? How many have done a proper job, or any job, before entering politics? I've been a cleaner, shop worker, van driver, delivery man, postman, IT professional and now small businessman. Lots of different jobs. And now I'm standing for Ukip and I'm standing up for Sara Jane Trebar and the other allotment holders because I firmly believe, as do my party, that what has happened is wrong. I don't expect SJT to vote for me, but I would like her to consider which parties did the right thing and which parties did not over this important point of principle. A vote for Ukip in the Mayoral election has a real chance of electing a Ukip Mayor and putting Dotty out of power. Ukip are not racist or any of the other things the failed LibDems and failed Labour parties are saying about us. They are only saying these things because they are so scared of Ukip smashing the political system and getting real people elected. Vote Ukip, Get Ukip and that's the only way these allotments will get saved in Watford. I challenge Labour to match our pledge. I wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently. I know it's only just March but surely he's had time to come up with an idea by now. I'm still waiting for some idea, some action from Jagtar, the Mayoral candidate for Labour. If he's like this now, can you imagine what he will be like if elected? This year it's likely to be a LibDem or Ukip Mayor. Your choice, which one would you prefer? Hint: Only one would do the right thing and save the allotments. Only one would listen to the people and work for the people. One drives a car, the other drives a bulldozer.[/p][/quote]This is yet another story that Phil Cox has hijacked for self-promotion. Mr Cox If you were interested in the Farm Terrace campaign you wouldn't side-line the issue with UKIP propaganda that has nothing to do with the story[/p][/quote]How can you even say that? Nothing to do with the story. This is all about the story. Here are the parties positions. LibDem - bulldoze the allotments, build houses, call it a health campus. Conservatives - I agree with Dotty (RH seems on board, but then he is a developer himself). Labour - This is an abuse of power. Ukip - This is an abuse of power. We would save the allotments if at all possible, reversing what the LibDems are doing on their destruction. This is a story about historic allotments that are loved by their users. They are protected by law but Dotty has used smoke and mirrors to build on what we call allotments, what she calls prime building land. Why on earth is it somehow not relevant to point out to readers what the party positions are on this issue? In case you hadn't noticed, there is an election coming up in May and it's important people who are good enough to go out and vote know what they are voting for. It's called democracy. Sure some trolls are out there lying about Ukip, mainly Labour and LibDem, but the truth is also out there. Ukip is a party of fine and decent people, many of whom are fed up of the way the other parties treat people, their voters, and have found a better way, a party that believes in power for the people and common sense policies. Some people try to portray Ukip as mad. For those that understand the real Ukip, not the troll lies, we think you would be mad to vote for any other party. Voting Labour for instance is voting for uncontrolled immigration which produces unemployment and lower wages. There's plenty of evidence to back that up. particularly at the lower end of the wage spectrum and the first-time jobs that our youth are chasing. Since when was that a Labour policy? More to the point, who would vote for it? Ukip, a better way, whichever way you look at it. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -8

10:17am Thu 6 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

TRT wrote:
Phil, it's a shame you walk under the UKIP banner. Other people under the same banner have sullied the party as a whole, which reflects badly on individuals. There is an alternative union of independents that seeks to gain national recognition and the associated press coverage. TUSC has mainly attracted trade union and socialist members, so it's not everyone's cup of tea, but as a party active at local through national level, it offers support to candidates seeking to restore true democracy from our current plutocracy in sheep's clothing. Government by and for the millions, not the millionaires.
You also describe Ukip, TRT.

I have said if elected I will act as an independent but I do believe in Ukip principles and will apply them, democracy, value for money, common sense, doing what's right instead of box ticking and looking like I have done what's right.

We have had our share of oddballs, but remember the other parties and most of the press are gunning for us. There was a LibDem councillor who set off explosions in Wales in populated areas and was lucky no-one was killed. Imagine if he's been Ukip!

There's a Labour councillor in Whitby who was seduced at age 6 by an 11 ft alien and has since fathered an alien child (Ed Milliband, anyone?). Imagine if he had been a Ukip councillor!

All parties have their problems, but ours are exposed to greater publicity.

The man who said gay marriage was a cause of the floods has been kicked out of the party, quite rightly. The fact he was a conservative member most of his career was not so widely reported.

The kidnapper is another one. Someone in the WO said he was also a murderer. He wasn't, but the truth seldom gets in the way of sensationalism. I should point out he has also gone from Ukip once we found out his history. Not a lot of people know this fact however - when he was a kidnapper he was a paid up member of the Tories. He joined us afterwards and we were not aware of his background. When we found out we had a word with him and he was out of the party PDQ.

We have no more or less fruitcakes than the other parties, but if we find them, we get rid of them. It's what a decent political party would do and we are a decent political party.

Ukip really is a party for the millions and millionaires. It doesn't have to be one or the other, we should all be able to co-exist in a decent and prosperous country.

I hope you might consider giving me your second or first vote TRT. It will be worth it and we all want to see the back of Dotty and her dotty policies. Ukip is the only threat to her in Watford.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Phil, it's a shame you walk under the UKIP banner. Other people under the same banner have sullied the party as a whole, which reflects badly on individuals. There is an alternative union of independents that seeks to gain national recognition and the associated press coverage. TUSC has mainly attracted trade union and socialist members, so it's not everyone's cup of tea, but as a party active at local through national level, it offers support to candidates seeking to restore true democracy from our current plutocracy in sheep's clothing. Government by and for the millions, not the millionaires.[/p][/quote]You also describe Ukip, TRT. I have said if elected I will act as an independent but I do believe in Ukip principles and will apply them, democracy, value for money, common sense, doing what's right instead of box ticking and looking like I have done what's right. We have had our share of oddballs, but remember the other parties and most of the press are gunning for us. There was a LibDem councillor who set off explosions in Wales in populated areas and was lucky no-one was killed. Imagine if he's been Ukip! There's a Labour councillor in Whitby who was seduced at age 6 by an 11 ft alien and has since fathered an alien child (Ed Milliband, anyone?). Imagine if he had been a Ukip councillor! All parties have their problems, but ours are exposed to greater publicity. The man who said gay marriage was a cause of the floods has been kicked out of the party, quite rightly. The fact he was a conservative member most of his career was not so widely reported. The kidnapper is another one. Someone in the WO said he was also a murderer. He wasn't, but the truth seldom gets in the way of sensationalism. I should point out he has also gone from Ukip once we found out his history. Not a lot of people know this fact however - when he was a kidnapper he was a paid up member of the Tories. He joined us afterwards and we were not aware of his background. When we found out we had a word with him and he was out of the party PDQ. We have no more or less fruitcakes than the other parties, but if we find them, we get rid of them. It's what a decent political party would do and we are a decent political party. Ukip really is a party for the millions and millionaires. It doesn't have to be one or the other, we should all be able to co-exist in a decent and prosperous country. I hope you might consider giving me your second or first vote TRT. It will be worth it and we all want to see the back of Dotty and her dotty policies. Ukip is the only threat to her in Watford. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -4

10:27am Thu 6 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
That's why my comment of 9:23 last night tried to get this thread back on subject and I also asked where Labour stood. Others then changed the subject.

It's all very well Labour saying "It's not good enough" but then not promising to do anything about it.

SJT needs action. A Ukip Mayor would produce action to save the allotments.

Labour has stayed quiet on the subject. Labour would, as usual, do nothing.

If Labour wanted to match our commitment to save these allotments they are fully aware of the Ukip position and could have matched us.

But NO, they haven't. Labour has stayed quiet. Jagtar knows we are saying this but refuses to match us.

Labour are full of hot air but when it comes to actually doing something about it they are found wanting.

Just face it, Ukip are more on the side of working class people than Labour are.

Labour are more about green taxes and sucking up to the EU.

The people are just there to vote them in every once in a while.

And the people are getting fed up of being taken for granted by their political leaders. That's why they are giving their vote to Ukip, the party of the people run by the people.

The Labour party of 2014 is not the Labour party of old. How many millionaires are there on the Labour front bench? How many have done a proper job, or any job, before entering politics?

I've been a cleaner, shop worker, van driver, delivery man, postman, IT professional and now small businessman. Lots of different jobs.

And now I'm standing for Ukip and I'm standing up for Sara Jane Trebar and the other allotment holders because I firmly believe, as do my party, that what has happened is wrong.

I don't expect SJT to vote for me, but I would like her to consider which parties did the right thing and which parties did not over this important point of principle.

A vote for Ukip in the Mayoral election has a real chance of electing a Ukip Mayor and putting Dotty out of power.

Ukip are not racist or any of the other things the failed LibDems and failed Labour parties are saying about us. They are only saying these things because they are so scared of Ukip smashing the political system and getting real people elected.

Vote Ukip, Get Ukip and that's the only way these allotments will get saved in Watford.

I challenge Labour to match our pledge.

I wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently.

I know it's only just March but surely he's had time to come up with an idea by now. I'm still waiting for some idea, some action from Jagtar, the Mayoral candidate for Labour.

If he's like this now, can you imagine what he will be like if elected?

This year it's likely to be a LibDem or Ukip Mayor.

Your choice, which one would you prefer?

Hint: Only one would do the right thing and save the allotments. Only one would listen to the people and work for the people. One drives a car, the other drives a bulldozer.
This is yet another story that Phil Cox has hijacked for self-promotion.

Mr Cox If you were interested in the Farm Terrace campaign you wouldn't side-line the issue with UKIP propaganda that has nothing to do with the story
How can you even say that? Nothing to do with the story. This is all about the story.

Here are the parties positions.


LibDem - bulldoze the allotments, build houses, call it a health campus.
Conservatives - I agree with Dotty (RH seems on board, but then he is a developer himself).
Labour - This is an abuse of power.
Ukip - This is an abuse of power. We would save the allotments if at all possible, reversing what the LibDems are doing on their destruction.

This is a story about historic allotments that are loved by their users. They are protected by law but Dotty has used smoke and mirrors to build on what we call allotments, what she calls prime building land.

Why on earth is it somehow not relevant to point out to readers what the party positions are on this issue?

In case you hadn't noticed, there is an election coming up in May and it's important people who are good enough to go out and vote know what they are voting for. It's called democracy.

Sure some trolls are out there lying about Ukip, mainly Labour and LibDem, but the truth is also out there. Ukip is a party of fine and decent people, many of whom are fed up of the way the other parties treat people, their voters, and have found a better way, a party that believes in power for the people and common sense policies.

Some people try to portray Ukip as mad. For those that understand the real Ukip, not the troll lies, we think you would be mad to vote for any other party.

Voting Labour for instance is voting for uncontrolled immigration which produces unemployment and lower wages. There's plenty of evidence to back that up. particularly at the lower end of the wage spectrum and the first-time jobs that our youth are chasing. Since when was that a Labour policy? More to the point, who would vote for it?

Ukip, a better way, whichever way you look at it.
Mr Cox you say you; “wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently”.

Well that also begs the question what would you do differently as Mayor?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: That's why my comment of 9:23 last night tried to get this thread back on subject and I also asked where Labour stood. Others then changed the subject. It's all very well Labour saying "It's not good enough" but then not promising to do anything about it. SJT needs action. A Ukip Mayor would produce action to save the allotments. Labour has stayed quiet on the subject. Labour would, as usual, do nothing. If Labour wanted to match our commitment to save these allotments they are fully aware of the Ukip position and could have matched us. But NO, they haven't. Labour has stayed quiet. Jagtar knows we are saying this but refuses to match us. Labour are full of hot air but when it comes to actually doing something about it they are found wanting. Just face it, Ukip are more on the side of working class people than Labour are. Labour are more about green taxes and sucking up to the EU. The people are just there to vote them in every once in a while. And the people are getting fed up of being taken for granted by their political leaders. That's why they are giving their vote to Ukip, the party of the people run by the people. The Labour party of 2014 is not the Labour party of old. How many millionaires are there on the Labour front bench? How many have done a proper job, or any job, before entering politics? I've been a cleaner, shop worker, van driver, delivery man, postman, IT professional and now small businessman. Lots of different jobs. And now I'm standing for Ukip and I'm standing up for Sara Jane Trebar and the other allotment holders because I firmly believe, as do my party, that what has happened is wrong. I don't expect SJT to vote for me, but I would like her to consider which parties did the right thing and which parties did not over this important point of principle. A vote for Ukip in the Mayoral election has a real chance of electing a Ukip Mayor and putting Dotty out of power. Ukip are not racist or any of the other things the failed LibDems and failed Labour parties are saying about us. They are only saying these things because they are so scared of Ukip smashing the political system and getting real people elected. Vote Ukip, Get Ukip and that's the only way these allotments will get saved in Watford. I challenge Labour to match our pledge. I wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently. I know it's only just March but surely he's had time to come up with an idea by now. I'm still waiting for some idea, some action from Jagtar, the Mayoral candidate for Labour. If he's like this now, can you imagine what he will be like if elected? This year it's likely to be a LibDem or Ukip Mayor. Your choice, which one would you prefer? Hint: Only one would do the right thing and save the allotments. Only one would listen to the people and work for the people. One drives a car, the other drives a bulldozer.[/p][/quote]This is yet another story that Phil Cox has hijacked for self-promotion. Mr Cox If you were interested in the Farm Terrace campaign you wouldn't side-line the issue with UKIP propaganda that has nothing to do with the story[/p][/quote]How can you even say that? Nothing to do with the story. This is all about the story. Here are the parties positions. LibDem - bulldoze the allotments, build houses, call it a health campus. Conservatives - I agree with Dotty (RH seems on board, but then he is a developer himself). Labour - This is an abuse of power. Ukip - This is an abuse of power. We would save the allotments if at all possible, reversing what the LibDems are doing on their destruction. This is a story about historic allotments that are loved by their users. They are protected by law but Dotty has used smoke and mirrors to build on what we call allotments, what she calls prime building land. Why on earth is it somehow not relevant to point out to readers what the party positions are on this issue? In case you hadn't noticed, there is an election coming up in May and it's important people who are good enough to go out and vote know what they are voting for. It's called democracy. Sure some trolls are out there lying about Ukip, mainly Labour and LibDem, but the truth is also out there. Ukip is a party of fine and decent people, many of whom are fed up of the way the other parties treat people, their voters, and have found a better way, a party that believes in power for the people and common sense policies. Some people try to portray Ukip as mad. For those that understand the real Ukip, not the troll lies, we think you would be mad to vote for any other party. Voting Labour for instance is voting for uncontrolled immigration which produces unemployment and lower wages. There's plenty of evidence to back that up. particularly at the lower end of the wage spectrum and the first-time jobs that our youth are chasing. Since when was that a Labour policy? More to the point, who would vote for it? Ukip, a better way, whichever way you look at it.[/p][/quote]Mr Cox you say you; “wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently”. Well that also begs the question what would you do differently as Mayor? yellow hornet
  • Score: 6

10:37am Thu 6 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

yellow hornet wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
That's why my comment of 9:23 last night tried to get this thread back on subject and I also asked where Labour stood. Others then changed the subject.

It's all very well Labour saying "It's not good enough" but then not promising to do anything about it.

SJT needs action. A Ukip Mayor would produce action to save the allotments.

Labour has stayed quiet on the subject. Labour would, as usual, do nothing.

If Labour wanted to match our commitment to save these allotments they are fully aware of the Ukip position and could have matched us.

But NO, they haven't. Labour has stayed quiet. Jagtar knows we are saying this but refuses to match us.

Labour are full of hot air but when it comes to actually doing something about it they are found wanting.

Just face it, Ukip are more on the side of working class people than Labour are.

Labour are more about green taxes and sucking up to the EU.

The people are just there to vote them in every once in a while.

And the people are getting fed up of being taken for granted by their political leaders. That's why they are giving their vote to Ukip, the party of the people run by the people.

The Labour party of 2014 is not the Labour party of old. How many millionaires are there on the Labour front bench? How many have done a proper job, or any job, before entering politics?

I've been a cleaner, shop worker, van driver, delivery man, postman, IT professional and now small businessman. Lots of different jobs.

And now I'm standing for Ukip and I'm standing up for Sara Jane Trebar and the other allotment holders because I firmly believe, as do my party, that what has happened is wrong.

I don't expect SJT to vote for me, but I would like her to consider which parties did the right thing and which parties did not over this important point of principle.

A vote for Ukip in the Mayoral election has a real chance of electing a Ukip Mayor and putting Dotty out of power.

Ukip are not racist or any of the other things the failed LibDems and failed Labour parties are saying about us. They are only saying these things because they are so scared of Ukip smashing the political system and getting real people elected.

Vote Ukip, Get Ukip and that's the only way these allotments will get saved in Watford.

I challenge Labour to match our pledge.

I wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently.

I know it's only just March but surely he's had time to come up with an idea by now. I'm still waiting for some idea, some action from Jagtar, the Mayoral candidate for Labour.

If he's like this now, can you imagine what he will be like if elected?

This year it's likely to be a LibDem or Ukip Mayor.

Your choice, which one would you prefer?

Hint: Only one would do the right thing and save the allotments. Only one would listen to the people and work for the people. One drives a car, the other drives a bulldozer.
This is yet another story that Phil Cox has hijacked for self-promotion.

Mr Cox If you were interested in the Farm Terrace campaign you wouldn't side-line the issue with UKIP propaganda that has nothing to do with the story
How can you even say that? Nothing to do with the story. This is all about the story.

Here are the parties positions.


LibDem - bulldoze the allotments, build houses, call it a health campus.
Conservatives - I agree with Dotty (RH seems on board, but then he is a developer himself).
Labour - This is an abuse of power.
Ukip - This is an abuse of power. We would save the allotments if at all possible, reversing what the LibDems are doing on their destruction.

This is a story about historic allotments that are loved by their users. They are protected by law but Dotty has used smoke and mirrors to build on what we call allotments, what she calls prime building land.

Why on earth is it somehow not relevant to point out to readers what the party positions are on this issue?

In case you hadn't noticed, there is an election coming up in May and it's important people who are good enough to go out and vote know what they are voting for. It's called democracy.

Sure some trolls are out there lying about Ukip, mainly Labour and LibDem, but the truth is also out there. Ukip is a party of fine and decent people, many of whom are fed up of the way the other parties treat people, their voters, and have found a better way, a party that believes in power for the people and common sense policies.

Some people try to portray Ukip as mad. For those that understand the real Ukip, not the troll lies, we think you would be mad to vote for any other party.

Voting Labour for instance is voting for uncontrolled immigration which produces unemployment and lower wages. There's plenty of evidence to back that up. particularly at the lower end of the wage spectrum and the first-time jobs that our youth are chasing. Since when was that a Labour policy? More to the point, who would vote for it?

Ukip, a better way, whichever way you look at it.
Mr Cox you say you; “wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently”.

Well that also begs the question what would you do differently as Mayor?
Yes it does.

I know exactly what I would do about it but I'm not saying here as Jagtar would only copy it and claim it for himself.

I also know what I would do differently as Mayor. Our manifesto should be on our website next week so please keep an eye out for it. It will explain what we believe needs to change to turn our council into the sort of council people will be proud of.

When we have the public hustings I would, after letting Jagtar have his say, give you my solution, but at this stage why give Labour ideas when they so clearly have none of their own?
[quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: That's why my comment of 9:23 last night tried to get this thread back on subject and I also asked where Labour stood. Others then changed the subject. It's all very well Labour saying "It's not good enough" but then not promising to do anything about it. SJT needs action. A Ukip Mayor would produce action to save the allotments. Labour has stayed quiet on the subject. Labour would, as usual, do nothing. If Labour wanted to match our commitment to save these allotments they are fully aware of the Ukip position and could have matched us. But NO, they haven't. Labour has stayed quiet. Jagtar knows we are saying this but refuses to match us. Labour are full of hot air but when it comes to actually doing something about it they are found wanting. Just face it, Ukip are more on the side of working class people than Labour are. Labour are more about green taxes and sucking up to the EU. The people are just there to vote them in every once in a while. And the people are getting fed up of being taken for granted by their political leaders. That's why they are giving their vote to Ukip, the party of the people run by the people. The Labour party of 2014 is not the Labour party of old. How many millionaires are there on the Labour front bench? How many have done a proper job, or any job, before entering politics? I've been a cleaner, shop worker, van driver, delivery man, postman, IT professional and now small businessman. Lots of different jobs. And now I'm standing for Ukip and I'm standing up for Sara Jane Trebar and the other allotment holders because I firmly believe, as do my party, that what has happened is wrong. I don't expect SJT to vote for me, but I would like her to consider which parties did the right thing and which parties did not over this important point of principle. A vote for Ukip in the Mayoral election has a real chance of electing a Ukip Mayor and putting Dotty out of power. Ukip are not racist or any of the other things the failed LibDems and failed Labour parties are saying about us. They are only saying these things because they are so scared of Ukip smashing the political system and getting real people elected. Vote Ukip, Get Ukip and that's the only way these allotments will get saved in Watford. I challenge Labour to match our pledge. I wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently. I know it's only just March but surely he's had time to come up with an idea by now. I'm still waiting for some idea, some action from Jagtar, the Mayoral candidate for Labour. If he's like this now, can you imagine what he will be like if elected? This year it's likely to be a LibDem or Ukip Mayor. Your choice, which one would you prefer? Hint: Only one would do the right thing and save the allotments. Only one would listen to the people and work for the people. One drives a car, the other drives a bulldozer.[/p][/quote]This is yet another story that Phil Cox has hijacked for self-promotion. Mr Cox If you were interested in the Farm Terrace campaign you wouldn't side-line the issue with UKIP propaganda that has nothing to do with the story[/p][/quote]How can you even say that? Nothing to do with the story. This is all about the story. Here are the parties positions. LibDem - bulldoze the allotments, build houses, call it a health campus. Conservatives - I agree with Dotty (RH seems on board, but then he is a developer himself). Labour - This is an abuse of power. Ukip - This is an abuse of power. We would save the allotments if at all possible, reversing what the LibDems are doing on their destruction. This is a story about historic allotments that are loved by their users. They are protected by law but Dotty has used smoke and mirrors to build on what we call allotments, what she calls prime building land. Why on earth is it somehow not relevant to point out to readers what the party positions are on this issue? In case you hadn't noticed, there is an election coming up in May and it's important people who are good enough to go out and vote know what they are voting for. It's called democracy. Sure some trolls are out there lying about Ukip, mainly Labour and LibDem, but the truth is also out there. Ukip is a party of fine and decent people, many of whom are fed up of the way the other parties treat people, their voters, and have found a better way, a party that believes in power for the people and common sense policies. Some people try to portray Ukip as mad. For those that understand the real Ukip, not the troll lies, we think you would be mad to vote for any other party. Voting Labour for instance is voting for uncontrolled immigration which produces unemployment and lower wages. There's plenty of evidence to back that up. particularly at the lower end of the wage spectrum and the first-time jobs that our youth are chasing. Since when was that a Labour policy? More to the point, who would vote for it? Ukip, a better way, whichever way you look at it.[/p][/quote]Mr Cox you say you; “wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently”. Well that also begs the question what would you do differently as Mayor?[/p][/quote]Yes it does. I know exactly what I would do about it but I'm not saying here as Jagtar would only copy it and claim it for himself. I also know what I would do differently as Mayor. Our manifesto should be on our website next week so please keep an eye out for it. It will explain what we believe needs to change to turn our council into the sort of council people will be proud of. When we have the public hustings I would, after letting Jagtar have his say, give you my solution, but at this stage why give Labour ideas when they so clearly have none of their own? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -4

10:43am Thu 6 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
That's why my comment of 9:23 last night tried to get this thread back on subject and I also asked where Labour stood. Others then changed the subject.

It's all very well Labour saying "It's not good enough" but then not promising to do anything about it.

SJT needs action. A Ukip Mayor would produce action to save the allotments.

Labour has stayed quiet on the subject. Labour would, as usual, do nothing.

If Labour wanted to match our commitment to save these allotments they are fully aware of the Ukip position and could have matched us.

But NO, they haven't. Labour has stayed quiet. Jagtar knows we are saying this but refuses to match us.

Labour are full of hot air but when it comes to actually doing something about it they are found wanting.

Just face it, Ukip are more on the side of working class people than Labour are.

Labour are more about green taxes and sucking up to the EU.

The people are just there to vote them in every once in a while.

And the people are getting fed up of being taken for granted by their political leaders. That's why they are giving their vote to Ukip, the party of the people run by the people.

The Labour party of 2014 is not the Labour party of old. How many millionaires are there on the Labour front bench? How many have done a proper job, or any job, before entering politics?

I've been a cleaner, shop worker, van driver, delivery man, postman, IT professional and now small businessman. Lots of different jobs.

And now I'm standing for Ukip and I'm standing up for Sara Jane Trebar and the other allotment holders because I firmly believe, as do my party, that what has happened is wrong.

I don't expect SJT to vote for me, but I would like her to consider which parties did the right thing and which parties did not over this important point of principle.

A vote for Ukip in the Mayoral election has a real chance of electing a Ukip Mayor and putting Dotty out of power.

Ukip are not racist or any of the other things the failed LibDems and failed Labour parties are saying about us. They are only saying these things because they are so scared of Ukip smashing the political system and getting real people elected.

Vote Ukip, Get Ukip and that's the only way these allotments will get saved in Watford.

I challenge Labour to match our pledge.

I wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently.

I know it's only just March but surely he's had time to come up with an idea by now. I'm still waiting for some idea, some action from Jagtar, the Mayoral candidate for Labour.

If he's like this now, can you imagine what he will be like if elected?

This year it's likely to be a LibDem or Ukip Mayor.

Your choice, which one would you prefer?

Hint: Only one would do the right thing and save the allotments. Only one would listen to the people and work for the people. One drives a car, the other drives a bulldozer.
This is yet another story that Phil Cox has hijacked for self-promotion.

Mr Cox If you were interested in the Farm Terrace campaign you wouldn't side-line the issue with UKIP propaganda that has nothing to do with the story
How can you even say that? Nothing to do with the story. This is all about the story.

Here are the parties positions.


LibDem - bulldoze the allotments, build houses, call it a health campus.
Conservatives - I agree with Dotty (RH seems on board, but then he is a developer himself).
Labour - This is an abuse of power.
Ukip - This is an abuse of power. We would save the allotments if at all possible, reversing what the LibDems are doing on their destruction.

This is a story about historic allotments that are loved by their users. They are protected by law but Dotty has used smoke and mirrors to build on what we call allotments, what she calls prime building land.

Why on earth is it somehow not relevant to point out to readers what the party positions are on this issue?

In case you hadn't noticed, there is an election coming up in May and it's important people who are good enough to go out and vote know what they are voting for. It's called democracy.

Sure some trolls are out there lying about Ukip, mainly Labour and LibDem, but the truth is also out there. Ukip is a party of fine and decent people, many of whom are fed up of the way the other parties treat people, their voters, and have found a better way, a party that believes in power for the people and common sense policies.

Some people try to portray Ukip as mad. For those that understand the real Ukip, not the troll lies, we think you would be mad to vote for any other party.

Voting Labour for instance is voting for uncontrolled immigration which produces unemployment and lower wages. There's plenty of evidence to back that up. particularly at the lower end of the wage spectrum and the first-time jobs that our youth are chasing. Since when was that a Labour policy? More to the point, who would vote for it?

Ukip, a better way, whichever way you look at it.
Mr Cox you say you; “wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently”.

Well that also begs the question what would you do differently as Mayor?
Yes it does.

I know exactly what I would do about it but I'm not saying here as Jagtar would only copy it and claim it for himself.

I also know what I would do differently as Mayor. Our manifesto should be on our website next week so please keep an eye out for it. It will explain what we believe needs to change to turn our council into the sort of council people will be proud of.

When we have the public hustings I would, after letting Jagtar have his say, give you my solution, but at this stage why give Labour ideas when they so clearly have none of their own?
What I would expect from a typical politician.

Evasion rather than answering the question.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: That's why my comment of 9:23 last night tried to get this thread back on subject and I also asked where Labour stood. Others then changed the subject. It's all very well Labour saying "It's not good enough" but then not promising to do anything about it. SJT needs action. A Ukip Mayor would produce action to save the allotments. Labour has stayed quiet on the subject. Labour would, as usual, do nothing. If Labour wanted to match our commitment to save these allotments they are fully aware of the Ukip position and could have matched us. But NO, they haven't. Labour has stayed quiet. Jagtar knows we are saying this but refuses to match us. Labour are full of hot air but when it comes to actually doing something about it they are found wanting. Just face it, Ukip are more on the side of working class people than Labour are. Labour are more about green taxes and sucking up to the EU. The people are just there to vote them in every once in a while. And the people are getting fed up of being taken for granted by their political leaders. That's why they are giving their vote to Ukip, the party of the people run by the people. The Labour party of 2014 is not the Labour party of old. How many millionaires are there on the Labour front bench? How many have done a proper job, or any job, before entering politics? I've been a cleaner, shop worker, van driver, delivery man, postman, IT professional and now small businessman. Lots of different jobs. And now I'm standing for Ukip and I'm standing up for Sara Jane Trebar and the other allotment holders because I firmly believe, as do my party, that what has happened is wrong. I don't expect SJT to vote for me, but I would like her to consider which parties did the right thing and which parties did not over this important point of principle. A vote for Ukip in the Mayoral election has a real chance of electing a Ukip Mayor and putting Dotty out of power. Ukip are not racist or any of the other things the failed LibDems and failed Labour parties are saying about us. They are only saying these things because they are so scared of Ukip smashing the political system and getting real people elected. Vote Ukip, Get Ukip and that's the only way these allotments will get saved in Watford. I challenge Labour to match our pledge. I wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently. I know it's only just March but surely he's had time to come up with an idea by now. I'm still waiting for some idea, some action from Jagtar, the Mayoral candidate for Labour. If he's like this now, can you imagine what he will be like if elected? This year it's likely to be a LibDem or Ukip Mayor. Your choice, which one would you prefer? Hint: Only one would do the right thing and save the allotments. Only one would listen to the people and work for the people. One drives a car, the other drives a bulldozer.[/p][/quote]This is yet another story that Phil Cox has hijacked for self-promotion. Mr Cox If you were interested in the Farm Terrace campaign you wouldn't side-line the issue with UKIP propaganda that has nothing to do with the story[/p][/quote]How can you even say that? Nothing to do with the story. This is all about the story. Here are the parties positions. LibDem - bulldoze the allotments, build houses, call it a health campus. Conservatives - I agree with Dotty (RH seems on board, but then he is a developer himself). Labour - This is an abuse of power. Ukip - This is an abuse of power. We would save the allotments if at all possible, reversing what the LibDems are doing on their destruction. This is a story about historic allotments that are loved by their users. They are protected by law but Dotty has used smoke and mirrors to build on what we call allotments, what she calls prime building land. Why on earth is it somehow not relevant to point out to readers what the party positions are on this issue? In case you hadn't noticed, there is an election coming up in May and it's important people who are good enough to go out and vote know what they are voting for. It's called democracy. Sure some trolls are out there lying about Ukip, mainly Labour and LibDem, but the truth is also out there. Ukip is a party of fine and decent people, many of whom are fed up of the way the other parties treat people, their voters, and have found a better way, a party that believes in power for the people and common sense policies. Some people try to portray Ukip as mad. For those that understand the real Ukip, not the troll lies, we think you would be mad to vote for any other party. Voting Labour for instance is voting for uncontrolled immigration which produces unemployment and lower wages. There's plenty of evidence to back that up. particularly at the lower end of the wage spectrum and the first-time jobs that our youth are chasing. Since when was that a Labour policy? More to the point, who would vote for it? Ukip, a better way, whichever way you look at it.[/p][/quote]Mr Cox you say you; “wrote to Jagtar last year about the council backlog of collecting benefit overpayments. He moaned like anything and said it wasn't good enough. I simply asked him, by email, what he would do differently”. Well that also begs the question what would you do differently as Mayor?[/p][/quote]Yes it does. I know exactly what I would do about it but I'm not saying here as Jagtar would only copy it and claim it for himself. I also know what I would do differently as Mayor. Our manifesto should be on our website next week so please keep an eye out for it. It will explain what we believe needs to change to turn our council into the sort of council people will be proud of. When we have the public hustings I would, after letting Jagtar have his say, give you my solution, but at this stage why give Labour ideas when they so clearly have none of their own?[/p][/quote]What I would expect from a typical politician. Evasion rather than answering the question. yellow hornet
  • Score: 3

11:05am Thu 6 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Problem solving is one of the skills I bring to my everyday work. This is just another problem that needs solving.

Jagtar has no solution and hopes to get away with it by saying what is wrong without producing any solutions.

I'm not going to help the Labour party out with ideas here. Let them say their solution first, then I will give our solution. It is likely to be different.

We need to be able to illustrate to the voters the difference between a Ukip Mayor and a Labour Mayor

The difference between Jagtar and myself.

The reason to vote Ukip or Labour.

Have you ever seen Jagtar in action at the council? I have. It's a shame it's not on youtube.
Problem solving is one of the skills I bring to my everyday work. This is just another problem that needs solving. Jagtar has no solution and hopes to get away with it by saying what is wrong without producing any solutions. I'm not going to help the Labour party out with ideas here. Let them say their solution first, then I will give our solution. It is likely to be different. We need to be able to illustrate to the voters the difference between a Ukip Mayor and a Labour Mayor The difference between Jagtar and myself. The reason to vote Ukip or Labour. Have you ever seen Jagtar in action at the council? I have. It's a shame it's not on youtube. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -3

11:17am Thu 6 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Problem solving is one of the skills I bring to my everyday work. This is just another problem that needs solving.

Jagtar has no solution and hopes to get away with it by saying what is wrong without producing any solutions.

I'm not going to help the Labour party out with ideas here. Let them say their solution first, then I will give our solution. It is likely to be different.

We need to be able to illustrate to the voters the difference between a Ukip Mayor and a Labour Mayor

The difference between Jagtar and myself.

The reason to vote Ukip or Labour.

Have you ever seen Jagtar in action at the council? I have. It's a shame it's not on youtube.
What I would expect from a typical politician.

Evasion rather than answering the question.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Problem solving is one of the skills I bring to my everyday work. This is just another problem that needs solving. Jagtar has no solution and hopes to get away with it by saying what is wrong without producing any solutions. I'm not going to help the Labour party out with ideas here. Let them say their solution first, then I will give our solution. It is likely to be different. We need to be able to illustrate to the voters the difference between a Ukip Mayor and a Labour Mayor The difference between Jagtar and myself. The reason to vote Ukip or Labour. Have you ever seen Jagtar in action at the council? I have. It's a shame it's not on youtube.[/p][/quote]What I would expect from a typical politician. Evasion rather than answering the question. yellow hornet
  • Score: 5

11:35am Thu 6 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

I will happily share any public stage with Jagtar where we can discuss policies or even just this one issue.

My only stipulation is Jagtar goes first on this one purely because I don't believe he has any (good) ideas on it.

Why not ask Jagtar Singh Dhindsa for a solution? He is an elected politician, standing for Mayor this year, who is part of the council.

Jagtar is in a far better position to come up with an answer to the problem yet since last Autumn he has failed to do so, despite raising the issue in the press.

How long should we give him Yellow Hornet before we declare him out? Normally a count of ten is declared a knockout. Ten days? Ten weeks? Ten months? Ten years....? How long will it take him to come up with an idea?
I will happily share any public stage with Jagtar where we can discuss policies or even just this one issue. My only stipulation is Jagtar goes first on this one purely because I don't believe he has any (good) ideas on it. Why not ask Jagtar Singh Dhindsa for a solution? He is an elected politician, standing for Mayor this year, who is part of the council. Jagtar is in a far better position to come up with an answer to the problem yet since last Autumn he has failed to do so, despite raising the issue in the press. How long should we give him Yellow Hornet before we declare him out? Normally a count of ten is declared a knockout. Ten days? Ten weeks? Ten months? Ten years....? How long will it take him to come up with an idea? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -6

11:58am Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Morning Phil,

Hope you're well.

You say that UKIP are different but here you are acting in the same way as the main stream parties - attacking your opponents rather than providing positive solutions. With regards the allotments, the Green party opposed the use of them for this Wealth Campus from the beginning. In fairness though, the Labour party, in the shape of Jagtar and Mo have given the allotment holders consistent help and support which no doubt is much more useful than your warm words.

As to you having a solution regards the back log of collecting over benefit payments but not being prepared to tell us because Jagtar might copy it, that's a very evasive answer. After all, Jagtar could easily say the same thing. State it here and now - it would then be easy for you to prove you put your idea forward first. Because you know when it comes to The Hustings, you won't get to decide who answers which questions in what order.

While you're at it, you could state what changes you will make to the Wealth Campus plans in order to make sure the allotments are saved, and what you will do to try and further the rapidly diminishing hope of us having an improved hospital (regardless of the allotments).
Morning Phil, Hope you're well. You say that UKIP are different but here you are acting in the same way as the main stream parties - attacking your opponents rather than providing positive solutions. With regards the allotments, the Green party opposed the use of them for this Wealth Campus from the beginning. In fairness though, the Labour party, in the shape of Jagtar and Mo have given the allotment holders consistent help and support which no doubt is much more useful than your warm words. As to you having a solution regards the back log of collecting over benefit payments but not being prepared to tell us because Jagtar might copy it, that's a very evasive answer. After all, Jagtar could easily say the same thing. State it here and now - it would then be easy for you to prove you put your idea forward first. Because you know when it comes to The Hustings, you won't get to decide who answers which questions in what order. While you're at it, you could state what changes you will make to the Wealth Campus plans in order to make sure the allotments are saved, and what you will do to try and further the rapidly diminishing hope of us having an improved hospital (regardless of the allotments). Su Murray
  • Score: -4

12:04pm Thu 6 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

Jagtar has stated that he will work to implement the scheme without building on the allotments, he unlike you has been an active supporter of Save Farm Terrace, and is even seen in the BBC program.
As to the legal case my understanding is that there is good chance that any party will have to work on the basis of a scheme not including the allotments.
The original vision was for an improved and expanded hospital with greater teaching responsibilities hence "Health Campus" and this is what all parties should be working for (with the caveat that maybe a better site could be found)
We are instead getting colne flood plain housing estate, and with the warning of Lord Owen ringing in my ears I would suggest that any new health facilities will be primarily private.
Jagtar has stated that he will work to implement the scheme without building on the allotments, he unlike you has been an active supporter of Save Farm Terrace, and is even seen in the BBC program. As to the legal case my understanding is that there is good chance that any party will have to work on the basis of a scheme not including the allotments. The original vision was for an improved and expanded hospital with greater teaching responsibilities hence "Health Campus" and this is what all parties should be working for (with the caveat that maybe a better site could be found) We are instead getting colne flood plain housing estate, and with the warning of Lord Owen ringing in my ears I would suggest that any new health facilities will be primarily private. dontknowynot
  • Score: -3

12:15pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Harry's Bar says...

The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.
The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips. Harry's Bar
  • Score: -2

12:21pm Thu 6 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I will happily share any public stage with Jagtar where we can discuss policies or even just this one issue.

My only stipulation is Jagtar goes first on this one purely because I don't believe he has any (good) ideas on it.

Why not ask Jagtar Singh Dhindsa for a solution? He is an elected politician, standing for Mayor this year, who is part of the council.

Jagtar is in a far better position to come up with an answer to the problem yet since last Autumn he has failed to do so, despite raising the issue in the press.

How long should we give him Yellow Hornet before we declare him out? Normally a count of ten is declared a knockout. Ten days? Ten weeks? Ten months? Ten years....? How long will it take him to come up with an idea?
What I would expect from a typical politician.

Evasion rather than answering the question.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I will happily share any public stage with Jagtar where we can discuss policies or even just this one issue. My only stipulation is Jagtar goes first on this one purely because I don't believe he has any (good) ideas on it. Why not ask Jagtar Singh Dhindsa for a solution? He is an elected politician, standing for Mayor this year, who is part of the council. Jagtar is in a far better position to come up with an answer to the problem yet since last Autumn he has failed to do so, despite raising the issue in the press. How long should we give him Yellow Hornet before we declare him out? Normally a count of ten is declared a knockout. Ten days? Ten weeks? Ten months? Ten years....? How long will it take him to come up with an idea?[/p][/quote]What I would expect from a typical politician. Evasion rather than answering the question. yellow hornet
  • Score: 5

12:22pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Harry's Bar wrote:
The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.
We're already supporting the supermarkets by way of tax credits and housing benefit for low paid staff. Not to mention free labour by way of 'Workfare'.

Food grown on their allotments is the difference between sink and swim for many families. Plus of course home/allotment grown produce is much healthier and tastier.
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.[/p][/quote]We're already supporting the supermarkets by way of tax credits and housing benefit for low paid staff. Not to mention free labour by way of 'Workfare'. Food grown on their allotments is the difference between sink and swim for many families. Plus of course home/allotment grown produce is much healthier and tastier. Su Murray
  • Score: 1

12:24pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Hi Su,

I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook.

More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford.

Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that.

As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar?

I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first.

I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome.

So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included.

Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning.

If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford.

I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed.

If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around.

When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess.

The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd.

Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments.

SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.
Hi Su, I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook. More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford. Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that. As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar? I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first. I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome. So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included. Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning. If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford. I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed. If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around. When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess. The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd. Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments. SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -5

12:26pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

dontknowynot wrote:
Jagtar has stated that he will work to implement the scheme without building on the allotments, he unlike you has been an active supporter of Save Farm Terrace, and is even seen in the BBC program.
As to the legal case my understanding is that there is good chance that any party will have to work on the basis of a scheme not including the allotments.
The original vision was for an improved and expanded hospital with greater teaching responsibilities hence "Health Campus" and this is what all parties should be working for (with the caveat that maybe a better site could be found)
We are instead getting colne flood plain housing estate, and with the warning of Lord Owen ringing in my ears I would suggest that any new health facilities will be primarily private.
I missed that. Where has he stated this?
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Jagtar has stated that he will work to implement the scheme without building on the allotments, he unlike you has been an active supporter of Save Farm Terrace, and is even seen in the BBC program. As to the legal case my understanding is that there is good chance that any party will have to work on the basis of a scheme not including the allotments. The original vision was for an improved and expanded hospital with greater teaching responsibilities hence "Health Campus" and this is what all parties should be working for (with the caveat that maybe a better site could be found) We are instead getting colne flood plain housing estate, and with the warning of Lord Owen ringing in my ears I would suggest that any new health facilities will be primarily private.[/p][/quote]I missed that. Where has he stated this? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -2

12:30pm Thu 6 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
I will happily share any public stage with Jagtar where we can discuss policies or even just this one issue.

My only stipulation is Jagtar goes first on this one purely because I don't believe he has any (good) ideas on it.

Why not ask Jagtar Singh Dhindsa for a solution? He is an elected politician, standing for Mayor this year, who is part of the council.

Jagtar is in a far better position to come up with an answer to the problem yet since last Autumn he has failed to do so, despite raising the issue in the press.

How long should we give him Yellow Hornet before we declare him out? Normally a count of ten is declared a knockout. Ten days? Ten weeks? Ten months? Ten years....? How long will it take him to come up with an idea?
What a childlike attitude to take “My only stipulation is Jagtar goes first on this one purely because I don't believe he has any (good) ideas on it”

What if it’s your turn to go first will you have a tantrum and refuse to speak?

How is anyone supposed to take you seriously?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: I will happily share any public stage with Jagtar where we can discuss policies or even just this one issue. My only stipulation is Jagtar goes first on this one purely because I don't believe he has any (good) ideas on it. Why not ask Jagtar Singh Dhindsa for a solution? He is an elected politician, standing for Mayor this year, who is part of the council. Jagtar is in a far better position to come up with an answer to the problem yet since last Autumn he has failed to do so, despite raising the issue in the press. How long should we give him Yellow Hornet before we declare him out? Normally a count of ten is declared a knockout. Ten days? Ten weeks? Ten months? Ten years....? How long will it take him to come up with an idea?[/p][/quote]What a childlike attitude to take “My only stipulation is Jagtar goes first on this one purely because I don't believe he has any (good) ideas on it” What if it’s your turn to go first will you have a tantrum and refuse to speak? How is anyone supposed to take you seriously? yellow hornet
  • Score: 5

12:40pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Hi Su,

I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook.

More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford.

Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that.

As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar?

I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first.

I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome.

So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included.

Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning.

If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford.

I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed.

If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around.

When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess.

The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd.

Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments.

SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.
Fair enough Phil, your choice. Personally I have given what help and support I have been able to, to the allotment holders. To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party.

I don't know if Jagtar has put out a public statement to the electorate as a whole regarding the allotments, but he has said in public that if he is elected mayor, he will stop the allotments being built on. I was there and heard him.

And yes, SJT is doing a fantastic job. As are all the allotment holders involved.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Hi Su, I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook. More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford. Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that. As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar? I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first. I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome. So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included. Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning. If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford. I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed. If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around. When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess. The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd. Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments. SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.[/p][/quote]Fair enough Phil, your choice. Personally I have given what help and support I have been able to, to the allotment holders. To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party. I don't know if Jagtar has put out a public statement to the electorate as a whole regarding the allotments, but he has said in public that if he is elected mayor, he will stop the allotments being built on. I was there and heard him. And yes, SJT is doing a fantastic job. As are all the allotment holders involved. Su Murray
  • Score: -2

12:57pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Wacko Jacko says...

sjtrebar wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
sjtrebar wrote:
ramage1996 wrote: "A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it. Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case." WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed. How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.
Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.
And this is from the vindictive tweeter who's been trolling the Mayor in a deeply offensive way for the past couple of years, as well as misrepresenting the facts.What hypocrisy.
Please show me these "vindictive" tweets. Oh that's right, you can't because they do not exist! Now please stop with the nasty personal comments about myself and my family or you will find yourself in another court case - a liable one! COUNCILLOR!
You must have a short memory, take a look back at the 22 tweets and re-tweets you directed to the mayor in just one day, 2nd Feb 2014, which were either originated by your supporters or yourself. Now ask yourself whether you think the tone of them was reasonable and respectful or whether they were intended to give offence. You can dish it out but you clearly can't take it!
[quote][p][bold]sjtrebar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sjtrebar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: "A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it. Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case." WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed. How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.[/p][/quote]Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.[/p][/quote]And this is from the vindictive tweeter who's been trolling the Mayor in a deeply offensive way for the past couple of years, as well as misrepresenting the facts.What hypocrisy.[/p][/quote]Please show me these "vindictive" tweets. Oh that's right, you can't because they do not exist! Now please stop with the nasty personal comments about myself and my family or you will find yourself in another court case - a liable one! COUNCILLOR![/p][/quote]You must have a short memory, take a look back at the 22 tweets and re-tweets you directed to the mayor in just one day, 2nd Feb 2014, which were either originated by your supporters or yourself. Now ask yourself whether you think the tone of them was reasonable and respectful or whether they were intended to give offence. You can dish it out but you clearly can't take it! Wacko Jacko
  • Score: 4

12:58pm Thu 6 Mar 14

TRT says...

Harry's Bar wrote:
The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.
What makes you think this will be affordable accommodation? Will it include a 300 bed nursing home? 100 low rent properties for the pitifully paid medical research assistants fresh out of university and studying the genetic basis of disease? 100, perhaps, reserved for disabled employees making artificial limbs or sanitary pads or packing food aid boxes or doing the hospital laundry?
No, because there's not a lot of profit in any of that. We already know that the housing element is about maximising profits. That means the amount of affordable accommodation will be in line with the minimum permitted by the local development plan which is in line with instructions from central government. This won't be council housing, won't be social housing, won't be low rent. This will be middle income housing for people with jobs and cars and kids or kids on the way, because they have the dosh. So they will need schools and shops and roads and infrastructure. And possibly the people who move into these gardenless flats or postage stamp lawned micro-houses might, just might, want to pop themselves on the end of the allotment waiting list.
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.[/p][/quote]What makes you think this will be affordable accommodation? Will it include a 300 bed nursing home? 100 low rent properties for the pitifully paid medical research assistants fresh out of university and studying the genetic basis of disease? 100, perhaps, reserved for disabled employees making artificial limbs or sanitary pads or packing food aid boxes or doing the hospital laundry? No, because there's not a lot of profit in any of that. We already know that the housing element is about maximising profits. That means the amount of affordable accommodation will be in line with the minimum permitted by the local development plan which is in line with instructions from central government. This won't be council housing, won't be social housing, won't be low rent. This will be middle income housing for people with jobs and cars and kids or kids on the way, because they have the dosh. So they will need schools and shops and roads and infrastructure. And possibly the people who move into these gardenless flats or postage stamp lawned micro-houses might, just might, want to pop themselves on the end of the allotment waiting list. TRT
  • Score: 1

1:10pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Harry's Bar says...

Su Murray wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.
We're already supporting the supermarkets by way of tax credits and housing benefit for low paid staff. Not to mention free labour by way of 'Workfare'.

Food grown on their allotments is the difference between sink and swim for many families. Plus of course home/allotment grown produce is much healthier and tastier.
I can't buy that "sink or swim" line. Most poor families "swim" by purchasing cheap junk food, with high fat and sugar content. That's why you get the contradictory link between obesity and low income.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.[/p][/quote]We're already supporting the supermarkets by way of tax credits and housing benefit for low paid staff. Not to mention free labour by way of 'Workfare'. Food grown on their allotments is the difference between sink and swim for many families. Plus of course home/allotment grown produce is much healthier and tastier.[/p][/quote]I can't buy that "sink or swim" line. Most poor families "swim" by purchasing cheap junk food, with high fat and sugar content. That's why you get the contradictory link between obesity and low income. Harry's Bar
  • Score: 7

1:21pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Harry's Bar wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.
We're already supporting the supermarkets by way of tax credits and housing benefit for low paid staff. Not to mention free labour by way of 'Workfare'.

Food grown on their allotments is the difference between sink and swim for many families. Plus of course home/allotment grown produce is much healthier and tastier.
I can't buy that "sink or swim" line. Most poor families "swim" by purchasing cheap junk food, with high fat and sugar content. That's why you get the contradictory link between obesity and low income.
I agree that many families on low income buy cheap food to get by and yes, that is why there is a link between obesity and low income. But surely that's another reason to support those families with allotments who are trying to 'swim' in a healthier way?
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.[/p][/quote]We're already supporting the supermarkets by way of tax credits and housing benefit for low paid staff. Not to mention free labour by way of 'Workfare'. Food grown on their allotments is the difference between sink and swim for many families. Plus of course home/allotment grown produce is much healthier and tastier.[/p][/quote]I can't buy that "sink or swim" line. Most poor families "swim" by purchasing cheap junk food, with high fat and sugar content. That's why you get the contradictory link between obesity and low income.[/p][/quote]I agree that many families on low income buy cheap food to get by and yes, that is why there is a link between obesity and low income. But surely that's another reason to support those families with allotments who are trying to 'swim' in a healthier way? Su Murray
  • Score: -2

1:29pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

TRT wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.
What makes you think this will be affordable accommodation? Will it include a 300 bed nursing home? 100 low rent properties for the pitifully paid medical research assistants fresh out of university and studying the genetic basis of disease? 100, perhaps, reserved for disabled employees making artificial limbs or sanitary pads or packing food aid boxes or doing the hospital laundry?
No, because there's not a lot of profit in any of that. We already know that the housing element is about maximising profits. That means the amount of affordable accommodation will be in line with the minimum permitted by the local development plan which is in line with instructions from central government. This won't be council housing, won't be social housing, won't be low rent. This will be middle income housing for people with jobs and cars and kids or kids on the way, because they have the dosh. So they will need schools and shops and roads and infrastructure. And possibly the people who move into these gardenless flats or postage stamp lawned micro-houses might, just might, want to pop themselves on the end of the allotment waiting list.
I asked at the consultation I attended, how many of the proposed homes would be Social housing and was told the usual 35% So I pointed out that was the total for 'Social and Affordable' housing' whereas I wanted to know how many would be Social housing. No one could tell me.

My best guess is that most if not all of that 35% will be affordable housing. Which means slightly cheaper than the rest, and also less 'desirable' - properties on the flood plain perhaps? As you say, not council or social housing.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.[/p][/quote]What makes you think this will be affordable accommodation? Will it include a 300 bed nursing home? 100 low rent properties for the pitifully paid medical research assistants fresh out of university and studying the genetic basis of disease? 100, perhaps, reserved for disabled employees making artificial limbs or sanitary pads or packing food aid boxes or doing the hospital laundry? No, because there's not a lot of profit in any of that. We already know that the housing element is about maximising profits. That means the amount of affordable accommodation will be in line with the minimum permitted by the local development plan which is in line with instructions from central government. This won't be council housing, won't be social housing, won't be low rent. This will be middle income housing for people with jobs and cars and kids or kids on the way, because they have the dosh. So they will need schools and shops and roads and infrastructure. And possibly the people who move into these gardenless flats or postage stamp lawned micro-houses might, just might, want to pop themselves on the end of the allotment waiting list.[/p][/quote]I asked at the consultation I attended, how many of the proposed homes would be Social housing and was told the usual 35% So I pointed out that was the total for 'Social and Affordable' housing' whereas I wanted to know how many would be Social housing. No one could tell me. My best guess is that most if not all of that 35% will be affordable housing. Which means slightly cheaper than the rest, and also less 'desirable' - properties on the flood plain perhaps? As you say, not council or social housing. Su Murray
  • Score: -2

1:36pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Harry's Bar says...

Su Murray wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.
We're already supporting the supermarkets by way of tax credits and housing benefit for low paid staff. Not to mention free labour by way of 'Workfare'.

Food grown on their allotments is the difference between sink and swim for many families. Plus of course home/allotment grown produce is much healthier and tastier.
I can't buy that "sink or swim" line. Most poor families "swim" by purchasing cheap junk food, with high fat and sugar content. That's why you get the contradictory link between obesity and low income.
I agree that many families on low income buy cheap food to get by and yes, that is why there is a link between obesity and low income. But surely that's another reason to support those families with allotments who are trying to 'swim' in a healthier way?
The same families who managed to cobble together £13,000?
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.[/p][/quote]We're already supporting the supermarkets by way of tax credits and housing benefit for low paid staff. Not to mention free labour by way of 'Workfare'. Food grown on their allotments is the difference between sink and swim for many families. Plus of course home/allotment grown produce is much healthier and tastier.[/p][/quote]I can't buy that "sink or swim" line. Most poor families "swim" by purchasing cheap junk food, with high fat and sugar content. That's why you get the contradictory link between obesity and low income.[/p][/quote]I agree that many families on low income buy cheap food to get by and yes, that is why there is a link between obesity and low income. But surely that's another reason to support those families with allotments who are trying to 'swim' in a healthier way?[/p][/quote]The same families who managed to cobble together £13,000? Harry's Bar
  • Score: 3

1:46pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Harry's Bar wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.
We're already supporting the supermarkets by way of tax credits and housing benefit for low paid staff. Not to mention free labour by way of 'Workfare'.

Food grown on their allotments is the difference between sink and swim for many families. Plus of course home/allotment grown produce is much healthier and tastier.
I can't buy that "sink or swim" line. Most poor families "swim" by purchasing cheap junk food, with high fat and sugar content. That's why you get the contradictory link between obesity and low income.
I agree that many families on low income buy cheap food to get by and yes, that is why there is a link between obesity and low income. But surely that's another reason to support those families with allotments who are trying to 'swim' in a healthier way?
The same families who managed to cobble together £13,000?
The money has come from fundraising. You can read about it on the fund raising page here;

http://www.gofundme.
com/3ig1fo

And on the Farm Terrace Allotment website here;

http://savefarmterra
ce.wix.com/savefarmt
errace#!donate/c1ghi
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.[/p][/quote]We're already supporting the supermarkets by way of tax credits and housing benefit for low paid staff. Not to mention free labour by way of 'Workfare'. Food grown on their allotments is the difference between sink and swim for many families. Plus of course home/allotment grown produce is much healthier and tastier.[/p][/quote]I can't buy that "sink or swim" line. Most poor families "swim" by purchasing cheap junk food, with high fat and sugar content. That's why you get the contradictory link between obesity and low income.[/p][/quote]I agree that many families on low income buy cheap food to get by and yes, that is why there is a link between obesity and low income. But surely that's another reason to support those families with allotments who are trying to 'swim' in a healthier way?[/p][/quote]The same families who managed to cobble together £13,000?[/p][/quote]The money has come from fundraising. You can read about it on the fund raising page here; http://www.gofundme. com/3ig1fo And on the Farm Terrace Allotment website here; http://savefarmterra ce.wix.com/savefarmt errace#!donate/c1ghi Su Murray
  • Score: -3

2:33pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Mr Barrow says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
sjtrebar wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
sjtrebar wrote:
ramage1996 wrote: "A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it. Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case." WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed. How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.
Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.
And this is from the vindictive tweeter who's been trolling the Mayor in a deeply offensive way for the past couple of years, as well as misrepresenting the facts.What hypocrisy.
Please show me these "vindictive" tweets. Oh that's right, you can't because they do not exist! Now please stop with the nasty personal comments about myself and my family or you will find yourself in another court case - a liable one! COUNCILLOR!
You must have a short memory, take a look back at the 22 tweets and re-tweets you directed to the mayor in just one day, 2nd Feb 2014, which were either originated by your supporters or yourself. Now ask yourself whether you think the tone of them was reasonable and respectful or whether they were intended to give offence. You can dish it out but you clearly can't take it!
I am really quite shocked by this. The Watford Obs has always portrayed SJT as a present day Eleanor Roosevelt. It turns out she is cyber bully. I'm surprised this hasn't been covered by the paper. For her to accuse others of hypocrisy and start threatening legal action smacks of desperation. How can she possibly justify 22 tweets in one day?
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sjtrebar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sjtrebar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: "A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it. Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case." WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed. How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.[/p][/quote]Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.[/p][/quote]And this is from the vindictive tweeter who's been trolling the Mayor in a deeply offensive way for the past couple of years, as well as misrepresenting the facts.What hypocrisy.[/p][/quote]Please show me these "vindictive" tweets. Oh that's right, you can't because they do not exist! Now please stop with the nasty personal comments about myself and my family or you will find yourself in another court case - a liable one! COUNCILLOR![/p][/quote]You must have a short memory, take a look back at the 22 tweets and re-tweets you directed to the mayor in just one day, 2nd Feb 2014, which were either originated by your supporters or yourself. Now ask yourself whether you think the tone of them was reasonable and respectful or whether they were intended to give offence. You can dish it out but you clearly can't take it![/p][/quote]I am really quite shocked by this. The Watford Obs has always portrayed SJT as a present day Eleanor Roosevelt. It turns out she is cyber bully. I'm surprised this hasn't been covered by the paper. For her to accuse others of hypocrisy and start threatening legal action smacks of desperation. How can she possibly justify 22 tweets in one day? Mr Barrow
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Harry's Bar says...

Su Murray wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.
We're already supporting the supermarkets by way of tax credits and housing benefit for low paid staff. Not to mention free labour by way of 'Workfare'.

Food grown on their allotments is the difference between sink and swim for many families. Plus of course home/allotment grown produce is much healthier and tastier.
I can't buy that "sink or swim" line. Most poor families "swim" by purchasing cheap junk food, with high fat and sugar content. That's why you get the contradictory link between obesity and low income.
I agree that many families on low income buy cheap food to get by and yes, that is why there is a link between obesity and low income. But surely that's another reason to support those families with allotments who are trying to 'swim' in a healthier way?
The same families who managed to cobble together £13,000?
The money has come from fundraising. You can read about it on the fund raising page here;

http://www.gofundme.

com/3ig1fo

And on the Farm Terrace Allotment website here;

http://savefarmterra

ce.wix.com/savefarmt

errace#!donate/c1ghi
You should be a politician Su, you have answers to everything, even though you know most of those to me are at best doubtful. Add to that Phil's technique of supporting all causes that could win some votes, regardless of what you actually think, and you've got a winning formula.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.[/p][/quote]We're already supporting the supermarkets by way of tax credits and housing benefit for low paid staff. Not to mention free labour by way of 'Workfare'. Food grown on their allotments is the difference between sink and swim for many families. Plus of course home/allotment grown produce is much healthier and tastier.[/p][/quote]I can't buy that "sink or swim" line. Most poor families "swim" by purchasing cheap junk food, with high fat and sugar content. That's why you get the contradictory link between obesity and low income.[/p][/quote]I agree that many families on low income buy cheap food to get by and yes, that is why there is a link between obesity and low income. But surely that's another reason to support those families with allotments who are trying to 'swim' in a healthier way?[/p][/quote]The same families who managed to cobble together £13,000?[/p][/quote]The money has come from fundraising. You can read about it on the fund raising page here; http://www.gofundme. com/3ig1fo And on the Farm Terrace Allotment website here; http://savefarmterra ce.wix.com/savefarmt errace#!donate/c1ghi[/p][/quote]You should be a politician Su, you have answers to everything, even though you know most of those to me are at best doubtful. Add to that Phil's technique of supporting all causes that could win some votes, regardless of what you actually think, and you've got a winning formula. Harry's Bar
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Thu 6 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Hi Su,

I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook.

More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford.

Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that.

As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar?

I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first.

I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome.

So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included.

Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning.

If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford.

I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed.

If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around.

When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess.

The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd.

Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments.

SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.
Fair enough Phil, your choice. Personally I have given what help and support I have been able to, to the allotment holders. To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party.

I don't know if Jagtar has put out a public statement to the electorate as a whole regarding the allotments, but he has said in public that if he is elected mayor, he will stop the allotments being built on. I was there and heard him.

And yes, SJT is doing a fantastic job. As are all the allotment holders involved.
“To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party”.

Su I would agree with you and to be honest I wasn't aware the local Greens opposed these plans. I guess being green they would but I have seen little evidence of it.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Hi Su, I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook. More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford. Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that. As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar? I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first. I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome. So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included. Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning. If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford. I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed. If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around. When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess. The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd. Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments. SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.[/p][/quote]Fair enough Phil, your choice. Personally I have given what help and support I have been able to, to the allotment holders. To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party. I don't know if Jagtar has put out a public statement to the electorate as a whole regarding the allotments, but he has said in public that if he is elected mayor, he will stop the allotments being built on. I was there and heard him. And yes, SJT is doing a fantastic job. As are all the allotment holders involved.[/p][/quote]“To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party”. Su I would agree with you and to be honest I wasn't aware the local Greens opposed these plans. I guess being green they would but I have seen little evidence of it. yellow hornet
  • Score: 6

3:29pm Thu 6 Mar 14

sjtrebar says...

Mr Barrow wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
sjtrebar wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
sjtrebar wrote:
ramage1996 wrote: "A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it. Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case." WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed. How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.
Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.
And this is from the vindictive tweeter who's been trolling the Mayor in a deeply offensive way for the past couple of years, as well as misrepresenting the facts.What hypocrisy.
Please show me these "vindictive" tweets. Oh that's right, you can't because they do not exist! Now please stop with the nasty personal comments about myself and my family or you will find yourself in another court case - a liable one! COUNCILLOR!
You must have a short memory, take a look back at the 22 tweets and re-tweets you directed to the mayor in just one day, 2nd Feb 2014, which were either originated by your supporters or yourself. Now ask yourself whether you think the tone of them was reasonable and respectful or whether they were intended to give offence. You can dish it out but you clearly can't take it!
I am really quite shocked by this. The Watford Obs has always portrayed SJT as a present day Eleanor Roosevelt. It turns out she is cyber bully. I'm surprised this hasn't been covered by the paper. For her to accuse others of hypocrisy and start threatening legal action smacks of desperation. How can she possibly justify 22 tweets in one day?
22 tweets in one day is perfectly normal. You obviously know nothing about Twitter. You can not back up your claims of me "bullying Mayor Dorothy" so please leave me alone. It is you who is evidently doing the bullying on here. No matter how many fellow Lib Dem councillors you manage to get to support you using sad fake names. Please leave me in peace to get on with trying to do my bit to help save our fantastic allotments from being concreted over because of financial greed.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Barrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sjtrebar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sjtrebar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: "A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it. Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case." WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed. How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.[/p][/quote]Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.[/p][/quote]And this is from the vindictive tweeter who's been trolling the Mayor in a deeply offensive way for the past couple of years, as well as misrepresenting the facts.What hypocrisy.[/p][/quote]Please show me these "vindictive" tweets. Oh that's right, you can't because they do not exist! Now please stop with the nasty personal comments about myself and my family or you will find yourself in another court case - a liable one! COUNCILLOR![/p][/quote]You must have a short memory, take a look back at the 22 tweets and re-tweets you directed to the mayor in just one day, 2nd Feb 2014, which were either originated by your supporters or yourself. Now ask yourself whether you think the tone of them was reasonable and respectful or whether they were intended to give offence. You can dish it out but you clearly can't take it![/p][/quote]I am really quite shocked by this. The Watford Obs has always portrayed SJT as a present day Eleanor Roosevelt. It turns out she is cyber bully. I'm surprised this hasn't been covered by the paper. For her to accuse others of hypocrisy and start threatening legal action smacks of desperation. How can she possibly justify 22 tweets in one day?[/p][/quote]22 tweets in one day is perfectly normal. You obviously know nothing about Twitter. You can not back up your claims of me "bullying Mayor Dorothy" so please leave me alone. It is you who is evidently doing the bullying on here. No matter how many fellow Lib Dem councillors you manage to get to support you using sad fake names. Please leave me in peace to get on with trying to do my bit to help save our fantastic allotments from being concreted over because of financial greed. sjtrebar
  • Score: 0

3:33pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Harry's Bar wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.
We're already supporting the supermarkets by way of tax credits and housing benefit for low paid staff. Not to mention free labour by way of 'Workfare'.

Food grown on their allotments is the difference between sink and swim for many families. Plus of course home/allotment grown produce is much healthier and tastier.
I can't buy that "sink or swim" line. Most poor families "swim" by purchasing cheap junk food, with high fat and sugar content. That's why you get the contradictory link between obesity and low income.
I agree that many families on low income buy cheap food to get by and yes, that is why there is a link between obesity and low income. But surely that's another reason to support those families with allotments who are trying to 'swim' in a healthier way?
The same families who managed to cobble together £13,000?
The money has come from fundraising. You can read about it on the fund raising page here;

http://www.gofundme.


com/3ig1fo

And on the Farm Terrace Allotment website here;

http://savefarmterra


ce.wix.com/savefarmt


errace#!donate/c1ghi
You should be a politician Su, you have answers to everything, even though you know most of those to me are at best doubtful. Add to that Phil's technique of supporting all causes that could win some votes, regardless of what you actually think, and you've got a winning formula.
We only support causes we agree with, like saving Farm Terrace.

I understand your cynicism of politicians, I share it. That's why I am standing as Mayor as I am fed up with politicians like that.
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.[/p][/quote]We're already supporting the supermarkets by way of tax credits and housing benefit for low paid staff. Not to mention free labour by way of 'Workfare'. Food grown on their allotments is the difference between sink and swim for many families. Plus of course home/allotment grown produce is much healthier and tastier.[/p][/quote]I can't buy that "sink or swim" line. Most poor families "swim" by purchasing cheap junk food, with high fat and sugar content. That's why you get the contradictory link between obesity and low income.[/p][/quote]I agree that many families on low income buy cheap food to get by and yes, that is why there is a link between obesity and low income. But surely that's another reason to support those families with allotments who are trying to 'swim' in a healthier way?[/p][/quote]The same families who managed to cobble together £13,000?[/p][/quote]The money has come from fundraising. You can read about it on the fund raising page here; http://www.gofundme. com/3ig1fo And on the Farm Terrace Allotment website here; http://savefarmterra ce.wix.com/savefarmt errace#!donate/c1ghi[/p][/quote]You should be a politician Su, you have answers to everything, even though you know most of those to me are at best doubtful. Add to that Phil's technique of supporting all causes that could win some votes, regardless of what you actually think, and you've got a winning formula.[/p][/quote]We only support causes we agree with, like saving Farm Terrace. I understand your cynicism of politicians, I share it. That's why I am standing as Mayor as I am fed up with politicians like that. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -2

3:37pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Harry's Bar wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Harry's Bar wrote:
The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.
We're already supporting the supermarkets by way of tax credits and housing benefit for low paid staff. Not to mention free labour by way of 'Workfare'.

Food grown on their allotments is the difference between sink and swim for many families. Plus of course home/allotment grown produce is much healthier and tastier.
I can't buy that "sink or swim" line. Most poor families "swim" by purchasing cheap junk food, with high fat and sugar content. That's why you get the contradictory link between obesity and low income.
I agree that many families on low income buy cheap food to get by and yes, that is why there is a link between obesity and low income. But surely that's another reason to support those families with allotments who are trying to 'swim' in a healthier way?
The same families who managed to cobble together £13,000?
The money has come from fundraising. You can read about it on the fund raising page here;

http://www.gofundme.


com/3ig1fo

And on the Farm Terrace Allotment website here;

http://savefarmterra


ce.wix.com/savefarmt


errace#!donate/c1ghi
You should be a politician Su, you have answers to everything, even though you know most of those to me are at best doubtful. Add to that Phil's technique of supporting all causes that could win some votes, regardless of what you actually think, and you've got a winning formula.
No I don't have the answer to everything but I tend not to comment if I lack knowledge on a subject. As many people know, I did stand for election as a local councillor. The problem is, I don't like the all the negativity and I loathe the underhand behaviour that goes on, especially at election time. It was quite an eye opener to see how low some people are prepared to go. In fairness, it wasn't directed at me, but I still found it ridiculous.
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: The War's over folks, you don't need to grow your own vegetables any more. Support your local supermarket and stop wasting time pottering around in your shed and standing on your spade. Watford needs affordable housing, not marrows and parsnips.[/p][/quote]We're already supporting the supermarkets by way of tax credits and housing benefit for low paid staff. Not to mention free labour by way of 'Workfare'. Food grown on their allotments is the difference between sink and swim for many families. Plus of course home/allotment grown produce is much healthier and tastier.[/p][/quote]I can't buy that "sink or swim" line. Most poor families "swim" by purchasing cheap junk food, with high fat and sugar content. That's why you get the contradictory link between obesity and low income.[/p][/quote]I agree that many families on low income buy cheap food to get by and yes, that is why there is a link between obesity and low income. But surely that's another reason to support those families with allotments who are trying to 'swim' in a healthier way?[/p][/quote]The same families who managed to cobble together £13,000?[/p][/quote]The money has come from fundraising. You can read about it on the fund raising page here; http://www.gofundme. com/3ig1fo And on the Farm Terrace Allotment website here; http://savefarmterra ce.wix.com/savefarmt errace#!donate/c1ghi[/p][/quote]You should be a politician Su, you have answers to everything, even though you know most of those to me are at best doubtful. Add to that Phil's technique of supporting all causes that could win some votes, regardless of what you actually think, and you've got a winning formula.[/p][/quote]No I don't have the answer to everything but I tend not to comment if I lack knowledge on a subject. As many people know, I did stand for election as a local councillor. The problem is, I don't like the all the negativity and I loathe the underhand behaviour that goes on, especially at election time. It was quite an eye opener to see how low some people are prepared to go. In fairness, it wasn't directed at me, but I still found it ridiculous. Su Murray
  • Score: 0

3:43pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

yellow hornet wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Hi Su,

I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook.

More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford.

Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that.

As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar?

I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first.

I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome.

So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included.

Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning.

If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford.

I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed.

If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around.

When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess.

The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd.

Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments.

SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.
Fair enough Phil, your choice. Personally I have given what help and support I have been able to, to the allotment holders. To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party.

I don't know if Jagtar has put out a public statement to the electorate as a whole regarding the allotments, but he has said in public that if he is elected mayor, he will stop the allotments being built on. I was there and heard him.

And yes, SJT is doing a fantastic job. As are all the allotment holders involved.
“To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party”.

Su I would agree with you and to be honest I wasn't aware the local Greens opposed these plans. I guess being green they would but I have seen little evidence of it.
The Greens have been nowhere near vocal or active enough in my opinion, despite being the only party to oppose the concreting over of the allotments from the very beginning.
[quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Hi Su, I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook. More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford. Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that. As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar? I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first. I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome. So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included. Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning. If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford. I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed. If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around. When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess. The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd. Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments. SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.[/p][/quote]Fair enough Phil, your choice. Personally I have given what help and support I have been able to, to the allotment holders. To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party. I don't know if Jagtar has put out a public statement to the electorate as a whole regarding the allotments, but he has said in public that if he is elected mayor, he will stop the allotments being built on. I was there and heard him. And yes, SJT is doing a fantastic job. As are all the allotment holders involved.[/p][/quote]“To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party”. Su I would agree with you and to be honest I wasn't aware the local Greens opposed these plans. I guess being green they would but I have seen little evidence of it.[/p][/quote]The Greens have been nowhere near vocal or active enough in my opinion, despite being the only party to oppose the concreting over of the allotments from the very beginning. Su Murray
  • Score: 1

3:45pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Su Murray wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Hi Su,

I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook.

More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford.

Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that.

As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar?

I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first.

I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome.

So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included.

Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning.

If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford.

I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed.

If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around.

When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess.

The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd.

Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments.

SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.
Fair enough Phil, your choice. Personally I have given what help and support I have been able to, to the allotment holders. To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party.

I don't know if Jagtar has put out a public statement to the electorate as a whole regarding the allotments, but he has said in public that if he is elected mayor, he will stop the allotments being built on. I was there and heard him.

And yes, SJT is doing a fantastic job. As are all the allotment holders involved.
“To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party”.

Su I would agree with you and to be honest I wasn't aware the local Greens opposed these plans. I guess being green they would but I have seen little evidence of it.
The Greens have been nowhere near vocal or active enough in my opinion, despite being the only party to oppose the concreting over of the allotments from the very beginning.
Are they losing the plot?
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Hi Su, I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook. More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford. Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that. As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar? I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first. I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome. So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included. Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning. If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford. I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed. If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around. When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess. The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd. Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments. SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.[/p][/quote]Fair enough Phil, your choice. Personally I have given what help and support I have been able to, to the allotment holders. To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party. I don't know if Jagtar has put out a public statement to the electorate as a whole regarding the allotments, but he has said in public that if he is elected mayor, he will stop the allotments being built on. I was there and heard him. And yes, SJT is doing a fantastic job. As are all the allotment holders involved.[/p][/quote]“To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party”. Su I would agree with you and to be honest I wasn't aware the local Greens opposed these plans. I guess being green they would but I have seen little evidence of it.[/p][/quote]The Greens have been nowhere near vocal or active enough in my opinion, despite being the only party to oppose the concreting over of the allotments from the very beginning.[/p][/quote]Are they losing the plot? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -1

3:45pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Ukip will try to save all the plots ;-))
Ukip will try to save all the plots ;-)) Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -1

3:46pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Hi Su,

I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook.

More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford.

Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that.

As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar?

I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first.

I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome.

So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included.

Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning.

If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford.

I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed.

If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around.

When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess.

The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd.

Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments.

SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.
Fair enough Phil, your choice. Personally I have given what help and support I have been able to, to the allotment holders. To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party.

I don't know if Jagtar has put out a public statement to the electorate as a whole regarding the allotments, but he has said in public that if he is elected mayor, he will stop the allotments being built on. I was there and heard him.

And yes, SJT is doing a fantastic job. As are all the allotment holders involved.
“To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party”.

Su I would agree with you and to be honest I wasn't aware the local Greens opposed these plans. I guess being green they would but I have seen little evidence of it.
The Greens have been nowhere near vocal or active enough in my opinion, despite being the only party to oppose the concreting over of the allotments from the very beginning.
Are they losing the plot?
*chuckle*

If the lib dems have their way, we'll all be losing the plot. ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Hi Su, I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook. More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford. Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that. As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar? I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first. I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome. So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included. Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning. If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford. I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed. If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around. When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess. The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd. Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments. SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.[/p][/quote]Fair enough Phil, your choice. Personally I have given what help and support I have been able to, to the allotment holders. To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party. I don't know if Jagtar has put out a public statement to the electorate as a whole regarding the allotments, but he has said in public that if he is elected mayor, he will stop the allotments being built on. I was there and heard him. And yes, SJT is doing a fantastic job. As are all the allotment holders involved.[/p][/quote]“To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party”. Su I would agree with you and to be honest I wasn't aware the local Greens opposed these plans. I guess being green they would but I have seen little evidence of it.[/p][/quote]The Greens have been nowhere near vocal or active enough in my opinion, despite being the only party to oppose the concreting over of the allotments from the very beginning.[/p][/quote]Are they losing the plot?[/p][/quote]*chuckle* If the lib dems have their way, we'll all be losing the plot. ;-) Su Murray
  • Score: 1

3:47pm Thu 6 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Like Farage picking up his massive EU salary and never turning up to vote or doing any work while having dodgy offshore tax arrangements, this Cox character is trying to mug the people of Watford off and pick up his mayoral 65k + numerous perks and expenses.

He doesnt give a jot about allotments, Ukip are just opportunist who sink to the lowest common denominator i.e. racism to get votes..

http://www.theguardi
an.com/commentisfree
/2012/mar/12/ukip-fa
r-right-bnp
Like Farage picking up his massive EU salary and never turning up to vote or doing any work while having dodgy offshore tax arrangements, this Cox character is trying to mug the people of Watford off and pick up his mayoral 65k + numerous perks and expenses. He doesnt give a jot about allotments, Ukip are just opportunist who sink to the lowest common denominator i.e. racism to get votes.. http://www.theguardi an.com/commentisfree /2012/mar/12/ukip-fa r-right-bnp ramage1996
  • Score: 4

3:59pm Thu 6 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
sjtrebar wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
sjtrebar wrote:
ramage1996 wrote: "A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it. Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case." WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed. How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.
Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.
And this is from the vindictive tweeter who's been trolling the Mayor in a deeply offensive way for the past couple of years, as well as misrepresenting the facts.What hypocrisy.
Please show me these "vindictive" tweets. Oh that's right, you can't because they do not exist! Now please stop with the nasty personal comments about myself and my family or you will find yourself in another court case - a liable one! COUNCILLOR!
You must have a short memory, take a look back at the 22 tweets and re-tweets you directed to the mayor in just one day, 2nd Feb 2014, which were either originated by your supporters or yourself. Now ask yourself whether you think the tone of them was reasonable and respectful or whether they were intended to give offence. You can dish it out but you clearly can't take it!
This really is nonsense 22 tweets or 200 tweets who cares of course Sara Jane is going to forward tweets of course some of them are going to be abrasive,and of course the public elected mayor will get some flack.
It is absurd to hold a political campaign to the standards of sunday school politeness competition, this is a Mayor using Twitter to forward her own agenda and not a vulnerable 13 year old being bullied on social media.
It is for the donating public to pass judgement on Twitter and they have done by donating money by the spade full.nearly £10,000 in crowd source funding
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sjtrebar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sjtrebar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: "A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it. Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case." WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed. How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.[/p][/quote]Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.[/p][/quote]And this is from the vindictive tweeter who's been trolling the Mayor in a deeply offensive way for the past couple of years, as well as misrepresenting the facts.What hypocrisy.[/p][/quote]Please show me these "vindictive" tweets. Oh that's right, you can't because they do not exist! Now please stop with the nasty personal comments about myself and my family or you will find yourself in another court case - a liable one! COUNCILLOR![/p][/quote]You must have a short memory, take a look back at the 22 tweets and re-tweets you directed to the mayor in just one day, 2nd Feb 2014, which were either originated by your supporters or yourself. Now ask yourself whether you think the tone of them was reasonable and respectful or whether they were intended to give offence. You can dish it out but you clearly can't take it![/p][/quote]This really is nonsense 22 tweets or 200 tweets who cares of course Sara Jane is going to forward tweets of course some of them are going to be abrasive,and of course the public elected mayor will get some flack. It is absurd to hold a political campaign to the standards of sunday school politeness competition, this is a Mayor using Twitter to forward her own agenda and not a vulnerable 13 year old being bullied on social media. It is for the donating public to pass judgement on Twitter and they have done by donating money by the spade full.nearly £10,000 in crowd source funding dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

4:27pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Like Farage picking up his massive EU salary and never turning up to vote or doing any work while having dodgy offshore tax arrangements, this Cox character is trying to mug the people of Watford off and pick up his mayoral 65k + numerous perks and expenses.

He doesnt give a jot about allotments, Ukip are just opportunist who sink to the lowest common denominator i.e. racism to get votes..

http://www.theguardi

an.com/commentisfree

/2012/mar/12/ukip-fa

r-right-bnp
So many lies, so little time.

I wonder if anybody actually listens to what you write, or whether they recognise you for what you are and disregard everything you say.

Years ago people might have believed you, but not now. All these lies have been dispelled.

People know enough about Ukip nowadays to be able to disregard such lies from the other parties.

Goodbye troll.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Like Farage picking up his massive EU salary and never turning up to vote or doing any work while having dodgy offshore tax arrangements, this Cox character is trying to mug the people of Watford off and pick up his mayoral 65k + numerous perks and expenses. He doesnt give a jot about allotments, Ukip are just opportunist who sink to the lowest common denominator i.e. racism to get votes.. http://www.theguardi an.com/commentisfree /2012/mar/12/ukip-fa r-right-bnp[/p][/quote]So many lies, so little time. I wonder if anybody actually listens to what you write, or whether they recognise you for what you are and disregard everything you say. Years ago people might have believed you, but not now. All these lies have been dispelled. People know enough about Ukip nowadays to be able to disregard such lies from the other parties. Goodbye troll. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -4

4:42pm Thu 6 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Su Murray wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Hi Su,

I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook.

More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford.

Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that.

As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar?

I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first.

I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome.

So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included.

Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning.

If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford.

I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed.

If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around.

When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess.

The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd.

Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments.

SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.
Fair enough Phil, your choice. Personally I have given what help and support I have been able to, to the allotment holders. To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party.

I don't know if Jagtar has put out a public statement to the electorate as a whole regarding the allotments, but he has said in public that if he is elected mayor, he will stop the allotments being built on. I was there and heard him.

And yes, SJT is doing a fantastic job. As are all the allotment holders involved.
“To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party”.

Su I would agree with you and to be honest I wasn't aware the local Greens opposed these plans. I guess being green they would but I have seen little evidence of it.
The Greens have been nowhere near vocal or active enough in my opinion, despite being the only party to oppose the concreting over of the allotments from the very beginning.
Its a shame.

A local active green party has got to be good for Watford. .
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Hi Su, I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook. More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford. Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that. As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar? I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first. I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome. So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included. Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning. If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford. I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed. If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around. When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess. The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd. Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments. SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.[/p][/quote]Fair enough Phil, your choice. Personally I have given what help and support I have been able to, to the allotment holders. To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party. I don't know if Jagtar has put out a public statement to the electorate as a whole regarding the allotments, but he has said in public that if he is elected mayor, he will stop the allotments being built on. I was there and heard him. And yes, SJT is doing a fantastic job. As are all the allotment holders involved.[/p][/quote]“To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party”. Su I would agree with you and to be honest I wasn't aware the local Greens opposed these plans. I guess being green they would but I have seen little evidence of it.[/p][/quote]The Greens have been nowhere near vocal or active enough in my opinion, despite being the only party to oppose the concreting over of the allotments from the very beginning.[/p][/quote]Its a shame. A local active green party has got to be good for Watford. . yellow hornet
  • Score: 2

4:45pm Thu 6 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Why are you off somewhere?

Is it because you don't like me citing articles about Ukip from papers like the Daily Mail, Telegraph, The Mirror and The Guardian exposing the racist and homophobic views of Ukip? Is it because you cannot deny these claims in anyway that you have just posted the last post which shows you as a bit weak to be honest..

When you say goodbye is it because you have no answer to any of the articles I have posted?


bye then x
Why are you off somewhere? Is it because you don't like me citing articles about Ukip from papers like the Daily Mail, Telegraph, The Mirror and The Guardian exposing the racist and homophobic views of Ukip? Is it because you cannot deny these claims in anyway that you have just posted the last post which shows you as a bit weak to be honest.. When you say goodbye is it because you have no answer to any of the articles I have posted? bye then x ramage1996
  • Score: 3

4:46pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

yellow hornet wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Hi Su,

I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook.

More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford.

Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that.

As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar?

I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first.

I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome.

So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included.

Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning.

If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford.

I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed.

If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around.

When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess.

The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd.

Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments.

SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.
Fair enough Phil, your choice. Personally I have given what help and support I have been able to, to the allotment holders. To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party.

I don't know if Jagtar has put out a public statement to the electorate as a whole regarding the allotments, but he has said in public that if he is elected mayor, he will stop the allotments being built on. I was there and heard him.

And yes, SJT is doing a fantastic job. As are all the allotment holders involved.
“To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party”.

Su I would agree with you and to be honest I wasn't aware the local Greens opposed these plans. I guess being green they would but I have seen little evidence of it.
The Greens have been nowhere near vocal or active enough in my opinion, despite being the only party to oppose the concreting over of the allotments from the very beginning.
Its a shame.

A local active green party has got to be good for Watford. .
I agree. I'm sure part of the problem is not having enough local people who have got involved. Still, you could get involved and start the transformation? ;-)
[quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Hi Su, I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook. More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford. Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that. As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar? I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first. I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome. So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included. Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning. If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford. I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed. If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around. When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess. The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd. Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments. SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.[/p][/quote]Fair enough Phil, your choice. Personally I have given what help and support I have been able to, to the allotment holders. To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party. I don't know if Jagtar has put out a public statement to the electorate as a whole regarding the allotments, but he has said in public that if he is elected mayor, he will stop the allotments being built on. I was there and heard him. And yes, SJT is doing a fantastic job. As are all the allotment holders involved.[/p][/quote]“To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party”. Su I would agree with you and to be honest I wasn't aware the local Greens opposed these plans. I guess being green they would but I have seen little evidence of it.[/p][/quote]The Greens have been nowhere near vocal or active enough in my opinion, despite being the only party to oppose the concreting over of the allotments from the very beginning.[/p][/quote]Its a shame. A local active green party has got to be good for Watford. .[/p][/quote]I agree. I'm sure part of the problem is not having enough local people who have got involved. Still, you could get involved and start the transformation? ;-) Su Murray
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Thu 6 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Why are you off somewhere?

Is it because you don't like me citing articles about Ukip from papers like the Daily Mail, Telegraph, The Mirror and The Guardian exposing the racist and homophobic views of Ukip? Is it because you cannot deny these claims in anyway that you have just posted the last post which shows you as a bit weak to be honest..

When you say goodbye is it because you have no answer to any of the articles I have posted?


bye then x
He can’t even answer what he would do differently to the Labour candidate if elected, let alone anything else.

I would imagine national paper articles are totally beyond him.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Why are you off somewhere? Is it because you don't like me citing articles about Ukip from papers like the Daily Mail, Telegraph, The Mirror and The Guardian exposing the racist and homophobic views of Ukip? Is it because you cannot deny these claims in anyway that you have just posted the last post which shows you as a bit weak to be honest.. When you say goodbye is it because you have no answer to any of the articles I have posted? bye then x[/p][/quote]He can’t even answer what he would do differently to the Labour candidate if elected, let alone anything else. I would imagine national paper articles are totally beyond him. yellow hornet
  • Score: 2

4:54pm Thu 6 Mar 14

TRT says...

I'm going to stop following this article now as it's descended into an off-topic mud-slinging farce.
I'm going to stop following this article now as it's descended into an off-topic mud-slinging farce. TRT
  • Score: 2

5:11pm Thu 6 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

TRT wrote:
I'm going to stop following this article now as it's descended into an off-topic mud-slinging farce.
They normally do when we have someone using this site as an election platform.

It was so nice when we had a few days of peace while he attended his UKIP conference in Torquay.

Basil Fawlty does spring to mind.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: I'm going to stop following this article now as it's descended into an off-topic mud-slinging farce.[/p][/quote]They normally do when we have someone using this site as an election platform. It was so nice when we had a few days of peace while he attended his UKIP conference in Torquay. Basil Fawlty does spring to mind. yellow hornet
  • Score: 5

6:17pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

yellow hornet wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
yellow hornet wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Hi Su,

I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook.

More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford.

Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that.

As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar?

I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first.

I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome.

So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included.

Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning.

If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford.

I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed.

If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around.

When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess.

The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd.

Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments.

SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.
Fair enough Phil, your choice. Personally I have given what help and support I have been able to, to the allotment holders. To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party.

I don't know if Jagtar has put out a public statement to the electorate as a whole regarding the allotments, but he has said in public that if he is elected mayor, he will stop the allotments being built on. I was there and heard him.

And yes, SJT is doing a fantastic job. As are all the allotment holders involved.
“To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party”.

Su I would agree with you and to be honest I wasn't aware the local Greens opposed these plans. I guess being green they would but I have seen little evidence of it.
The Greens have been nowhere near vocal or active enough in my opinion, despite being the only party to oppose the concreting over of the allotments from the very beginning.
Its a shame.

A local active green party has got to be good for Watford. .
Why?
[quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: Hi Su, I accept your point re evasive but I am determined not to let Jagtar off the hook. More importantly, we have stated, again and again, that if possible we would reverse the sell-off of the allotments, re-instate their legal protection and improve the allotments - not just Farm Terrace but all allotments across Watford. Allotments would not be threatened at all by a Ukip administration. Ukip believes in allotments and does not want to use them for development. We can't be clearer than that. As for the hustings, I will take my chances. If I come before Jagtar to give an answer so be it, but I hope you see my point about Jagtar being evasive here despite being in a better insider position to answer the question yet has failed to do so for what must be about half a year. If you think I'm being evasive, what does that make Jagtar? I have answered every question ever put to me except this one, and there is good reason here to let Labour go first. I saw the greens argue in council against the loss of these allotments. They gave up pretty quickly and said they would try to stop it happening elsewhere is my recollection. Not much use to Farm Terrace but then to be fair the LibDems have such a stranglehold on the council that even if a better argument had been made it could not have made much difference to the outcome. So, not warm words Su, pledges. It's more than any other party has done, yours included. Why don't the Labour party come out and say they will restore the allotments if at all possible, like we have done? Why don't the greens? Ukip has led the way on this since the beginning. If elected I will do everything in my power to keep a hospital in Watford and will also do everything in my power to get Watford a new hospital. Now, clearly a new hospital will not be built by the council, but the council can pave the way for it, if you will forgive the pun after Dotty's plans to pave over the whole of West Watford. I do not believe however that there is any need whatsoever to sacrifice these or other Watford allotments. There never was a need beyond greed. If I had been in charge then I would have built or at least planned the Hospital first before building the housing estate. It cannot be right to do things the other way around. When elected I will have to see what the LibDems have signed us up for and take whatever steps possible to allow space for a new hospital and to save the allotments. If it's possible I will put the whole development on hold whilst a public investigation is held into the whole mess. The current administration has much to answer for in their race to develop and the false rumours of a new hospital that have been spread to support their developments here. I am hoping the voters will remember that when it comes to May 22nd. Everyone wants a hospital in our town, everyone wants a better hospital than the mess we currently have, and a Ukip administration will do all it can to make this happen. What we won't do is use the hospital as an excuse for doing things a council should not be doing. Like building over protected allotments. SJT is doing a fantastic job for the allotment holders. Keep up the good work SJT.[/p][/quote]Fair enough Phil, your choice. Personally I have given what help and support I have been able to, to the allotment holders. To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party. I don't know if Jagtar has put out a public statement to the electorate as a whole regarding the allotments, but he has said in public that if he is elected mayor, he will stop the allotments being built on. I was there and heard him. And yes, SJT is doing a fantastic job. As are all the allotment holders involved.[/p][/quote]“To be honest, I am disappointed that the Greens haven't been more active and vocal about this as a party”. Su I would agree with you and to be honest I wasn't aware the local Greens opposed these plans. I guess being green they would but I have seen little evidence of it.[/p][/quote]The Greens have been nowhere near vocal or active enough in my opinion, despite being the only party to oppose the concreting over of the allotments from the very beginning.[/p][/quote]Its a shame. A local active green party has got to be good for Watford. .[/p][/quote]Why? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -2

6:26pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Why are you off somewhere?

Is it because you don't like me citing articles about Ukip from papers like the Daily Mail, Telegraph, The Mirror and The Guardian exposing the racist and homophobic views of Ukip? Is it because you cannot deny these claims in anyway that you have just posted the last post which shows you as a bit weak to be honest..

When you say goodbye is it because you have no answer to any of the articles I have posted?


bye then x
No, it's because you are trolling on behalf of your party in an abusive way.

If you have something to say, come to one of our public meetings and find out the truth. Ask any question you like, we will answer you.

Then again, you probably know the truth but it suits your political agenda to put out these lies anyway. That's the way some people and some parties play this game.

I'm in Ukip and I will tell the truth.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Why are you off somewhere? Is it because you don't like me citing articles about Ukip from papers like the Daily Mail, Telegraph, The Mirror and The Guardian exposing the racist and homophobic views of Ukip? Is it because you cannot deny these claims in anyway that you have just posted the last post which shows you as a bit weak to be honest.. When you say goodbye is it because you have no answer to any of the articles I have posted? bye then x[/p][/quote]No, it's because you are trolling on behalf of your party in an abusive way. If you have something to say, come to one of our public meetings and find out the truth. Ask any question you like, we will answer you. Then again, you probably know the truth but it suits your political agenda to put out these lies anyway. That's the way some people and some parties play this game. I'm in Ukip and I will tell the truth. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -1

6:29pm Thu 6 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

The Greens, not that I vote for them are against fascism...

http://www.theguardi
an.com/politics/2013
/apr/26/ukip-electio
n-candidate-suspende
d-alleged-comments

The Greens unlike Ukip do not want to abolish the minimum wage..

http://blog.ukipwatc
h.org/2009/01/godder
s-new-britain-lets-a
bolish.html

Racist............

http://www.newstates
man.com/politics/201
3/02/ukip-party-bigo
ts-lets-look-evidenc
e

Want disabled children to be aborted.....

http://www.newstates
man.com/politics/201
2/12/mencap-slam-uki
p-candidate-who-call
ed-compulsory-aborti
on-disabled-people



Anyone who votes for this muppet Cox will betray everything that their parents and grandparents thought when they battled Hitler and Franco.


I thought you said goodbye Mr Cox, did you change your mind?
The Greens, not that I vote for them are against fascism... http://www.theguardi an.com/politics/2013 /apr/26/ukip-electio n-candidate-suspende d-alleged-comments The Greens unlike Ukip do not want to abolish the minimum wage.. http://blog.ukipwatc h.org/2009/01/godder s-new-britain-lets-a bolish.html Racist............ http://www.newstates man.com/politics/201 3/02/ukip-party-bigo ts-lets-look-evidenc e Want disabled children to be aborted..... http://www.newstates man.com/politics/201 2/12/mencap-slam-uki p-candidate-who-call ed-compulsory-aborti on-disabled-people Anyone who votes for this muppet Cox will betray everything that their parents and grandparents thought when they battled Hitler and Franco. I thought you said goodbye Mr Cox, did you change your mind? ramage1996
  • Score: 2

6:32pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

TRT wrote:
I'm going to stop following this article now as it's descended into an off-topic mud-slinging farce.
I agree, I also will stop following this article.

I'll finish by re-iterating that SJT is doing a fantastic job and we are right behind her and the allotment holders.

This is something we in Ukip care about and will fight for, but first we have to get elected and change the balance of power in Watford.

Good luck SJT.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: I'm going to stop following this article now as it's descended into an off-topic mud-slinging farce.[/p][/quote]I agree, I also will stop following this article. I'll finish by re-iterating that SJT is doing a fantastic job and we are right behind her and the allotment holders. This is something we in Ukip care about and will fight for, but first we have to get elected and change the balance of power in Watford. Good luck SJT. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: -3

6:35pm Thu 6 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
TRT wrote:
I'm going to stop following this article now as it's descended into an off-topic mud-slinging farce.
I agree, I also will stop following this article.

I'll finish by re-iterating that SJT is doing a fantastic job and we are right behind her and the allotment holders.

This is something we in Ukip care about and will fight for, but first we have to get elected and change the balance of power in Watford.

Good luck SJT.
Racists always lose the debate, and its been shown again..

If you want to try and take over another thread Mr Cox with the racist views you hold you will lose again.


bye x
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: I'm going to stop following this article now as it's descended into an off-topic mud-slinging farce.[/p][/quote]I agree, I also will stop following this article. I'll finish by re-iterating that SJT is doing a fantastic job and we are right behind her and the allotment holders. This is something we in Ukip care about and will fight for, but first we have to get elected and change the balance of power in Watford. Good luck SJT.[/p][/quote]Racists always lose the debate, and its been shown again.. If you want to try and take over another thread Mr Cox with the racist views you hold you will lose again. bye x ramage1996
  • Score: 2

7:05pm Thu 6 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

oh I would be careful here If I was you he might get his little gang of ukipers to gang up on you , they are so mean
I take it all pretence of this thread being about Farm Terrace allotments has long gone and we can get down to the business of dealing with the Local Libdem enabling UKIP party
oh I would be careful here If I was you he might get his little gang of ukipers to gang up on you , they are so mean I take it all pretence of this thread being about Farm Terrace allotments has long gone and we can get down to the business of dealing with the Local Libdem enabling UKIP party dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

7:14pm Thu 6 Mar 14

watfordrick says...

ramage1996 wrote:
The trouble with allotment holdrs are is that they think they own their 'plot', it is owned by the council.
incorrect
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: The trouble with allotment holdrs are is that they think they own their 'plot', it is owned by the council.[/p][/quote]incorrect watfordrick
  • Score: -3

7:31pm Thu 6 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

watfordrick wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
The trouble with allotment holdrs are is that they think they own their 'plot', it is owned by the council.
incorrect
http://www.watford.g
ov.uk/ccm/navigation
/environment-and-pla
nning/parks-and-open
-spaces/allotments/
[quote][p][bold]watfordrick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: The trouble with allotment holdrs are is that they think they own their 'plot', it is owned by the council.[/p][/quote]incorrect[/p][/quote]http://www.watford.g ov.uk/ccm/navigation /environment-and-pla nning/parks-and-open -spaces/allotments/ ramage1996
  • Score: 3

7:35pm Thu 6 Mar 14

D_Penn says...

Ramage1996 is a nastly little bigot and a disgrace.

Going around calling people racists with absolutely no evidence shows he is nothing more than a liar.
Ramage1996 is a nastly little bigot and a disgrace. Going around calling people racists with absolutely no evidence shows he is nothing more than a liar. D_Penn
  • Score: -2

7:38pm Thu 6 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

ramage1996 wrote:
watfordrick wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
The trouble with allotment holdrs are is that they think they own their 'plot', it is owned by the council.
incorrect
http://www.watford.g

ov.uk/ccm/navigation

/environment-and-pla

nning/parks-and-open

-spaces/allotments/
So the 10 or so articles I cited from major publications was 'no evidence'?

Fair enough, people can read those articles, hardly made it up though did I..
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]watfordrick[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: The trouble with allotment holdrs are is that they think they own their 'plot', it is owned by the council.[/p][/quote]incorrect[/p][/quote]http://www.watford.g ov.uk/ccm/navigation /environment-and-pla nning/parks-and-open -spaces/allotments/[/p][/quote]So the 10 or so articles I cited from major publications was 'no evidence'? Fair enough, people can read those articles, hardly made it up though did I.. ramage1996
  • Score: 2

7:41pm Thu 6 Mar 14

ramage1996 says...

D_Penn wrote:
Ramage1996 is a nastly little bigot and a disgrace.

Going around calling people racists with absolutely no evidence shows he is nothing more than a liar.
What have I made up? Name a link I have put on this site that is false?

The trouble with kippers are that they do not like people challenging the racist views they hold.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: Ramage1996 is a nastly little bigot and a disgrace. Going around calling people racists with absolutely no evidence shows he is nothing more than a liar.[/p][/quote]What have I made up? Name a link I have put on this site that is false? The trouble with kippers are that they do not like people challenging the racist views they hold. ramage1996
  • Score: 3

7:50pm Thu 6 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

D_Penn wrote:
Ramage1996 is a nastly little bigot and a disgrace.

Going around calling people racists with absolutely no evidence shows he is nothing more than a liar.
are you and David Penn UKIP election agent and former candidate one and the same?
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: Ramage1996 is a nastly little bigot and a disgrace. Going around calling people racists with absolutely no evidence shows he is nothing more than a liar.[/p][/quote]are you and David Penn UKIP election agent and former candidate one and the same? dontknowynot
  • Score: 3

7:58pm Thu 6 Mar 14

bigmeuprudeboy says...

dontknowynot wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Ramage1996 is a nastly little bigot and a disgrace.

Going around calling people racists with absolutely no evidence shows he is nothing more than a liar.
are you and David Penn UKIP election agent and former candidate one and the same?
I think David Penn has shown himself up a little here.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: Ramage1996 is a nastly little bigot and a disgrace. Going around calling people racists with absolutely no evidence shows he is nothing more than a liar.[/p][/quote]are you and David Penn UKIP election agent and former candidate one and the same?[/p][/quote]I think David Penn has shown himself up a little here. bigmeuprudeboy
  • Score: 2

8:02pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

ramage1996 wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Ramage1996 is a nastly little bigot and a disgrace.

Going around calling people racists with absolutely no evidence shows he is nothing more than a liar.
What have I made up? Name a link I have put on this site that is false?

The trouble with kippers are that they do not like people challenging the racist views they hold.
You're not challenging their views though are you - you're simply calling them racist. I do not agree with UKIP and I agree that there are some racist members of UKIP. But that doesn't mean they all are. There are people in UKIP and in the wider electorate that believe we should leave the European Union and/or that immigration creates too many problems. Isn't it better to listen to their concerns, and then try to discuss them and why you think they are wrong, rather than just dismiss them as 'racist'?

Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the subject of the article.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: Ramage1996 is a nastly little bigot and a disgrace. Going around calling people racists with absolutely no evidence shows he is nothing more than a liar.[/p][/quote]What have I made up? Name a link I have put on this site that is false? The trouble with kippers are that they do not like people challenging the racist views they hold.[/p][/quote]You're not challenging their views though are you - you're simply calling them racist. I do not agree with UKIP and I agree that there are some racist members of UKIP. But that doesn't mean they all are. There are people in UKIP and in the wider electorate that believe we should leave the European Union and/or that immigration creates too many problems. Isn't it better to listen to their concerns, and then try to discuss them and why you think they are wrong, rather than just dismiss them as 'racist'? Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Su Murray
  • Score: 1

8:13pm Thu 6 Mar 14

bigmeuprudeboy says...

Su Murray wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Ramage1996 is a nastly little bigot and a disgrace.

Going around calling people racists with absolutely no evidence shows he is nothing more than a liar.
What have I made up? Name a link I have put on this site that is false?

The trouble with kippers are that they do not like people challenging the racist views they hold.
You're not challenging their views though are you - you're simply calling them racist. I do not agree with UKIP and I agree that there are some racist members of UKIP. But that doesn't mean they all are. There are people in UKIP and in the wider electorate that believe we should leave the European Union and/or that immigration creates too many problems. Isn't it better to listen to their concerns, and then try to discuss them and why you think they are wrong, rather than just dismiss them as 'racist'?

Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the subject of the article.
Yes but that is not what he did, he published links on here to a dozen articles ranging from racist, anti gay, anti women, anti workers rights, anti minimum wage. So he didnt just call UKIP racist he posted links on here to well respected publications saying the same thing.

So to be honest, its the UKIP lot that have just said' 'we are not racist' not the other way round as I have read the links that have been posted.

All the UKIP lot like David Penn have done is post abusive messages.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: Ramage1996 is a nastly little bigot and a disgrace. Going around calling people racists with absolutely no evidence shows he is nothing more than a liar.[/p][/quote]What have I made up? Name a link I have put on this site that is false? The trouble with kippers are that they do not like people challenging the racist views they hold.[/p][/quote]You're not challenging their views though are you - you're simply calling them racist. I do not agree with UKIP and I agree that there are some racist members of UKIP. But that doesn't mean they all are. There are people in UKIP and in the wider electorate that believe we should leave the European Union and/or that immigration creates too many problems. Isn't it better to listen to their concerns, and then try to discuss them and why you think they are wrong, rather than just dismiss them as 'racist'? Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the subject of the article.[/p][/quote]Yes but that is not what he did, he published links on here to a dozen articles ranging from racist, anti gay, anti women, anti workers rights, anti minimum wage. So he didnt just call UKIP racist he posted links on here to well respected publications saying the same thing. So to be honest, its the UKIP lot that have just said' 'we are not racist' not the other way round as I have read the links that have been posted. All the UKIP lot like David Penn have done is post abusive messages. bigmeuprudeboy
  • Score: 0

8:20pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Mr Barrow says...

sjtrebar wrote:
Mr Barrow wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
sjtrebar wrote:
Wacko Jacko wrote:
sjtrebar wrote:
ramage1996 wrote: "A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it. Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case." WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed. How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.
Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.
And this is from the vindictive tweeter who's been trolling the Mayor in a deeply offensive way for the past couple of years, as well as misrepresenting the facts.What hypocrisy.
Please show me these "vindictive" tweets. Oh that's right, you can't because they do not exist! Now please stop with the nasty personal comments about myself and my family or you will find yourself in another court case - a liable one! COUNCILLOR!
You must have a short memory, take a look back at the 22 tweets and re-tweets you directed to the mayor in just one day, 2nd Feb 2014, which were either originated by your supporters or yourself. Now ask yourself whether you think the tone of them was reasonable and respectful or whether they were intended to give offence. You can dish it out but you clearly can't take it!
I am really quite shocked by this. The Watford Obs has always portrayed SJT as a present day Eleanor Roosevelt. It turns out she is cyber bully. I'm surprised this hasn't been covered by the paper. For her to accuse others of hypocrisy and start threatening legal action smacks of desperation. How can she possibly justify 22 tweets in one day?
22 tweets in one day is perfectly normal. You obviously know nothing about Twitter. You can not back up your claims of me "bullying Mayor Dorothy" so please leave me alone. It is you who is evidently doing the bullying on here. No matter how many fellow Lib Dem councillors you manage to get to support you using sad fake names. Please leave me in peace to get on with trying to do my bit to help save our fantastic allotments from being concreted over because of financial greed.
Wow, we really are seeing SJT in her true colours. So far those of us who have dared to question her view have been called "nasty", "vindictive", completely lacking in any "empathy, common sense and morality", "bullying" and motivated by "financial greed". Oh and she has also threatened us with legal action.

Might it just be possible that we disagree with you? I see no need for the the personal attacks but on balance I support this regeneration scheme. 77% of respondents to the consultation agree with me. By the way, I don't think all 430 Watford residents who stated this view were Lib Dem councillors! I don't accept that all of these people are motivated by greed either. Perhaps they think that Watford would benefit from improved health facilities, more affordable homes and more jobs. You disagree but please don't question the motivation, morality and sanity of anyone who dares to question your view.
[quote][p][bold]sjtrebar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr Barrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sjtrebar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sjtrebar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: "A recent consultation showed 70 per cent of residents were in favour and want us to just get on with it. Ms Trebar said the allotment holders had gained support on Twitter and had raised £13,000 of "crowdfunding" online to fight their case." WOW, how sad, im sure the families of the nimbys would have liked that 13k and the 15 from the last campaign which failed. How sad for the nimbys families and that they dont want west Watford to regenerate as its a deprived area.[/p][/quote]Wow! You really are very nasty and vindictive aren't you? I pity you and your complete lack of empathy, common sense and morality. Now go back to Dorothy and tell her (once again) that underhand tactics will not work with us.[/p][/quote]And this is from the vindictive tweeter who's been trolling the Mayor in a deeply offensive way for the past couple of years, as well as misrepresenting the facts.What hypocrisy.[/p][/quote]Please show me these "vindictive" tweets. Oh that's right, you can't because they do not exist! Now please stop with the nasty personal comments about myself and my family or you will find yourself in another court case - a liable one! COUNCILLOR![/p][/quote]You must have a short memory, take a look back at the 22 tweets and re-tweets you directed to the mayor in just one day, 2nd Feb 2014, which were either originated by your supporters or yourself. Now ask yourself whether you think the tone of them was reasonable and respectful or whether they were intended to give offence. You can dish it out but you clearly can't take it![/p][/quote]I am really quite shocked by this. The Watford Obs has always portrayed SJT as a present day Eleanor Roosevelt. It turns out she is cyber bully. I'm surprised this hasn't been covered by the paper. For her to accuse others of hypocrisy and start threatening legal action smacks of desperation. How can she possibly justify 22 tweets in one day?[/p][/quote]22 tweets in one day is perfectly normal. You obviously know nothing about Twitter. You can not back up your claims of me "bullying Mayor Dorothy" so please leave me alone. It is you who is evidently doing the bullying on here. No matter how many fellow Lib Dem councillors you manage to get to support you using sad fake names. Please leave me in peace to get on with trying to do my bit to help save our fantastic allotments from being concreted over because of financial greed.[/p][/quote]Wow, we really are seeing SJT in her true colours. So far those of us who have dared to question her view have been called "nasty", "vindictive", completely lacking in any "empathy, common sense and morality", "bullying" and motivated by "financial greed". Oh and she has also threatened us with legal action. Might it just be possible that we disagree with you? I see no need for the the personal attacks but on balance I support this regeneration scheme. 77% of respondents to the consultation agree with me. By the way, I don't think all 430 Watford residents who stated this view were Lib Dem councillors! I don't accept that all of these people are motivated by greed either. Perhaps they think that Watford would benefit from improved health facilities, more affordable homes and more jobs. You disagree but please don't question the motivation, morality and sanity of anyone who dares to question your view. Mr Barrow
  • Score: 0

8:26pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

bigmeuprudeboy wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Ramage1996 is a nastly little bigot and a disgrace.

Going around calling people racists with absolutely no evidence shows he is nothing more than a liar.
What have I made up? Name a link I have put on this site that is false?

The trouble with kippers are that they do not like people challenging the racist views they hold.
You're not challenging their views though are you - you're simply calling them racist. I do not agree with UKIP and I agree that there are some racist members of UKIP. But that doesn't mean they all are. There are people in UKIP and in the wider electorate that believe we should leave the European Union and/or that immigration creates too many problems. Isn't it better to listen to their concerns, and then try to discuss them and why you think they are wrong, rather than just dismiss them as 'racist'?

Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the subject of the article.
Yes but that is not what he did, he published links on here to a dozen articles ranging from racist, anti gay, anti women, anti workers rights, anti minimum wage. So he didnt just call UKIP racist he posted links on here to well respected publications saying the same thing.

So to be honest, its the UKIP lot that have just said' 'we are not racist' not the other way round as I have read the links that have been posted.

All the UKIP lot like David Penn have done is post abusive messages.
As I said, I don't agree with UKIP. And there are a lot of people within the UKIP party that hold various prejudiced views. But to say they are ALL racist, or anti gay, anti women, anti workers rights etc, is displaying a prejudice in itself. There are many ordinary people who on some level agree with the anti Europe, anti immigration stance. All I'm saying is engage with their concerns. Having done that, it's also fair I guess to ask if they agree with the wider policies of UKIP (such as they are) many of which are indeed anti workers rights etc. I suppose what I'm really saying is if you just dismiss them as prejudiced in one way or another, you're never going to get them to listen to the facts!
[quote][p][bold]bigmeuprudeboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: Ramage1996 is a nastly little bigot and a disgrace. Going around calling people racists with absolutely no evidence shows he is nothing more than a liar.[/p][/quote]What have I made up? Name a link I have put on this site that is false? The trouble with kippers are that they do not like people challenging the racist views they hold.[/p][/quote]You're not challenging their views though are you - you're simply calling them racist. I do not agree with UKIP and I agree that there are some racist members of UKIP. But that doesn't mean they all are. There are people in UKIP and in the wider electorate that believe we should leave the European Union and/or that immigration creates too many problems. Isn't it better to listen to their concerns, and then try to discuss them and why you think they are wrong, rather than just dismiss them as 'racist'? Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the subject of the article.[/p][/quote]Yes but that is not what he did, he published links on here to a dozen articles ranging from racist, anti gay, anti women, anti workers rights, anti minimum wage. So he didnt just call UKIP racist he posted links on here to well respected publications saying the same thing. So to be honest, its the UKIP lot that have just said' 'we are not racist' not the other way round as I have read the links that have been posted. All the UKIP lot like David Penn have done is post abusive messages.[/p][/quote]As I said, I don't agree with UKIP. And there are a lot of people within the UKIP party that hold various prejudiced views. But to say they are ALL racist, or anti gay, anti women, anti workers rights etc, is displaying a prejudice in itself. There are many ordinary people who on some level agree with the anti Europe, anti immigration stance. All I'm saying is engage with their concerns. Having done that, it's also fair I guess to ask if they agree with the wider policies of UKIP (such as they are) many of which are indeed anti workers rights etc. I suppose what I'm really saying is if you just dismiss them as prejudiced in one way or another, you're never going to get them to listen to the facts! Su Murray
  • Score: 2

8:28pm Thu 6 Mar 14

bigmeuprudeboy says...

I think the allotment people aligning themselves with a far right party like UKIP is not the best idea.
I think the allotment people aligning themselves with a far right party like UKIP is not the best idea. bigmeuprudeboy
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

bigmeuprudeboy wrote:
I think the allotment people aligning themselves with a far right party like UKIP is not the best idea.
I don't think they can tell people not to support them!
[quote][p][bold]bigmeuprudeboy[/bold] wrote: I think the allotment people aligning themselves with a far right party like UKIP is not the best idea.[/p][/quote]I don't think they can tell people not to support them! Su Murray
  • Score: 1

8:38pm Thu 6 Mar 14

bigmeuprudeboy says...

Su Murray wrote:
bigmeuprudeboy wrote:
I think the allotment people aligning themselves with a far right party like UKIP is not the best idea.
I don't think they can tell people not to support them!
I dont think anyone aligning with a far right party will do any protest much good to be honest, the far right is the reserve of the unintelligent.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigmeuprudeboy[/bold] wrote: I think the allotment people aligning themselves with a far right party like UKIP is not the best idea.[/p][/quote]I don't think they can tell people not to support them![/p][/quote]I dont think anyone aligning with a far right party will do any protest much good to be honest, the far right is the reserve of the unintelligent. bigmeuprudeboy
  • Score: 1

8:46pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

bigmeuprudeboy wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
bigmeuprudeboy wrote:
I think the allotment people aligning themselves with a far right party like UKIP is not the best idea.
I don't think they can tell people not to support them!
I dont think anyone aligning with a far right party will do any protest much good to be honest, the far right is the reserve of the unintelligent.
The worrying thing is, that not all support for UKIP comes from the far right despite their far right policies! I don't think the farm terrace allotment holders can dictate who expresses support for them. I wouldn't describe them as aligned with UKIP though.
[quote][p][bold]bigmeuprudeboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigmeuprudeboy[/bold] wrote: I think the allotment people aligning themselves with a far right party like UKIP is not the best idea.[/p][/quote]I don't think they can tell people not to support them![/p][/quote]I dont think anyone aligning with a far right party will do any protest much good to be honest, the far right is the reserve of the unintelligent.[/p][/quote]The worrying thing is, that not all support for UKIP comes from the far right despite their far right policies! I don't think the farm terrace allotment holders can dictate who expresses support for them. I wouldn't describe them as aligned with UKIP though. Su Murray
  • Score: 1

8:52pm Thu 6 Mar 14

bigmeuprudeboy says...

Made me laugh that the UKIP candidate in Wythenshawe recently talking about saving the NHS and not cutting funding when he was trying to get elected, then Farage after they lost the election saying that he doesnt agree with that and he would want to cut funding to the NHS.

I think Cox is just jumping on an popular bandwagon to get a nice wage for himself.
Made me laugh that the UKIP candidate in Wythenshawe recently talking about saving the NHS and not cutting funding when he was trying to get elected, then Farage after they lost the election saying that he doesnt agree with that and he would want to cut funding to the NHS. I think Cox is just jumping on an popular bandwagon to get a nice wage for himself. bigmeuprudeboy
  • Score: 2

9:04pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

bigmeuprudeboy wrote:
Made me laugh that the UKIP candidate in Wythenshawe recently talking about saving the NHS and not cutting funding when he was trying to get elected, then Farage after they lost the election saying that he doesnt agree with that and he would want to cut funding to the NHS.

I think Cox is just jumping on an popular bandwagon to get a nice wage for himself.
The accusation that someone is standing just for the salary could be levelled at any candidate though couldn't it? And if someone stood and said they'd do it for half the salary, they'd be accused of trying to bribe the voters. Phil Cox has been banging the UKIP drum for some years.

As to Farage, he threw out the whole of their 2010 manifesto just a few weeks ago - now he definitely is opportunistic. Wonder what he thinks of allotments this week.
[quote][p][bold]bigmeuprudeboy[/bold] wrote: Made me laugh that the UKIP candidate in Wythenshawe recently talking about saving the NHS and not cutting funding when he was trying to get elected, then Farage after they lost the election saying that he doesnt agree with that and he would want to cut funding to the NHS. I think Cox is just jumping on an popular bandwagon to get a nice wage for himself.[/p][/quote]The accusation that someone is standing just for the salary could be levelled at any candidate though couldn't it? And if someone stood and said they'd do it for half the salary, they'd be accused of trying to bribe the voters. Phil Cox has been banging the UKIP drum for some years. As to Farage, he threw out the whole of their 2010 manifesto just a few weeks ago - now he definitely is opportunistic. Wonder what he thinks of allotments this week. Su Murray
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Mr Barrow,

Can you tell me where you got the 77% figure from or is that a typo? Only the article quotes Dorothy as claiming 70% support. We aren't told precisely what the 70% are supporting though. The on line questionnaire didn't provide the opportunity for people to support the new hospital facilities, but not the concreting over of the allotments.
Mr Barrow, Can you tell me where you got the 77% figure from or is that a typo? Only the article quotes Dorothy as claiming 70% support. We aren't told precisely what the 70% are supporting though. The on line questionnaire didn't provide the opportunity for people to support the new hospital facilities, but not the concreting over of the allotments. Su Murray
  • Score: 0

10:01pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Mr Barrow says...

Su Murray wrote:
Mr Barrow,

Can you tell me where you got the 77% figure from or is that a typo? Only the article quotes Dorothy as claiming 70% support. We aren't told precisely what the 70% are supporting though. The on line questionnaire didn't provide the opportunity for people to support the new hospital facilities, but not the concreting over of the allotments.
You're quite right - Dorothy did say 70%. I think my point still stands, a vast majority of people in this town clearly support the project but a very vocal minority have a different view.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: Mr Barrow, Can you tell me where you got the 77% figure from or is that a typo? Only the article quotes Dorothy as claiming 70% support. We aren't told precisely what the 70% are supporting though. The on line questionnaire didn't provide the opportunity for people to support the new hospital facilities, but not the concreting over of the allotments.[/p][/quote]You're quite right - Dorothy did say 70%. I think my point still stands, a vast majority of people in this town clearly support the project but a very vocal minority have a different view. Mr Barrow
  • Score: 2

10:32pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Mr Barrow wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
Mr Barrow,

Can you tell me where you got the 77% figure from or is that a typo? Only the article quotes Dorothy as claiming 70% support. We aren't told precisely what the 70% are supporting though. The on line questionnaire didn't provide the opportunity for people to support the new hospital facilities, but not the concreting over of the allotments.
You're quite right - Dorothy did say 70%. I think my point still stands, a vast majority of people in this town clearly support the project but a very vocal minority have a different view.
Thank you for clarifying that. I think my point still stands that it isn't entirely clear what the 70% are supporting. After all, the allotment holders and their supporters (myself included), are also in favour of improved hospital facilities. The representatives of the Council, the Health Trust, and Kier, were all adamant at the consultation that the plans would go ahead, regardless of whether the allotments were used or not. So, clearly it isn't an either/or situation.

Btw with regards to your response to SJT's comments, I understand what you are saying but in fairness, I don't think she was accusing everyone who disagreed with the campaign, of being "nasty, vindictive" etc. And she was suggesting she would consider libel action against one poster who many regular contributors believe to be a lib dem councillor - a person who is frequently acerbic and personally abusive. Being very much the public face of the campaign, she has had to put up with a lot of personal abuse. I imagine that's a very uncomfortable position to be in, especially for someone who hasn't sought a pubic position.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Barrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: Mr Barrow, Can you tell me where you got the 77% figure from or is that a typo? Only the article quotes Dorothy as claiming 70% support. We aren't told precisely what the 70% are supporting though. The on line questionnaire didn't provide the opportunity for people to support the new hospital facilities, but not the concreting over of the allotments.[/p][/quote]You're quite right - Dorothy did say 70%. I think my point still stands, a vast majority of people in this town clearly support the project but a very vocal minority have a different view.[/p][/quote]Thank you for clarifying that. I think my point still stands that it isn't entirely clear what the 70% are supporting. After all, the allotment holders and their supporters (myself included), are also in favour of improved hospital facilities. The representatives of the Council, the Health Trust, and Kier, were all adamant at the consultation that the plans would go ahead, regardless of whether the allotments were used or not. So, clearly it isn't an either/or situation. Btw with regards to your response to SJT's comments, I understand what you are saying but in fairness, I don't think she was accusing everyone who disagreed with the campaign, of being "nasty, vindictive" etc. And she was suggesting she would consider libel action against one poster who many regular contributors believe to be a lib dem councillor - a person who is frequently acerbic and personally abusive. Being very much the public face of the campaign, she has had to put up with a lot of personal abuse. I imagine that's a very uncomfortable position to be in, especially for someone who hasn't sought a pubic position. Su Murray
  • Score: 0

11:05pm Thu 6 Mar 14

D_Penn says...

bigmeuprudeboy wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Ramage1996 is a nastly little bigot and a disgrace.

Going around calling people racists with absolutely no evidence shows he is nothing more than a liar.
What have I made up? Name a link I have put on this site that is false?

The trouble with kippers are that they do not like people challenging the racist views they hold.
You're not challenging their views though are you - you're simply calling them racist. I do not agree with UKIP and I agree that there are some racist members of UKIP. But that doesn't mean they all are. There are people in UKIP and in the wider electorate that believe we should leave the European Union and/or that immigration creates too many problems. Isn't it better to listen to their concerns, and then try to discuss them and why you think they are wrong, rather than just dismiss them as 'racist'?

Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the subject of the article.
Yes but that is not what he did, he published links on here to a dozen articles ranging from racist, anti gay, anti women, anti workers rights, anti minimum wage. So he didnt just call UKIP racist he posted links on here to well respected publications saying the same thing.

So to be honest, its the UKIP lot that have just said' 'we are not racist' not the other way round as I have read the links that have been posted.

All the UKIP lot like David Penn have done is post abusive messages.
Your ignorance is breathtaking.

You take a few media blown up stories and assume it applies to everyone in UKIP. You ignore the fact that when UKIP find a rotten apple in the barrel they have thrown it out - unlike other parties who avoid action even when top figures have fiddled expenses or supported paedophile groups. I really don't know whether you are utterly foolish, totally naive, or just trying to make mischief.

To answer your unfounded accusations about us at UKIP Watford...

Come along to UKIP Watford and meet a group that is fierecly anti-racist.
Come along and meet the UKIP women.
Come along and meet our gay members.
Come along and meet our members who are workers.

You would see straight away how daft your accusations are. I don't expect you to come though because you would be so embarrassed you would feel forced to apologise unreservedly when you found yourself face to face with the evidence that you are totally wrong.

So carry on hiding behind your pseudonym and spitting out the same old lies, but just remember, most people in the country now realise such statements are total rubbish and only being used by those who desperately want to stop UKIP so that the old parties can can carry on treating the electorate with contempt as they always have. The treatment of the Farm Allotments by the Lib Dems being an excellent example.
[quote][p][bold]bigmeuprudeboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: Ramage1996 is a nastly little bigot and a disgrace. Going around calling people racists with absolutely no evidence shows he is nothing more than a liar.[/p][/quote]What have I made up? Name a link I have put on this site that is false? The trouble with kippers are that they do not like people challenging the racist views they hold.[/p][/quote]You're not challenging their views though are you - you're simply calling them racist. I do not agree with UKIP and I agree that there are some racist members of UKIP. But that doesn't mean they all are. There are people in UKIP and in the wider electorate that believe we should leave the European Union and/or that immigration creates too many problems. Isn't it better to listen to their concerns, and then try to discuss them and why you think they are wrong, rather than just dismiss them as 'racist'? Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the subject of the article.[/p][/quote]Yes but that is not what he did, he published links on here to a dozen articles ranging from racist, anti gay, anti women, anti workers rights, anti minimum wage. So he didnt just call UKIP racist he posted links on here to well respected publications saying the same thing. So to be honest, its the UKIP lot that have just said' 'we are not racist' not the other way round as I have read the links that have been posted. All the UKIP lot like David Penn have done is post abusive messages.[/p][/quote]Your ignorance is breathtaking. You take a few media blown up stories and assume it applies to everyone in UKIP. You ignore the fact that when UKIP find a rotten apple in the barrel they have thrown it out - unlike other parties who avoid action even when top figures have fiddled expenses or supported paedophile groups. I really don't know whether you are utterly foolish, totally naive, or just trying to make mischief. To answer your unfounded accusations about us at UKIP Watford... Come along to UKIP Watford and meet a group that is fierecly anti-racist. Come along and meet the UKIP women. Come along and meet our gay members. Come along and meet our members who are workers. You would see straight away how daft your accusations are. I don't expect you to come though because you would be so embarrassed you would feel forced to apologise unreservedly when you found yourself face to face with the evidence that you are totally wrong. So carry on hiding behind your pseudonym and spitting out the same old lies, but just remember, most people in the country now realise such statements are total rubbish and only being used by those who desperately want to stop UKIP so that the old parties can can carry on treating the electorate with contempt as they always have. The treatment of the Farm Allotments by the Lib Dems being an excellent example. D_Penn
  • Score: 3

7:27am Fri 7 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

A couple of points on the alleged and yes actual Twitter abuse the Mayor gets.
1 her account clearly lists her as Watford elected Mayor
2 hat I have seen is robust posting that occasionally crosses the line
3 there have to the best of my knowledge been non instances of the vile threats that have made the headlines about twitter trolling
4 there has been nothing I an aware anywhere close
Really given her role and choice to use Twitter I would suggest that she does not need anyone to come up on a white charger!
A couple of points on the alleged and yes actual Twitter abuse the Mayor gets. 1 her account clearly lists her as Watford elected Mayor 2 hat I have seen is robust posting that occasionally crosses the line 3 there have to the best of my knowledge been non instances of the vile threats that have made the headlines about twitter trolling 4 there has been nothing I an aware anywhere close Really given her role and choice to use Twitter I would suggest that she does not need anyone to come up on a white charger! dontknowynot
  • Score: -2

9:10am Fri 7 Mar 14

Harry's Bar says...

Su Murray wrote:
bigmeuprudeboy wrote:
Made me laugh that the UKIP candidate in Wythenshawe recently talking about saving the NHS and not cutting funding when he was trying to get elected, then Farage after they lost the election saying that he doesnt agree with that and he would want to cut funding to the NHS.

I think Cox is just jumping on an popular bandwagon to get a nice wage for himself.
The accusation that someone is standing just for the salary could be levelled at any candidate though couldn't it? And if someone stood and said they'd do it for half the salary, they'd be accused of trying to bribe the voters. Phil Cox has been banging the UKIP drum for some years.

As to Farage, he threw out the whole of their 2010 manifesto just a few weeks ago - now he definitely is opportunistic. Wonder what he thinks of allotments this week.
That would depend on which of being for or against would win most votes.

You seem quite honest, almost human. I can understand your support for the allotment holders, you see them as underdogs, victims, fighting to save their land in the face of corporate bully boys. I think you've got it wrong though, they're just selfishly thinking of themselves, without a thought for the benefit to others of developing the site.
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigmeuprudeboy[/bold] wrote: Made me laugh that the UKIP candidate in Wythenshawe recently talking about saving the NHS and not cutting funding when he was trying to get elected, then Farage after they lost the election saying that he doesnt agree with that and he would want to cut funding to the NHS. I think Cox is just jumping on an popular bandwagon to get a nice wage for himself.[/p][/quote]The accusation that someone is standing just for the salary could be levelled at any candidate though couldn't it? And if someone stood and said they'd do it for half the salary, they'd be accused of trying to bribe the voters. Phil Cox has been banging the UKIP drum for some years. As to Farage, he threw out the whole of their 2010 manifesto just a few weeks ago - now he definitely is opportunistic. Wonder what he thinks of allotments this week.[/p][/quote]That would depend on which of being for or against would win most votes. You seem quite honest, almost human. I can understand your support for the allotment holders, you see them as underdogs, victims, fighting to save their land in the face of corporate bully boys. I think you've got it wrong though, they're just selfishly thinking of themselves, without a thought for the benefit to others of developing the site. Harry's Bar
  • Score: -1

11:54am Fri 7 Mar 14

D_Penn says...

@Harry's Bar

You said:
"I can understand your support for the allotment holders, you see them as underdogs, victims, fighting to save their land in the face of corporate bully boys. I think you've got it wrong though, they're just selfishly thinking of themselves, without a thought for the benefit to others of developing the site."

I believe that you are missing the point.

The fact is that when the project was first announced the allotment holders were assured the allotments would remain. Pledges should be kept.

Later, the allotments were suddenly included, not because the money would be needed, but simply because without it the budget was marginal. The Lib Dems saw an opportunity to fill their council coffers by cramming in more housing.

Now we have moved on to the point where there is still no knowledge of what or how the hospital is going to develop, but the decision to plough on anyway has been taken. It's like building a roof first and then waiting for a few years for the building to arrive! It is nonsensical, but the Lib Dems want the money.

Then you have the question of why we are cramming another 700 houses into an area that is already one of the most densely populated wards in Hertfordshire. Yes, houses are needed but we are already well past the point where the full sign should have been put up unless we want Watford to end up like an inner London borough with people living on top of one another and suffering permanent polluting traffic queues.

I still maintain that the real reason the Lib Dems keep allowing unfettered development is not because the government push councils to build houses (a convenient smoke screen) but because the excess money they receive from developers and new Council Tax payers allows them to balance the books and claim 'We freeze Council Tax again' whilst spending money on vanity projects that could be better used to REDUCE Council Tax paid by hard pressed families. I also predict that the Lib Dems will eventuall rename the new Campus the Thornhill Campus when she moves on to try to become an MP. Vanity, all is vanity.

To many who have commented on here with the view that the allotment holders can move elsewhere, I say that I am sick of the way politicians run roughshod over the wishes of the 'little people', generating weasel-word excuses along the way. It's time some honour was brought back to the Council table and assurances, once made, were honoured.
@Harry's Bar You said: "I can understand your support for the allotment holders, you see them as underdogs, victims, fighting to save their land in the face of corporate bully boys. I think you've got it wrong though, they're just selfishly thinking of themselves, without a thought for the benefit to others of developing the site." I believe that you are missing the point. The fact is that when the project was first announced the allotment holders were assured the allotments would remain. Pledges should be kept. Later, the allotments were suddenly included, not because the money would be needed, but simply because without it the budget was marginal. The Lib Dems saw an opportunity to fill their council coffers by cramming in more housing. Now we have moved on to the point where there is still no knowledge of what or how the hospital is going to develop, but the decision to plough on anyway has been taken. It's like building a roof first and then waiting for a few years for the building to arrive! It is nonsensical, but the Lib Dems want the money. Then you have the question of why we are cramming another 700 houses into an area that is already one of the most densely populated wards in Hertfordshire. Yes, houses are needed but we are already well past the point where the full sign should have been put up unless we want Watford to end up like an inner London borough with people living on top of one another and suffering permanent polluting traffic queues. I still maintain that the real reason the Lib Dems keep allowing unfettered development is not because the government push councils to build houses (a convenient smoke screen) but because the excess money they receive from developers and new Council Tax payers allows them to balance the books and claim 'We freeze Council Tax again' whilst spending money on vanity projects that could be better used to REDUCE Council Tax paid by hard pressed families. I also predict that the Lib Dems will eventuall rename the new Campus the Thornhill Campus when she moves on to try to become an MP. Vanity, all is vanity. To many who have commented on here with the view that the allotment holders can move elsewhere, I say that I am sick of the way politicians run roughshod over the wishes of the 'little people', generating weasel-word excuses along the way. It's time some honour was brought back to the Council table and assurances, once made, were honoured. D_Penn
  • Score: 5

3:20pm Fri 7 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

@D_Penn
Oh well don’t suppose I will get an answer here as to if you are David Penn ex candidate and committee member/election officer.
On the subject of Farm terrace I am a bit puzzled by the bore them to death ploy but there you go all that while pedalling a manifesto that your party leader acknowledges is crap must have got to you.
I have seen mention here of the majority of people 70% wanting the campus, and while this may or may not be true a far more effective way of boring people to death would be to analyse this claim. It is usual in Watford for politicians to present the public with a Fait accompli in these matters (no doubt the UKIPers will blame this on the EU) That is a “consultation” is held in which no meaningful input is possible from the consulted public, to be fair this is not just a Libdem thing but they do seem masters at it.
As a result of this the consultation likely had less than 500 respondents which is not a majority of the people in Watford. Watford has about 90K people living in it so clearly any claim to being representative on a tiny cohort would be wrong.
Now I doubt if a straight question was asked it might have been something like this “are you in favour of a health campus with nice new facilities in Watford, and is it worth getting rid of those filthy rat infested allotments to achieve this?” It most certainly was not “do you want to get rid of the allotments in order to build a car park and create Colne river Flood Plain estate?”
I put the question in two different forms to demonstrate a very simple fact it depends what question was asked, it probably was along the lines of the first but the reality is along the lines of the second.That is why I am apposed to the scheme as it is because it is not so much built on a flood plain but built on a deception
@D_Penn Oh well don’t suppose I will get an answer here as to if you are David Penn ex candidate and committee member/election officer. On the subject of Farm terrace I am a bit puzzled by the bore them to death ploy but there you go all that while pedalling a manifesto that your party leader acknowledges is crap must have got to you. I have seen mention here of the majority of people 70% wanting the campus, and while this may or may not be true a far more effective way of boring people to death would be to analyse this claim. It is usual in Watford for politicians to present the public with a Fait accompli in these matters (no doubt the UKIPers will blame this on the EU) That is a “consultation” is held in which no meaningful input is possible from the consulted public, to be fair this is not just a Libdem thing but they do seem masters at it. As a result of this the consultation likely had less than 500 respondents which is not a majority of the people in Watford. Watford has about 90K people living in it so clearly any claim to being representative on a tiny cohort would be wrong. Now I doubt if a straight question was asked it might have been something like this “are you in favour of a health campus with nice new facilities in Watford, and is it worth getting rid of those filthy rat infested allotments to achieve this?” It most certainly was not “do you want to get rid of the allotments in order to build a car park and create Colne river Flood Plain estate?” I put the question in two different forms to demonstrate a very simple fact it depends what question was asked, it probably was along the lines of the first but the reality is along the lines of the second.That is why I am apposed to the scheme as it is because it is not so much built on a flood plain but built on a deception dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Curiosity got the better of me.

Good post DKYN, leaving aside the snipes at Ukip. In fact 70% of 500 people represents under half of one percent of residents.

So this scheme is overwhelmingly backed by under half of one percent of residents of Watford.

It's a bit different to 70%, isn't it?

A lot of people are so used to being railroaded by the council they just do not bother to engage anymore.

less than half of one percent. That's the support Dorothy can rely on for this scheme. I suspect that's about right, basically no-one supports it in the general scheme of things.

If the true nature of the housing estate and missing hospital were made clear, that support would likely plummet off the scale.

It's a crazy hole for Dorothy to dig herself into just before an election.
Curiosity got the better of me. Good post DKYN, leaving aside the snipes at Ukip. In fact 70% of 500 people represents under half of one percent of residents. So this scheme is overwhelmingly backed by under half of one percent of residents of Watford. It's a bit different to 70%, isn't it? A lot of people are so used to being railroaded by the council they just do not bother to engage anymore. less than half of one percent. That's the support Dorothy can rely on for this scheme. I suspect that's about right, basically no-one supports it in the general scheme of things. If the true nature of the housing estate and missing hospital were made clear, that support would likely plummet off the scale. It's a crazy hole for Dorothy to dig herself into just before an election. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 2

8:51pm Fri 7 Mar 14

D_Penn says...

@DKYN

You are correct in your analysis of the consultation. It's an old political trick to bias a question to increase the odds of getting the result you desire. That's the chief reason why so many consultations are no more than a costly public demonstratin of the art of deception.
@DKYN You are correct in your analysis of the consultation. It's an old political trick to bias a question to increase the odds of getting the result you desire. That's the chief reason why so many consultations are no more than a costly public demonstratin of the art of deception. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

10:03pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

Harry's Bar wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
bigmeuprudeboy wrote:
Made me laugh that the UKIP candidate in Wythenshawe recently talking about saving the NHS and not cutting funding when he was trying to get elected, then Farage after they lost the election saying that he doesnt agree with that and he would want to cut funding to the NHS.

I think Cox is just jumping on an popular bandwagon to get a nice wage for himself.
The accusation that someone is standing just for the salary could be levelled at any candidate though couldn't it? And if someone stood and said they'd do it for half the salary, they'd be accused of trying to bribe the voters. Phil Cox has been banging the UKIP drum for some years.

As to Farage, he threw out the whole of their 2010 manifesto just a few weeks ago - now he definitely is opportunistic. Wonder what he thinks of allotments this week.
That would depend on which of being for or against would win most votes.

You seem quite honest, almost human. I can understand your support for the allotment holders, you see them as underdogs, victims, fighting to save their land in the face of corporate bully boys. I think you've got it wrong though, they're just selfishly thinking of themselves, without a thought for the benefit to others of developing the site.
Thank you. I don't bark but I do growl sometimes!

Isn't it supposedly a typical 'Brit' trait to support the 'underdog'? Along with offering a 'nice cup of tea' when ever someone has bad news/bad luck/suffers a set back?

My support though isn't really about seeing them as underdogs. They have been lied to, and about, by our elected representatives. I find that deeply worrying.

If the new hospital facilities (which we have no guarantee of getting anyway) couldn't possibly go ahead without the concreting over of the allotments, then I would accept that. More importantly, so would the allotment holders. But that isn't the case. As the plan stands at the moment, a large chunk of the allotments will be used as a car park for the football club. That doesn't have quite the same emotional pull as claiming it is needed for the hospital though does it?

In addition, as I say, we aren't guaranteed to get the new hospital facilities anyway. Plus I have major concerns about the impact of building 700 new homes in what is already a densely populated area. Some of them on a flood plain to boot.
[quote][p][bold]Harry's Bar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigmeuprudeboy[/bold] wrote: Made me laugh that the UKIP candidate in Wythenshawe recently talking about saving the NHS and not cutting funding when he was trying to get elected, then Farage after they lost the election saying that he doesnt agree with that and he would want to cut funding to the NHS. I think Cox is just jumping on an popular bandwagon to get a nice wage for himself.[/p][/quote]The accusation that someone is standing just for the salary could be levelled at any candidate though couldn't it? And if someone stood and said they'd do it for half the salary, they'd be accused of trying to bribe the voters. Phil Cox has been banging the UKIP drum for some years. As to Farage, he threw out the whole of their 2010 manifesto just a few weeks ago - now he definitely is opportunistic. Wonder what he thinks of allotments this week.[/p][/quote]That would depend on which of being for or against would win most votes. You seem quite honest, almost human. I can understand your support for the allotment holders, you see them as underdogs, victims, fighting to save their land in the face of corporate bully boys. I think you've got it wrong though, they're just selfishly thinking of themselves, without a thought for the benefit to others of developing the site.[/p][/quote]Thank you. I don't bark but I do growl sometimes! Isn't it supposedly a typical 'Brit' trait to support the 'underdog'? Along with offering a 'nice cup of tea' when ever someone has bad news/bad luck/suffers a set back? My support though isn't really about seeing them as underdogs. They have been lied to, and about, by our elected representatives. I find that deeply worrying. If the new hospital facilities (which we have no guarantee of getting anyway) couldn't possibly go ahead without the concreting over of the allotments, then I would accept that. More importantly, so would the allotment holders. But that isn't the case. As the plan stands at the moment, a large chunk of the allotments will be used as a car park for the football club. That doesn't have quite the same emotional pull as claiming it is needed for the hospital though does it? In addition, as I say, we aren't guaranteed to get the new hospital facilities anyway. Plus I have major concerns about the impact of building 700 new homes in what is already a densely populated area. Some of them on a flood plain to boot. Su Murray
  • Score: 3

10:32pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

D_Penn wrote:
@Harry's Bar

You said:
"I can understand your support for the allotment holders, you see them as underdogs, victims, fighting to save their land in the face of corporate bully boys. I think you've got it wrong though, they're just selfishly thinking of themselves, without a thought for the benefit to others of developing the site."

I believe that you are missing the point.

The fact is that when the project was first announced the allotment holders were assured the allotments would remain. Pledges should be kept.

Later, the allotments were suddenly included, not because the money would be needed, but simply because without it the budget was marginal. The Lib Dems saw an opportunity to fill their council coffers by cramming in more housing.

Now we have moved on to the point where there is still no knowledge of what or how the hospital is going to develop, but the decision to plough on anyway has been taken. It's like building a roof first and then waiting for a few years for the building to arrive! It is nonsensical, but the Lib Dems want the money.

Then you have the question of why we are cramming another 700 houses into an area that is already one of the most densely populated wards in Hertfordshire. Yes, houses are needed but we are already well past the point where the full sign should have been put up unless we want Watford to end up like an inner London borough with people living on top of one another and suffering permanent polluting traffic queues.

I still maintain that the real reason the Lib Dems keep allowing unfettered development is not because the government push councils to build houses (a convenient smoke screen) but because the excess money they receive from developers and new Council Tax payers allows them to balance the books and claim 'We freeze Council Tax again' whilst spending money on vanity projects that could be better used to REDUCE Council Tax paid by hard pressed families. I also predict that the Lib Dems will eventuall rename the new Campus the Thornhill Campus when she moves on to try to become an MP. Vanity, all is vanity.

To many who have commented on here with the view that the allotment holders can move elsewhere, I say that I am sick of the way politicians run roughshod over the wishes of the 'little people', generating weasel-word excuses along the way. It's time some honour was brought back to the Council table and assurances, once made, were honoured.
David,

I agree with a quite a bit of what you say in this post - particularly with regards the allotment holders. However, you're wrong to say the Council could have used the money being spent on the Town Centre to reduce Council tax. It's ring fenced money that basically comes from developers and has to be used to improve the environment for the local people. Legally it can't be spent on things that are covered by Council tax, nor can it be used to reduce Council tax bills. I find it worrying that as the Election agent for UKIP, you are either a) unaware of that, or b) spinning information in order to attack the Lib dem council. After all, there is enough to attack them on without misleading people. Even if there wasn't, such behaviour shows you have no intention of a 'different type of politics'.

If you said that the Lib dem council are spending this money on a vanity project when they could have spread it across a wider area, improved things for a greater number of people, and generally used it more wisely, I'd agree with you.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: @Harry's Bar You said: "I can understand your support for the allotment holders, you see them as underdogs, victims, fighting to save their land in the face of corporate bully boys. I think you've got it wrong though, they're just selfishly thinking of themselves, without a thought for the benefit to others of developing the site." I believe that you are missing the point. The fact is that when the project was first announced the allotment holders were assured the allotments would remain. Pledges should be kept. Later, the allotments were suddenly included, not because the money would be needed, but simply because without it the budget was marginal. The Lib Dems saw an opportunity to fill their council coffers by cramming in more housing. Now we have moved on to the point where there is still no knowledge of what or how the hospital is going to develop, but the decision to plough on anyway has been taken. It's like building a roof first and then waiting for a few years for the building to arrive! It is nonsensical, but the Lib Dems want the money. Then you have the question of why we are cramming another 700 houses into an area that is already one of the most densely populated wards in Hertfordshire. Yes, houses are needed but we are already well past the point where the full sign should have been put up unless we want Watford to end up like an inner London borough with people living on top of one another and suffering permanent polluting traffic queues. I still maintain that the real reason the Lib Dems keep allowing unfettered development is not because the government push councils to build houses (a convenient smoke screen) but because the excess money they receive from developers and new Council Tax payers allows them to balance the books and claim 'We freeze Council Tax again' whilst spending money on vanity projects that could be better used to REDUCE Council Tax paid by hard pressed families. I also predict that the Lib Dems will eventuall rename the new Campus the Thornhill Campus when she moves on to try to become an MP. Vanity, all is vanity. To many who have commented on here with the view that the allotment holders can move elsewhere, I say that I am sick of the way politicians run roughshod over the wishes of the 'little people', generating weasel-word excuses along the way. It's time some honour was brought back to the Council table and assurances, once made, were honoured.[/p][/quote]David, I agree with a quite a bit of what you say in this post - particularly with regards the allotment holders. However, you're wrong to say the Council could have used the money being spent on the Town Centre to reduce Council tax. It's ring fenced money that basically comes from developers and has to be used to improve the environment for the local people. Legally it can't be spent on things that are covered by Council tax, nor can it be used to reduce Council tax bills. I find it worrying that as the Election agent for UKIP, you are either a) unaware of that, or b) spinning information in order to attack the Lib dem council. After all, there is enough to attack them on without misleading people. Even if there wasn't, such behaviour shows you have no intention of a 'different type of politics'. If you said that the Lib dem council are spending this money on a vanity project when they could have spread it across a wider area, improved things for a greater number of people, and generally used it more wisely, I'd agree with you. Su Murray
  • Score: 1

10:51pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

dontknowynot wrote:
@D_Penn
Oh well don’t suppose I will get an answer here as to if you are David Penn ex candidate and committee member/election officer.
On the subject of Farm terrace I am a bit puzzled by the bore them to death ploy but there you go all that while pedalling a manifesto that your party leader acknowledges is crap must have got to you.
I have seen mention here of the majority of people 70% wanting the campus, and while this may or may not be true a far more effective way of boring people to death would be to analyse this claim. It is usual in Watford for politicians to present the public with a Fait accompli in these matters (no doubt the UKIPers will blame this on the EU) That is a “consultation” is held in which no meaningful input is possible from the consulted public, to be fair this is not just a Libdem thing but they do seem masters at it.
As a result of this the consultation likely had less than 500 respondents which is not a majority of the people in Watford. Watford has about 90K people living in it so clearly any claim to being representative on a tiny cohort would be wrong.
Now I doubt if a straight question was asked it might have been something like this “are you in favour of a health campus with nice new facilities in Watford, and is it worth getting rid of those filthy rat infested allotments to achieve this?” It most certainly was not “do you want to get rid of the allotments in order to build a car park and create Colne river Flood Plain estate?”
I put the question in two different forms to demonstrate a very simple fact it depends what question was asked, it probably was along the lines of the first but the reality is along the lines of the second.That is why I am apposed to the scheme as it is because it is not so much built on a flood plain but built on a deception
The 'question' didn't give anything approaching an honest option. As I mentioned, I went to one of the consultations and didn't see any questionnaire. Granted, I may have missed it, but then presumably I wouldn't be the only person to do so.

The on line questionnaire didn't mention the allotments. It was absolutely a 'when did you stop beating your wife' type of set up. The consultation is now closed, but you can still see the questions here;

http://www.whc-consu
ltation.co.uk/haveyo
ursay.html
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: @D_Penn Oh well don’t suppose I will get an answer here as to if you are David Penn ex candidate and committee member/election officer. On the subject of Farm terrace I am a bit puzzled by the bore them to death ploy but there you go all that while pedalling a manifesto that your party leader acknowledges is crap must have got to you. I have seen mention here of the majority of people 70% wanting the campus, and while this may or may not be true a far more effective way of boring people to death would be to analyse this claim. It is usual in Watford for politicians to present the public with a Fait accompli in these matters (no doubt the UKIPers will blame this on the EU) That is a “consultation” is held in which no meaningful input is possible from the consulted public, to be fair this is not just a Libdem thing but they do seem masters at it. As a result of this the consultation likely had less than 500 respondents which is not a majority of the people in Watford. Watford has about 90K people living in it so clearly any claim to being representative on a tiny cohort would be wrong. Now I doubt if a straight question was asked it might have been something like this “are you in favour of a health campus with nice new facilities in Watford, and is it worth getting rid of those filthy rat infested allotments to achieve this?” It most certainly was not “do you want to get rid of the allotments in order to build a car park and create Colne river Flood Plain estate?” I put the question in two different forms to demonstrate a very simple fact it depends what question was asked, it probably was along the lines of the first but the reality is along the lines of the second.That is why I am apposed to the scheme as it is because it is not so much built on a flood plain but built on a deception[/p][/quote]The 'question' didn't give anything approaching an honest option. As I mentioned, I went to one of the consultations and didn't see any questionnaire. Granted, I may have missed it, but then presumably I wouldn't be the only person to do so. The on line questionnaire didn't mention the allotments. It was absolutely a 'when did you stop beating your wife' type of set up. The consultation is now closed, but you can still see the questions here; http://www.whc-consu ltation.co.uk/haveyo ursay.html Su Murray
  • Score: 2

11:09pm Fri 7 Mar 14

D_Penn says...

Sue, money that is allocated by ring fencing still means that funds that may have been needed to be transferred from the general budget to that area can now be redirected elsewhere.

A simple example is that if say the government gives Councils a ring fenced grant to repair potholes then of course it has to be spent there. But with no grant the council would need to spend money there anyway. This and other mechanisms are commonly used within councils and governments to legally circumvent restrictions. Interpretation of the wording of rules etc. often pass through legal hands to decide what is allowable and what isn't. I do not proclaim to have great understanding of the detail (you need to be an accountant) but I know that circulating money effectively is part and parcel of managing a budget.

Indeed, without careful handling, it is all too easy to lose ring fenced money. It is the job of Council advisors and accountants to make best use of whatever income is raised. Politicians on the other hand like to collect as much money as possible whilst upsetting as few people as they can. Then they can spend the money to look good and increase their chances of re-election. It seems to me to be an endemic problem in democracies.
Sue, money that is allocated by ring fencing still means that funds that may have been needed to be transferred from the general budget to that area can now be redirected elsewhere. A simple example is that if say the government gives Councils a ring fenced grant to repair potholes then of course it has to be spent there. But with no grant the council would need to spend money there anyway. This and other mechanisms are commonly used within councils and governments to legally circumvent restrictions. Interpretation of the wording of rules etc. often pass through legal hands to decide what is allowable and what isn't. I do not proclaim to have great understanding of the detail (you need to be an accountant) but I know that circulating money effectively is part and parcel of managing a budget. Indeed, without careful handling, it is all too easy to lose ring fenced money. It is the job of Council advisors and accountants to make best use of whatever income is raised. Politicians on the other hand like to collect as much money as possible whilst upsetting as few people as they can. Then they can spend the money to look good and increase their chances of re-election. It seems to me to be an endemic problem in democracies. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

11:36pm Fri 7 Mar 14

Su Murray says...

D_Penn wrote:
Sue, money that is allocated by ring fencing still means that funds that may have been needed to be transferred from the general budget to that area can now be redirected elsewhere.

A simple example is that if say the government gives Councils a ring fenced grant to repair potholes then of course it has to be spent there. But with no grant the council would need to spend money there anyway. This and other mechanisms are commonly used within councils and governments to legally circumvent restrictions. Interpretation of the wording of rules etc. often pass through legal hands to decide what is allowable and what isn't. I do not proclaim to have great understanding of the detail (you need to be an accountant) but I know that circulating money effectively is part and parcel of managing a budget.

Indeed, without careful handling, it is all too easy to lose ring fenced money. It is the job of Council advisors and accountants to make best use of whatever income is raised. Politicians on the other hand like to collect as much money as possible whilst upsetting as few people as they can. Then they can spend the money to look good and increase their chances of re-election. It seems to me to be an endemic problem in democracies.
David,

Broadly speaking, money that comes from developers to enhance the local environment, can't be used to 'offset' funds in the way you are suggesting. Or to put it another way, the Bridge over the River Thornhill Pond, couldn't and wouldn't have been built out of Council tax money. My point was you were trying to imply that the money could have been used to reduce Council tax, whereas legally, it couldn't. Such 'spin' seems to me to an endemic problem in democracies.

I'm no accountant either, but I can recognise political spin when I see it. Incidentally, Farage is well versed in various accountancy tricks, especially when it comes to avoiding tax. Maybe you should ask his advice.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: Sue, money that is allocated by ring fencing still means that funds that may have been needed to be transferred from the general budget to that area can now be redirected elsewhere. A simple example is that if say the government gives Councils a ring fenced grant to repair potholes then of course it has to be spent there. But with no grant the council would need to spend money there anyway. This and other mechanisms are commonly used within councils and governments to legally circumvent restrictions. Interpretation of the wording of rules etc. often pass through legal hands to decide what is allowable and what isn't. I do not proclaim to have great understanding of the detail (you need to be an accountant) but I know that circulating money effectively is part and parcel of managing a budget. Indeed, without careful handling, it is all too easy to lose ring fenced money. It is the job of Council advisors and accountants to make best use of whatever income is raised. Politicians on the other hand like to collect as much money as possible whilst upsetting as few people as they can. Then they can spend the money to look good and increase their chances of re-election. It seems to me to be an endemic problem in democracies.[/p][/quote]David, Broadly speaking, money that comes from developers to enhance the local environment, can't be used to 'offset' funds in the way you are suggesting. Or to put it another way, the Bridge over the River Thornhill Pond, couldn't and wouldn't have been built out of Council tax money. My point was you were trying to imply that the money could have been used to reduce Council tax, whereas legally, it couldn't. Such 'spin' seems to me to an endemic problem in democracies. I'm no accountant either, but I can recognise political spin when I see it. Incidentally, Farage is well versed in various accountancy tricks, especially when it comes to avoiding tax. Maybe you should ask his advice. Su Murray
  • Score: 5

11:58am Sat 8 Mar 14

D_Penn says...

Sue, I'm afraid it is a fact that money is shunted around in any state organisation. There are whole teams of experts who spend much of their time dealing with budgeting problems and how to juggle money around.

So if you have an excess of money that is ring fenced for use on enhancing the local environment but you have a deficit somewhere else you want filled, you go to work on the problem. First you look at the restrictive rules. You then find somewhere where you were already allocating money that, perhaps by redefining the nature of the project, you could use the ring fenced money instead. Now you have freed up some capital from your general budget, you use similar tricks to move it to the defecit area. In this manner you will find money is constantly being shifted and shunted around. It is not illegal and it is absolutely necessary from a pragmatic point of view for council/government to be able to finance all its commitments effectively.

Now occasionally someone might challenge a reallocation, but in general, large councils and governments will always move money around when needed unless ring fencing is very specific. More often than not, the rules are not too tight because it is well known that it can result in the money being lost if it cannot be moved where needed.

So the bottom line is that most councils will always get the money in first and then worry about redistribution. That is not spin, it is a fact.
Sue, I'm afraid it is a fact that money is shunted around in any state organisation. There are whole teams of experts who spend much of their time dealing with budgeting problems and how to juggle money around. So if you have an excess of money that is ring fenced for use on enhancing the local environment but you have a deficit somewhere else you want filled, you go to work on the problem. First you look at the restrictive rules. You then find somewhere where you were already allocating money that, perhaps by redefining the nature of the project, you could use the ring fenced money instead. Now you have freed up some capital from your general budget, you use similar tricks to move it to the defecit area. In this manner you will find money is constantly being shifted and shunted around. It is not illegal and it is absolutely necessary from a pragmatic point of view for council/government to be able to finance all its commitments effectively. Now occasionally someone might challenge a reallocation, but in general, large councils and governments will always move money around when needed unless ring fencing is very specific. More often than not, the rules are not too tight because it is well known that it can result in the money being lost if it cannot be moved where needed. So the bottom line is that most councils will always get the money in first and then worry about redistribution. That is not spin, it is a fact. D_Penn
  • Score: 0

12:19pm Sat 8 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

D_Penn wrote:
Sue, I'm afraid it is a fact that money is shunted around in any state organisation. There are whole teams of experts who spend much of their time dealing with budgeting problems and how to juggle money around.

So if you have an excess of money that is ring fenced for use on enhancing the local environment but you have a deficit somewhere else you want filled, you go to work on the problem. First you look at the restrictive rules. You then find somewhere where you were already allocating money that, perhaps by redefining the nature of the project, you could use the ring fenced money instead. Now you have freed up some capital from your general budget, you use similar tricks to move it to the defecit area. In this manner you will find money is constantly being shifted and shunted around. It is not illegal and it is absolutely necessary from a pragmatic point of view for council/government to be able to finance all its commitments effectively.

Now occasionally someone might challenge a reallocation, but in general, large councils and governments will always move money around when needed unless ring fencing is very specific. More often than not, the rules are not too tight because it is well known that it can result in the money being lost if it cannot be moved where needed.

So the bottom line is that most councils will always get the money in first and then worry about redistribution. That is not spin, it is a fact.
A man with no idea how local finance works.

Obviously a UKIP supporter.
[quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: Sue, I'm afraid it is a fact that money is shunted around in any state organisation. There are whole teams of experts who spend much of their time dealing with budgeting problems and how to juggle money around. So if you have an excess of money that is ring fenced for use on enhancing the local environment but you have a deficit somewhere else you want filled, you go to work on the problem. First you look at the restrictive rules. You then find somewhere where you were already allocating money that, perhaps by redefining the nature of the project, you could use the ring fenced money instead. Now you have freed up some capital from your general budget, you use similar tricks to move it to the defecit area. In this manner you will find money is constantly being shifted and shunted around. It is not illegal and it is absolutely necessary from a pragmatic point of view for council/government to be able to finance all its commitments effectively. Now occasionally someone might challenge a reallocation, but in general, large councils and governments will always move money around when needed unless ring fencing is very specific. More often than not, the rules are not too tight because it is well known that it can result in the money being lost if it cannot be moved where needed. So the bottom line is that most councils will always get the money in first and then worry about redistribution. That is not spin, it is a fact.[/p][/quote]A man with no idea how local finance works. Obviously a UKIP supporter. yellow hornet
  • Score: 0

3:20pm Sat 8 Mar 14

Lucy60 says...

No surprise that the housing count on the west watford housing estate ( sorry 'health' campus' ) has now risen to 750! They did say things could change - they didn't say for the better!
No surprise that the housing count on the west watford housing estate ( sorry 'health' campus' ) has now risen to 750! They did say things could change - they didn't say for the better! Lucy60
  • Score: 4

6:35pm Sat 8 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

yellow hornet wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Sue, I'm afraid it is a fact that money is shunted around in any state organisation. There are whole teams of experts who spend much of their time dealing with budgeting problems and how to juggle money around.

So if you have an excess of money that is ring fenced for use on enhancing the local environment but you have a deficit somewhere else you want filled, you go to work on the problem. First you look at the restrictive rules. You then find somewhere where you were already allocating money that, perhaps by redefining the nature of the project, you could use the ring fenced money instead. Now you have freed up some capital from your general budget, you use similar tricks to move it to the defecit area. In this manner you will find money is constantly being shifted and shunted around. It is not illegal and it is absolutely necessary from a pragmatic point of view for council/government to be able to finance all its commitments effectively.

Now occasionally someone might challenge a reallocation, but in general, large councils and governments will always move money around when needed unless ring fencing is very specific. More often than not, the rules are not too tight because it is well known that it can result in the money being lost if it cannot be moved where needed.

So the bottom line is that most councils will always get the money in first and then worry about redistribution. That is not spin, it is a fact.
A man with no idea how local finance works.

Obviously a UKIP supporter.
I suspect he is David Penn UKIP election officer and former UKIP candidate commitee member and general UKIP uber activest (thought I would throw in a bit of German there, did you see it, just to lighten things up)
[quote][p][bold]yellow hornet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: Sue, I'm afraid it is a fact that money is shunted around in any state organisation. There are whole teams of experts who spend much of their time dealing with budgeting problems and how to juggle money around. So if you have an excess of money that is ring fenced for use on enhancing the local environment but you have a deficit somewhere else you want filled, you go to work on the problem. First you look at the restrictive rules. You then find somewhere where you were already allocating money that, perhaps by redefining the nature of the project, you could use the ring fenced money instead. Now you have freed up some capital from your general budget, you use similar tricks to move it to the defecit area. In this manner you will find money is constantly being shifted and shunted around. It is not illegal and it is absolutely necessary from a pragmatic point of view for council/government to be able to finance all its commitments effectively. Now occasionally someone might challenge a reallocation, but in general, large councils and governments will always move money around when needed unless ring fencing is very specific. More often than not, the rules are not too tight because it is well known that it can result in the money being lost if it cannot be moved where needed. So the bottom line is that most councils will always get the money in first and then worry about redistribution. That is not spin, it is a fact.[/p][/quote]A man with no idea how local finance works. Obviously a UKIP supporter.[/p][/quote]I suspect he is David Penn UKIP election officer and former UKIP candidate commitee member and general UKIP uber activest (thought I would throw in a bit of German there, did you see it, just to lighten things up) dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Reader (R) says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Why are you off somewhere?

Is it because you don't like me citing articles about Ukip from papers like the Daily Mail, Telegraph, The Mirror and The Guardian exposing the racist and homophobic views of Ukip? Is it because you cannot deny these claims in anyway that you have just posted the last post which shows you as a bit weak to be honest..

When you say goodbye is it because you have no answer to any of the articles I have posted?


bye then x
I was always told that there are only two things you can believe in a newspaper, the date and the price!
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: Why are you off somewhere? Is it because you don't like me citing articles about Ukip from papers like the Daily Mail, Telegraph, The Mirror and The Guardian exposing the racist and homophobic views of Ukip? Is it because you cannot deny these claims in anyway that you have just posted the last post which shows you as a bit weak to be honest.. When you say goodbye is it because you have no answer to any of the articles I have posted? bye then x[/p][/quote]I was always told that there are only two things you can believe in a newspaper, the date and the price! Reader (R)
  • Score: 1

4:47pm Sun 9 Mar 14

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says...

Su Murray wrote:
D_Penn wrote:
Sue, money that is allocated by ring fencing still means that funds that may have been needed to be transferred from the general budget to that area can now be redirected elsewhere.

A simple example is that if say the government gives Councils a ring fenced grant to repair potholes then of course it has to be spent there. But with no grant the council would need to spend money there anyway. This and other mechanisms are commonly used within councils and governments to legally circumvent restrictions. Interpretation of the wording of rules etc. often pass through legal hands to decide what is allowable and what isn't. I do not proclaim to have great understanding of the detail (you need to be an accountant) but I know that circulating money effectively is part and parcel of managing a budget.

Indeed, without careful handling, it is all too easy to lose ring fenced money. It is the job of Council advisors and accountants to make best use of whatever income is raised. Politicians on the other hand like to collect as much money as possible whilst upsetting as few people as they can. Then they can spend the money to look good and increase their chances of re-election. It seems to me to be an endemic problem in democracies.
David,

Broadly speaking, money that comes from developers to enhance the local environment, can't be used to 'offset' funds in the way you are suggesting. Or to put it another way, the Bridge over the River Thornhill Pond, couldn't and wouldn't have been built out of Council tax money. My point was you were trying to imply that the money could have been used to reduce Council tax, whereas legally, it couldn't. Such 'spin' seems to me to an endemic problem in democracies.

I'm no accountant either, but I can recognise political spin when I see it. Incidentally, Farage is well versed in various accountancy tricks, especially when it comes to avoiding tax. Maybe you should ask his advice.
I'm curious Su.

Why would it not be possible for the bridge over the pond to have been paid for out of council tax money?
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]D_Penn[/bold] wrote: Sue, money that is allocated by ring fencing still means that funds that may have been needed to be transferred from the general budget to that area can now be redirected elsewhere. A simple example is that if say the government gives Councils a ring fenced grant to repair potholes then of course it has to be spent there. But with no grant the council would need to spend money there anyway. This and other mechanisms are commonly used within councils and governments to legally circumvent restrictions. Interpretation of the wording of rules etc. often pass through legal hands to decide what is allowable and what isn't. I do not proclaim to have great understanding of the detail (you need to be an accountant) but I know that circulating money effectively is part and parcel of managing a budget. Indeed, without careful handling, it is all too easy to lose ring fenced money. It is the job of Council advisors and accountants to make best use of whatever income is raised. Politicians on the other hand like to collect as much money as possible whilst upsetting as few people as they can. Then they can spend the money to look good and increase their chances of re-election. It seems to me to be an endemic problem in democracies.[/p][/quote]David, Broadly speaking, money that comes from developers to enhance the local environment, can't be used to 'offset' funds in the way you are suggesting. Or to put it another way, the Bridge over the River Thornhill Pond, couldn't and wouldn't have been built out of Council tax money. My point was you were trying to imply that the money could have been used to reduce Council tax, whereas legally, it couldn't. Such 'spin' seems to me to an endemic problem in democracies. I'm no accountant either, but I can recognise political spin when I see it. Incidentally, Farage is well versed in various accountancy tricks, especially when it comes to avoiding tax. Maybe you should ask his advice.[/p][/quote]I'm curious Su. Why would it not be possible for the bridge over the pond to have been paid for out of council tax money? Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 0

11:00pm Sun 9 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

Yawn here we go the LIbdem UKIP phony war panto

*popcorn*
Yawn here we go the LIbdem UKIP phony war panto *popcorn* dontknowynot
  • Score: 1

11:17pm Sun 9 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

but maybe while Iam waiting

Oh my little UKIP devotee

You have a long way to go to reach the heights of enlightenment but you know; curiosity is a strange thing is it not; and could be a good place. You have discovered something with it that’s a fact, it may be that it was within you, but still your curiosity has enabled you to discover it.

However Reductio ad absurdum is not the only answer here, all that can be shown is that the 70% statement was nonsense, not that another nonsense is true. But this can be a problem with absolutes. Like when your party put up posters inferring huge problems with immigration from Romania, it was nonsense, however the antithesis could yet to be equally so such is the fear being stoked up by events In the Crimea.

No doubt as a UKIPer you are familiar with the power of fear, fear of immigration being a major plank of your party, the same fear that racists play on. Now I am not saying you are racists, although you may be, just that in this aspect you share the same plank. I say just “just” but it is an important just to which I will return.

It is the case that allotments being built on in the Casioberry park area were the spur for the legislation now being used to defend Farm Terrace, it is however also the case that in the 1920s allotments were fundamentally different if not in purpose in practical application than those of today. The emphasis was very much on health and use was very much by the poor losing an allotment could have serious implications and result in a stay in the union workhouse on Vicarage road.

Nowadays Allotments are more diverse, they are a used by poor and not so poor, for produce and flowers, fruit and friendship, community and cucumbers Marrows and mates. They look gloriously hideous and higgledy, they have a charm and curiosity of their own , they reflect life the owners perfectly the precisely, the scruffy the industrious the old the youth and family’s all have a place. In a world of conformity there is room for disparate character and approach and it works the plot with precise rows produces alongside, apparently haphazard, people that otherwise would likely not talk to each other lend each other a hand or a tool or an ear to bend. They own the land in a very real way for they have worked it, they own the community for they have forged it and they own the site for they have defined it and given it a soul.

So really for someone to come and take it away and replace it with something else well. Morally they best have good reason, and here is the crux they have failed to show good reason, they say they have one but have not shown and cannot show because the good reason “better health facilities” are not apparent from the plans. That is in the near term or even medium term there is no concrete commitment to put so much as a single new bed or treatment room, or waiting area for clinic, or scanner facility, or training room, or operating room, or resource centre or anything to do with actual health services in place.

There is however a housing estate, commercial units and car park, it is asserted that this will provide opps for upto 1600 jobs, housing and redevelopment and the bluster is put forward implying this will be put at risk if the allotments stay. It is bluster as I say because it assumes that in all the wit of women and men no other means could be found to achieve these goods.

Returning as I promised to the word “just” it is a vital just it is that you share a nationalistic plank with the racist, that you share a vision of a nation state model, the same nation state model that emerged in the 18th and 19th C that grow into imperialism and that unfettered was the route of much conflict war and revolution in Europe in the 19th century. Not only that but was the route to catastrophic conflict of WW1 and WW2 the nations of Europe fought over empire in the context of the demise of the Ottoman Empire.

Today we face the last days Demise of the Russian/Soviet empire and have come thro a lengthy process of decades, not without conflict but with limited conflict and central to that has been the EU, Council of Europe , European convention of human rights and European Court of Human rights, Pan European organizations that achieve the impossible, that get the different peoples of Europe working together in common purpose, that get the Polish bending an Ear to the Germans (well maybe the Germans could take on board the fears of the Polish a bit more re Russian imperialism) who lend a spade to the Greece (well I wish they would anyway).

From my bracketed comments you might ascertain some unease, that would be because there is some, but the unease is with this Nations returning to the central plank of Nationalism, with there being less of the “united states of Europe” envisioned by Winston Churchill in 1943. That is because as the prospect of conflict in the east rises we do not have one voice, because in the face of human rights abuses the institutions that fight for them ECHR and ECtHR are being lambasted by Conservative partys in this country despite the fact they were championed, moulded, and made by among others Winston Churchill their prime mover and architect.

Now in 43 Churchill did not know of the EU and did not envisage the EU he did however recognise the need for a united Europe and so yes there is an argument with some validaty that the EU is not neaded for this. But the very vehicles that could delver this are criticised by those that criticise the EU whats more the ideals of Human Rights put forward with unified purpose are attacked by those that share the Narrow plank of Nationalism.
If you look at the issue of homophobia it is the so called Freedom partys of Northern Europe that wish to deny the Human Right to be who you are to LGBT, and it is those that hold Human rights in low esteem that align themselves to them. So it may well be true that UKIP locally are not homophobic but they are aligned in Europe to a party that is, and that says they have questions to answer on this. These Questions and the failure to answer them have resulted in at least One UKIP MEP giving up the party whip.

The same would apply to race I am not saying UKIP in Watford are racist although they might be, I mean that or they just hate Labour, sorry but it just has not gone unnoticed that the UKIP really do hate Labour. I am sure that they would rather see Dottys minions bake in than Labour and will pull out all the stops in Wards Labour are challenging in, thus keeping their local Libdem pals in.
Need I illustrate the concerns on gender discrimination or need I just cough and say Bloom Agnew, Farrage, I think the latter is enough.
but maybe while Iam waiting Oh my little UKIP devotee You have a long way to go to reach the heights of enlightenment but you know; curiosity is a strange thing is it not; and could be a good place. You have discovered something with it that’s a fact, it may be that it was within you, but still your curiosity has enabled you to discover it. However Reductio ad absurdum is not the only answer here, all that can be shown is that the 70% statement was nonsense, not that another nonsense is true. But this can be a problem with absolutes. Like when your party put up posters inferring huge problems with immigration from Romania, it was nonsense, however the antithesis could yet to be equally so such is the fear being stoked up by events In the Crimea. No doubt as a UKIPer you are familiar with the power of fear, fear of immigration being a major plank of your party, the same fear that racists play on. Now I am not saying you are racists, although you may be, just that in this aspect you share the same plank. I say just “just” but it is an important just to which I will return. It is the case that allotments being built on in the Casioberry park area were the spur for the legislation now being used to defend Farm Terrace, it is however also the case that in the 1920s allotments were fundamentally different if not in purpose in practical application than those of today. The emphasis was very much on health and use was very much by the poor losing an allotment could have serious implications and result in a stay in the union workhouse on Vicarage road. Nowadays Allotments are more diverse, they are a used by poor and not so poor, for produce and flowers, fruit and friendship, community and cucumbers Marrows and mates. They look gloriously hideous and higgledy, they have a charm and curiosity of their own , they reflect life the owners perfectly the precisely, the scruffy the industrious the old the youth and family’s all have a place. In a world of conformity there is room for disparate character and approach and it works the plot with precise rows produces alongside, apparently haphazard, people that otherwise would likely not talk to each other lend each other a hand or a tool or an ear to bend. They own the land in a very real way for they have worked it, they own the community for they have forged it and they own the site for they have defined it and given it a soul. So really for someone to come and take it away and replace it with something else well. Morally they best have good reason, and here is the crux they have failed to show good reason, they say they have one but have not shown and cannot show because the good reason “better health facilities” are not apparent from the plans. That is in the near term or even medium term there is no concrete commitment to put so much as a single new bed or treatment room, or waiting area for clinic, or scanner facility, or training room, or operating room, or resource centre or anything to do with actual health services in place. There is however a housing estate, commercial units and car park, it is asserted that this will provide opps for upto 1600 jobs, housing and redevelopment and the bluster is put forward implying this will be put at risk if the allotments stay. It is bluster as I say because it assumes that in all the wit of women and men no other means could be found to achieve these goods. Returning as I promised to the word “just” it is a vital just it is that you share a nationalistic plank with the racist, that you share a vision of a nation state model, the same nation state model that emerged in the 18th and 19th C that grow into imperialism and that unfettered was the route of much conflict war and revolution in Europe in the 19th century. Not only that but was the route to catastrophic conflict of WW1 and WW2 the nations of Europe fought over empire in the context of the demise of the Ottoman Empire. Today we face the last days Demise of the Russian/Soviet empire and have come thro a lengthy process of decades, not without conflict but with limited conflict and central to that has been the EU, Council of Europe , European convention of human rights and European Court of Human rights, Pan European organizations that achieve the impossible, that get the different peoples of Europe working together in common purpose, that get the Polish bending an Ear to the Germans (well maybe the Germans could take on board the fears of the Polish a bit more re Russian imperialism) who lend a spade to the Greece (well I wish they would anyway). From my bracketed comments you might ascertain some unease, that would be because there is some, but the unease is with this Nations returning to the central plank of Nationalism, with there being less of the “united states of Europe” envisioned by Winston Churchill in 1943. That is because as the prospect of conflict in the east rises we do not have one voice, because in the face of human rights abuses the institutions that fight for them ECHR and ECtHR are being lambasted by Conservative partys in this country despite the fact they were championed, moulded, and made by among others Winston Churchill their prime mover and architect. Now in 43 Churchill did not know of the EU and did not envisage the EU he did however recognise the need for a united Europe and so yes there is an argument with some validaty that the EU is not neaded for this. But the very vehicles that could delver this are criticised by those that criticise the EU whats more the ideals of Human Rights put forward with unified purpose are attacked by those that share the Narrow plank of Nationalism. If you look at the issue of homophobia it is the so called Freedom partys of Northern Europe that wish to deny the Human Right to be who you are to LGBT, and it is those that hold Human rights in low esteem that align themselves to them. So it may well be true that UKIP locally are not homophobic but they are aligned in Europe to a party that is, and that says they have questions to answer on this. These Questions and the failure to answer them have resulted in at least One UKIP MEP giving up the party whip. The same would apply to race I am not saying UKIP in Watford are racist although they might be, I mean that or they just hate Labour, sorry but it just has not gone unnoticed that the UKIP really do hate Labour. I am sure that they would rather see Dottys minions bake in than Labour and will pull out all the stops in Wards Labour are challenging in, thus keeping their local Libdem pals in. Need I illustrate the concerns on gender discrimination or need I just cough and say Bloom Agnew, Farrage, I think the latter is enough. dontknowynot
  • Score: -3

10:45am Mon 10 Mar 14

TRT says...

Su Murray wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
@D_Penn
Oh well don’t suppose I will get an answer here as to if you are David Penn ex candidate and committee member/election officer.
On the subject of Farm terrace I am a bit puzzled by the bore them to death ploy but there you go all that while pedalling a manifesto that your party leader acknowledges is crap must have got to you.
I have seen mention here of the majority of people 70% wanting the campus, and while this may or may not be true a far more effective way of boring people to death would be to analyse this claim. It is usual in Watford for politicians to present the public with a Fait accompli in these matters (no doubt the UKIPers will blame this on the EU) That is a “consultation” is held in which no meaningful input is possible from the consulted public, to be fair this is not just a Libdem thing but they do seem masters at it.
As a result of this the consultation likely had less than 500 respondents which is not a majority of the people in Watford. Watford has about 90K people living in it so clearly any claim to being representative on a tiny cohort would be wrong.
Now I doubt if a straight question was asked it might have been something like this “are you in favour of a health campus with nice new facilities in Watford, and is it worth getting rid of those filthy rat infested allotments to achieve this?” It most certainly was not “do you want to get rid of the allotments in order to build a car park and create Colne river Flood Plain estate?”
I put the question in two different forms to demonstrate a very simple fact it depends what question was asked, it probably was along the lines of the first but the reality is along the lines of the second.That is why I am apposed to the scheme as it is because it is not so much built on a flood plain but built on a deception
The 'question' didn't give anything approaching an honest option. As I mentioned, I went to one of the consultations and didn't see any questionnaire. Granted, I may have missed it, but then presumably I wouldn't be the only person to do so.

The on line questionnaire didn't mention the allotments. It was absolutely a 'when did you stop beating your wife' type of set up. The consultation is now closed, but you can still see the questions here;

http://www.whc-consu

ltation.co.uk/haveyo

ursay.html
I think someone needs to make a FOI request for the consultation responses, because I just looked at the "Online" consultation form and noticed this:

"Any comments expressed here will not form part of the Statement of Community Involvement but will still be reviewed as part of the ongoing process."

So, we were told we wouldn't need to attend one of the frankly ridiculous three short presentation sessions because we could respond online only to find it doesn't count. So what is forming part of the statement of community involvement?
[quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: @D_Penn Oh well don’t suppose I will get an answer here as to if you are David Penn ex candidate and committee member/election officer. On the subject of Farm terrace I am a bit puzzled by the bore them to death ploy but there you go all that while pedalling a manifesto that your party leader acknowledges is crap must have got to you. I have seen mention here of the majority of people 70% wanting the campus, and while this may or may not be true a far more effective way of boring people to death would be to analyse this claim. It is usual in Watford for politicians to present the public with a Fait accompli in these matters (no doubt the UKIPers will blame this on the EU) That is a “consultation” is held in which no meaningful input is possible from the consulted public, to be fair this is not just a Libdem thing but they do seem masters at it. As a result of this the consultation likely had less than 500 respondents which is not a majority of the people in Watford. Watford has about 90K people living in it so clearly any claim to being representative on a tiny cohort would be wrong. Now I doubt if a straight question was asked it might have been something like this “are you in favour of a health campus with nice new facilities in Watford, and is it worth getting rid of those filthy rat infested allotments to achieve this?” It most certainly was not “do you want to get rid of the allotments in order to build a car park and create Colne river Flood Plain estate?” I put the question in two different forms to demonstrate a very simple fact it depends what question was asked, it probably was along the lines of the first but the reality is along the lines of the second.That is why I am apposed to the scheme as it is because it is not so much built on a flood plain but built on a deception[/p][/quote]The 'question' didn't give anything approaching an honest option. As I mentioned, I went to one of the consultations and didn't see any questionnaire. Granted, I may have missed it, but then presumably I wouldn't be the only person to do so. The on line questionnaire didn't mention the allotments. It was absolutely a 'when did you stop beating your wife' type of set up. The consultation is now closed, but you can still see the questions here; http://www.whc-consu ltation.co.uk/haveyo ursay.html[/p][/quote]I think someone needs to make a FOI request for the consultation responses, because I just looked at the "Online" consultation form and noticed this: "Any comments expressed here will not form part of the Statement of Community Involvement but will still be reviewed as part of the ongoing process." So, we were told we wouldn't need to attend one of the frankly ridiculous three short presentation sessions because we could respond online only to find it doesn't count. So what is forming part of the statement of community involvement? TRT
  • Score: 3

1:22pm Mon 10 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

TRT wrote:
Su Murray wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
@D_Penn
Oh well don’t suppose I will get an answer here as to if you are David Penn ex candidate and committee member/election officer.
On the subject of Farm terrace I am a bit puzzled by the bore them to death ploy but there you go all that while pedalling a manifesto that your party leader acknowledges is crap must have got to you.
I have seen mention here of the majority of people 70% wanting the campus, and while this may or may not be true a far more effective way of boring people to death would be to analyse this claim. It is usual in Watford for politicians to present the public with a Fait accompli in these matters (no doubt the UKIPers will blame this on the EU) That is a “consultation” is held in which no meaningful input is possible from the consulted public, to be fair this is not just a Libdem thing but they do seem masters at it.
As a result of this the consultation likely had less than 500 respondents which is not a majority of the people in Watford. Watford has about 90K people living in it so clearly any claim to being representative on a tiny cohort would be wrong.
Now I doubt if a straight question was asked it might have been something like this “are you in favour of a health campus with nice new facilities in Watford, and is it worth getting rid of those filthy rat infested allotments to achieve this?” It most certainly was not “do you want to get rid of the allotments in order to build a car park and create Colne river Flood Plain estate?”
I put the question in two different forms to demonstrate a very simple fact it depends what question was asked, it probably was along the lines of the first but the reality is along the lines of the second.That is why I am apposed to the scheme as it is because it is not so much built on a flood plain but built on a deception
The 'question' didn't give anything approaching an honest option. As I mentioned, I went to one of the consultations and didn't see any questionnaire. Granted, I may have missed it, but then presumably I wouldn't be the only person to do so.

The on line questionnaire didn't mention the allotments. It was absolutely a 'when did you stop beating your wife' type of set up. The consultation is now closed, but you can still see the questions here;

http://www.whc-consu


ltation.co.uk/haveyo


ursay.html
I think someone needs to make a FOI request for the consultation responses, because I just looked at the "Online" consultation form and noticed this:

"Any comments expressed here will not form part of the Statement of Community Involvement but will still be reviewed as part of the ongoing process."

So, we were told we wouldn't need to attend one of the frankly ridiculous three short presentation sessions because we could respond online only to find it doesn't count. So what is forming part of the statement of community involvement?
call me a cynic but I think you will find the allotments are covered in the "Improving and cleaning up the disused and contaminated land" that is as the council is not letting out allotments that become vacant and, those that remain are contaminated with veg, if you tick this box you are anti the allotments
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Su Murray[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: @D_Penn Oh well don’t suppose I will get an answer here as to if you are David Penn ex candidate and committee member/election officer. On the subject of Farm terrace I am a bit puzzled by the bore them to death ploy but there you go all that while pedalling a manifesto that your party leader acknowledges is crap must have got to you. I have seen mention here of the majority of people 70% wanting the campus, and while this may or may not be true a far more effective way of boring people to death would be to analyse this claim. It is usual in Watford for politicians to present the public with a Fait accompli in these matters (no doubt the UKIPers will blame this on the EU) That is a “consultation” is held in which no meaningful input is possible from the consulted public, to be fair this is not just a Libdem thing but they do seem masters at it. As a result of this the consultation likely had less than 500 respondents which is not a majority of the people in Watford. Watford has about 90K people living in it so clearly any claim to being representative on a tiny cohort would be wrong. Now I doubt if a straight question was asked it might have been something like this “are you in favour of a health campus with nice new facilities in Watford, and is it worth getting rid of those filthy rat infested allotments to achieve this?” It most certainly was not “do you want to get rid of the allotments in order to build a car park and create Colne river Flood Plain estate?” I put the question in two different forms to demonstrate a very simple fact it depends what question was asked, it probably was along the lines of the first but the reality is along the lines of the second.That is why I am apposed to the scheme as it is because it is not so much built on a flood plain but built on a deception[/p][/quote]The 'question' didn't give anything approaching an honest option. As I mentioned, I went to one of the consultations and didn't see any questionnaire. Granted, I may have missed it, but then presumably I wouldn't be the only person to do so. The on line questionnaire didn't mention the allotments. It was absolutely a 'when did you stop beating your wife' type of set up. The consultation is now closed, but you can still see the questions here; http://www.whc-consu ltation.co.uk/haveyo ursay.html[/p][/quote]I think someone needs to make a FOI request for the consultation responses, because I just looked at the "Online" consultation form and noticed this: "Any comments expressed here will not form part of the Statement of Community Involvement but will still be reviewed as part of the ongoing process." So, we were told we wouldn't need to attend one of the frankly ridiculous three short presentation sessions because we could respond online only to find it doesn't count. So what is forming part of the statement of community involvement?[/p][/quote]call me a cynic but I think you will find the allotments are covered in the "Improving and cleaning up the disused and contaminated land" that is as the council is not letting out allotments that become vacant and, those that remain are contaminated with veg, if you tick this box you are anti the allotments dontknowynot
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree