Watford Health Campus: most of allotment will be used for hospital and homes

Watford Health Campus: allotment land will be used for hospital and homes

Watford Health Campus: allotment land will be used for hospital and homes

First published in News
Last updated
Watford Observer: Photograph of the Author by , Chief Reporter

Most of the Farm Terrace Allotment land will be used for health facilities and new homes, according Watford Borough Council.

The authority said 40 per cent of the 118-year-old site will be earmarked for the regeneration of Watford General Hospital as part of the health campus.

Borough officials also said the majority of residents who took part in a recent consultation expressed support for the redevelopment scheme, which promises to build around 700 homes and new hospital facilities behind Vicarage Road.

The council was responding to news that solicitors working on behalf of the Farm Terrace plot-holders had initiated judicial review against the Government’s decision allowing the allotment land to be used in the scheme.

The allotment-users are arguing the council "misled" Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in its application for permission to build on the allotments.

Their case is the council’s justification for including the previously-protected allotments in the scheme was they are "critical to the viability of the development project".

However the allotment holders say the latest health campus masterplan shows the Farm Terrace land being largely used to provide parking for Watford FC and housing.

Following news of the judicial review, the council issued a statement saying: "We are disappointed by the news that the Farm Terrace Community Association is pursuing a judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to include the Farm Terrace allotments in the Watford Health Campus scheme.

"Particularly in light of the fact that 77 per cent of people who took part in the recent Health Campus public consultation are backing the proposals

"We have clearly demonstrated why the inclusion of the allotments is in the wider public interest namely:  the opportunity for new hospital facilities, much-needed affordable homes, 1,600 new jobs, accessible green and open spaces and better transport links

"The council and DCLG has rebutted all of the points made by the Farm Terrace Action Group in responses to their legal representative's pre-action letter."

The council said 333 people attended the recent public exhibitions on the health campus and 560 people completed its questionnaire.

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:47am Wed 19 Mar 14

TRT says...

When 40% becomes a majority, any further reference to percentages or statistics is irrelevant.
When 40% becomes a majority, any further reference to percentages or statistics is irrelevant. TRT
  • Score: 11

11:48am Wed 19 Mar 14

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

Well done SJT!
Well done SJT! Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 0

11:48am Wed 19 Mar 14

TRT says...

Also...

The council said 333 people attended the recent public exhibitions on the health campus and 560 people completed its questionnaire.

Hm. So the bit about the online questionnaire not counting towards the public involvement statement is a lie? Sorry. Another lie?
Also... The council said 333 people attended the recent public exhibitions on the health campus and 560 people completed its questionnaire. Hm. So the bit about the online questionnaire not counting towards the public involvement statement is a lie? Sorry. Another lie? TRT
  • Score: 6

11:56am Wed 19 Mar 14

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

What percentage of all Watford voters have backed the scheme?

That will be the killer statistic.

It's likely to be tiny.
What percentage of all Watford voters have backed the scheme? That will be the killer statistic. It's likely to be tiny. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 5

12:25pm Wed 19 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

Weird as the act that is being used to defend the allotment site was put in place to stop people building homes on allotments, that the council claim the site is to be used for homes.
Weird as the act that is being used to defend the allotment site was put in place to stop people building homes on allotments, that the council claim the site is to be used for homes. dontknowynot
  • Score: -1

12:38pm Wed 19 Mar 14

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

dontknowynot wrote:
Weird as the act that is being used to defend the allotment site was put in place to stop people building homes on allotments, that the council claim the site is to be used for homes.
On this I totally agree with you.

Something does not add up and I would like to expose it if elected as Mayor.
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Weird as the act that is being used to defend the allotment site was put in place to stop people building homes on allotments, that the council claim the site is to be used for homes.[/p][/quote]On this I totally agree with you. Something does not add up and I would like to expose it if elected as Mayor. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 2

1:17pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Cuetip says...

My concern about the intensive desire to concrete so much of our urban landscape is when future generations ask ‘Why did they destroy one of the most important cultural pillars of this country which were formally protected in 1908, 1919, 1922 and 1925 by Acts’.

Imagine the opprobrium as they read that it was all about health and a failure of imagination, when they look at satellite photos showing the desertification of the once green landscape. We are erasing from their doorstep, denying to people in that very congested area, first hand experience of the benefits being an allotment holder.

It has long been recognised that allotments bring huge wider benefits to society as well as promoting good health.
My concern about the intensive desire to concrete so much of our urban landscape is when future generations ask ‘Why did they destroy one of the most important cultural pillars of this country which were formally protected in 1908, 1919, 1922 and 1925 by Acts’. Imagine the opprobrium as they read that it was all about health and a failure of imagination, when they look at satellite photos showing the desertification of the once green landscape. We are erasing from their doorstep, denying to people in that very congested area, first hand experience of the benefits being an allotment holder. It has long been recognised that allotments bring huge wider benefits to society as well as promoting good health. Cuetip
  • Score: 9

2:06pm Wed 19 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
dontknowynot wrote:
Weird as the act that is being used to defend the allotment site was put in place to stop people building homes on allotments, that the council claim the site is to be used for homes.
On this I totally agree with you.

Something does not add up and I would like to expose it if elected as Mayor.
What is to disagree with the law was brought in of beefed up in 1925 specifically to prevent allotment land being used for housing, this is fact, look it up in Hansard. the Law states
Sale, &c., of land used as allotments.

Where a local authority has purchased land for use as allotments the local authority shall not sell, appropriate, use, or dispose of the land for any purpose other than use for allotments without the consent of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries F2. . . and such consent shall not be given unless the Minister is satisfied that adequate provision will be made for allotment holders displaced by the action of the local authority or that such provision is unnecessary or not reasonably practicable

As such it is clearly absurd to claim some special dispensation for housing.

Your non agreement with this is not in anyway linked to the statement you go on to make, or maybe you got a bit muddled.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: Weird as the act that is being used to defend the allotment site was put in place to stop people building homes on allotments, that the council claim the site is to be used for homes.[/p][/quote]On this I totally agree with you. Something does not add up and I would like to expose it if elected as Mayor.[/p][/quote]What is to disagree with the law was brought in of beefed up in 1925 specifically to prevent allotment land being used for housing, this is fact, look it up in Hansard. the Law states Sale, &c., of land used as allotments. Where a local authority has purchased [F1or appropriated] land for use as allotments the local authority shall not sell, appropriate, use, or dispose of the land for any purpose other than use for allotments without the consent of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries F2. . . and such consent [F1may be given unconditionally or subject to such conditions as the Minister thinks fit, but] shall not be given unless the Minister is satisfied that adequate provision will be made for allotment holders displaced by the action of the local authority or that such provision is unnecessary or not reasonably practicable As such it is clearly absurd to claim some special dispensation for housing. Your non agreement with this is not in anyway linked to the statement you go on to make, or maybe you got a bit muddled. dontknowynot
  • Score: -7

2:21pm Wed 19 Mar 14

D_Penn says...

I'm astounded by the Council's assertion...

"We have clearly demonstrated why the inclusion of the allotments is in the wider public interest namely: the opportunity for new hospital facilities, much-needed affordable homes, 1,600 new jobs, accessible green and open spaces and better transport links."

At the Council meeting on 3rd December 2012, which I attended and listened to, the financial comment was made that the hospital was viable but that there was 'not a lot of fat in the deal'. It was clear that what was wanted was the money the allotments could raise - there was not a mention at the time of the 'wider public interest' or other reasons that is now being used as the smokescreen.

The Council clearly thought the hospital redevelopment would go ahead and expected that the money driven aspect of reneging on the agreement not to touch the Farm Terrace allotments would be swamped by all the activity centred around the hospital.

Now that hospital decisions have been put on ice, the real reason for the so-called health campus plan has been laid bare and shown to be nothing to do with the hospital at all. It's about stuffing more housing into Watford and picking up more cash into Council coffers.

The change of argument about why the Health campus is being built shows that Council honesty and the allotments have been the first major casualty in respect of providing a new hospital for Watford.

I would have more respect for the Council if at least they had stuck with the original argument that they needed the money. I can only think that they have changed the argument because the calculations have since confirmed what many at the time suspected - that the money from the allotments is not needed.
I'm astounded by the Council's assertion... "We have clearly demonstrated why the inclusion of the allotments is in the wider public interest namely: the opportunity for new hospital facilities, much-needed affordable homes, 1,600 new jobs, accessible green and open spaces and better transport links." At the Council meeting on 3rd December 2012, which I attended and listened to, the financial comment was made that the hospital was viable but that there was 'not a lot of fat in the deal'. It was clear that what was wanted was the money the allotments could raise - there was not a mention at the time of the 'wider public interest' or other reasons that is now being used as the smokescreen. The Council clearly thought the hospital redevelopment would go ahead and expected that the money driven aspect of reneging on the agreement not to touch the Farm Terrace allotments would be swamped by all the activity centred around the hospital. Now that hospital decisions have been put on ice, the real reason for the so-called health campus plan has been laid bare and shown to be nothing to do with the hospital at all. It's about stuffing more housing into Watford and picking up more cash into Council coffers. The change of argument about why the Health campus is being built shows that Council honesty and the allotments have been the first major casualty in respect of providing a new hospital for Watford. I would have more respect for the Council if at least they had stuck with the original argument that they needed the money. I can only think that they have changed the argument because the calculations have since confirmed what many at the time suspected - that the money from the allotments is not needed. D_Penn
  • Score: 3

4:16pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Boosey says...

If we wasn't such a soft touch with immigration I doubt there would be any need for more houses. Try doing something about that, Phil!
If we wasn't such a soft touch with immigration I doubt there would be any need for more houses. Try doing something about that, Phil! Boosey
  • Score: -4

9:47pm Wed 19 Mar 14

dontknowynot says...

I am utterly convinced this site is becoming a UKIP propaganda site, sorry thats how I see it.

It is therfore utterly unreasonable to ring fence topics and not comment on this as it demeans the notion of free speech, so even though I hold Farm Terrace campaign in high regard, no because I do and I do not wish them to be tainted by this poison.

So here goes
1) UKIP have promised a manifesto and not delivered it
2) Whilst UKIP are critical of the "gravy train" Phil Cox has said he will not reduce the Mayor Salary.
3) on the other threads The UKIP duo of Penn and Cox have been far from reasoned
4) numerous posters of have been spoken to in a very rude and insulting way be Penn and Cox

Now it is displays a bias that is totally unacceptable to have removed the threads which depict UKIP in a very bad light and I have no idea why the Watford Observer have chosen to do it.
I am utterly convinced this site is becoming a UKIP propaganda site, sorry thats how I see it. It is therfore utterly unreasonable to ring fence topics and not comment on this as it demeans the notion of free speech, so even though I hold Farm Terrace campaign in high regard, no because I do and I do not wish them to be tainted by this poison. So here goes 1) UKIP have promised a manifesto and not delivered it 2) Whilst UKIP are critical of the "gravy train" Phil Cox has said he will not reduce the Mayor Salary. 3) on the other threads The UKIP duo of Penn and Cox have been far from reasoned 4) numerous posters of have been spoken to in a very rude and insulting way be Penn and Cox Now it is displays a bias that is totally unacceptable to have removed the threads which depict UKIP in a very bad light and I have no idea why the Watford Observer have chosen to do it. dontknowynot
  • Score: -4

11:45pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Andrew1963 says...

The key thing is that there is a broad agreement that the Cardiff Road industrial estate can and should make a greater contribution to the economic and social well being of the town through redevelopment. The sort of redevelopment will include businesses and homes. There is agreement that the Willow Lane allotment site should be included in that redevelopment proposal. Where the consensus breaks down is over the loss of the Farm Terrace allotment site, which is a green lung in a densely urban Victoria part of town. Everyone knows that this was originally excluded from the land to be built on because of its important amenity value. Everyone knows that it was included in the package of land to be commercially redeveloped because the council tendered the project in the middle of the recession. Everyone knows that Kier are motivated by a desire to make the most money they can out of the project. Everyone knows the plans have taken 15 plus years and there is no rush to start now than there was in 2004 or there would be to start in 2017. Everyone knows that the hospital is not going to need more lane than it has more, and that it is to contract rather than expand its activities in the next few years. So the question is why is the council so he'll bent on having a project, when we know that the hospital has no money or plans to build? Why not just leave the land as it is until the hospital has a planning application to change its site. Letitia go first and fit the commercial development around a rebuilt hospital. No one in Watford today is missing out that there are scrap yards where Kier aspires to build retail boulevards. Why is the council so. Keen now, after 12 years of doing nothing to build on this land. What individuals benefit?
The key thing is that there is a broad agreement that the Cardiff Road industrial estate can and should make a greater contribution to the economic and social well being of the town through redevelopment. The sort of redevelopment will include businesses and homes. There is agreement that the Willow Lane allotment site should be included in that redevelopment proposal. Where the consensus breaks down is over the loss of the Farm Terrace allotment site, which is a green lung in a densely urban Victoria part of town. Everyone knows that this was originally excluded from the land to be built on because of its important amenity value. Everyone knows that it was included in the package of land to be commercially redeveloped because the council tendered the project in the middle of the recession. Everyone knows that Kier are motivated by a desire to make the most money they can out of the project. Everyone knows the plans have taken 15 plus years and there is no rush to start now than there was in 2004 or there would be to start in 2017. Everyone knows that the hospital is not going to need more lane than it has more, and that it is to contract rather than expand its activities in the next few years. So the question is why is the council so he'll bent on having a project, when we know that the hospital has no money or plans to build? Why not just leave the land as it is until the hospital has a planning application to change its site. Letitia go first and fit the commercial development around a rebuilt hospital. No one in Watford today is missing out that there are scrap yards where Kier aspires to build retail boulevards. Why is the council so. Keen now, after 12 years of doing nothing to build on this land. What individuals benefit? Andrew1963
  • Score: 4

8:59am Thu 20 Mar 14

mattychainsaw32 says...

Andrew1963 wrote:
The key thing is that there is a broad agreement that the Cardiff Road industrial estate can and should make a greater contribution to the economic and social well being of the town through redevelopment. The sort of redevelopment will include businesses and homes. There is agreement that the Willow Lane allotment site should be included in that redevelopment proposal. Where the consensus breaks down is over the loss of the Farm Terrace allotment site, which is a green lung in a densely urban Victoria part of town. Everyone knows that this was originally excluded from the land to be built on because of its important amenity value. Everyone knows that it was included in the package of land to be commercially redeveloped because the council tendered the project in the middle of the recession. Everyone knows that Kier are motivated by a desire to make the most money they can out of the project. Everyone knows the plans have taken 15 plus years and there is no rush to start now than there was in 2004 or there would be to start in 2017. Everyone knows that the hospital is not going to need more lane than it has more, and that it is to contract rather than expand its activities in the next few years. So the question is why is the council so he'll bent on having a project, when we know that the hospital has no money or plans to build? Why not just leave the land as it is until the hospital has a planning application to change its site. Letitia go first and fit the commercial development around a rebuilt hospital. No one in Watford today is missing out that there are scrap yards where Kier aspires to build retail boulevards. Why is the council so. Keen now, after 12 years of doing nothing to build on this land. What individuals benefit?
This is far more political than anything else now. As for amenity value am I wrong in thinking the people who benefit from the allotments are the allotment holders themselves
It is not a park where public can walk and as for environmental value maybe if it was covered with trees that would be a valid point didn't think.bare earth and veg would contribute that much. I'm pretty sure the hospital benefits far more people god forbid they try to improve services for the local Area. Is always the same when change is involved
[quote][p][bold]Andrew1963[/bold] wrote: The key thing is that there is a broad agreement that the Cardiff Road industrial estate can and should make a greater contribution to the economic and social well being of the town through redevelopment. The sort of redevelopment will include businesses and homes. There is agreement that the Willow Lane allotment site should be included in that redevelopment proposal. Where the consensus breaks down is over the loss of the Farm Terrace allotment site, which is a green lung in a densely urban Victoria part of town. Everyone knows that this was originally excluded from the land to be built on because of its important amenity value. Everyone knows that it was included in the package of land to be commercially redeveloped because the council tendered the project in the middle of the recession. Everyone knows that Kier are motivated by a desire to make the most money they can out of the project. Everyone knows the plans have taken 15 plus years and there is no rush to start now than there was in 2004 or there would be to start in 2017. Everyone knows that the hospital is not going to need more lane than it has more, and that it is to contract rather than expand its activities in the next few years. So the question is why is the council so he'll bent on having a project, when we know that the hospital has no money or plans to build? Why not just leave the land as it is until the hospital has a planning application to change its site. Letitia go first and fit the commercial development around a rebuilt hospital. No one in Watford today is missing out that there are scrap yards where Kier aspires to build retail boulevards. Why is the council so. Keen now, after 12 years of doing nothing to build on this land. What individuals benefit?[/p][/quote]This is far more political than anything else now. As for amenity value am I wrong in thinking the people who benefit from the allotments are the allotment holders themselves It is not a park where public can walk and as for environmental value maybe if it was covered with trees that would be a valid point didn't think.bare earth and veg would contribute that much. I'm pretty sure the hospital benefits far more people god forbid they try to improve services for the local Area. Is always the same when change is involved mattychainsaw32
  • Score: -12

9:14am Thu 20 Mar 14

Mike Watford says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
What percentage of all Watford voters have backed the scheme? That will be the killer statistic. It's likely to be tiny.
....but everyone had the opportunity to say what they think.
People are more likely to shout about things they are against - so by your post, the percentage against is even much smaller.
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: What percentage of all Watford voters have backed the scheme? That will be the killer statistic. It's likely to be tiny.[/p][/quote]....but everyone had the opportunity to say what they think. People are more likely to shout about things they are against - so by your post, the percentage against is even much smaller. Mike Watford
  • Score: -12

9:37am Thu 20 Mar 14

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

Mike Watford wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
What percentage of all Watford voters have backed the scheme? That will be the killer statistic. It's likely to be tiny.
....but everyone had the opportunity to say what they think.
People are more likely to shout about things they are against - so by your post, the percentage against is even much smaller.
That doesn't follow Mike, not at all.

There is no way of knowing the support for and against on a flawed exercise like this. A better way needs to be found to gauge opinion.

Ukip would have a referendum if enough people wanted one, and it would be binding on the council.

The LibDems pay lip service to democracy as they have such an unchallengeable majority.

This exercise is just window dressing for the LibDems. They're going ahead regardless.

I have no faith at all in the current administration. They don't listen and they don't care. They think they know best and anyone who disagrees with them just doesn't understand. I would call that arrogance and our local council should not be based on arrogance and a disregard for the people they serve..

That's why I am trying to replace Dorothy, so that people may once again have a Mayor that fights for them and not just for the LibDems on the council.

This Mayor has to go. I will do my best to make that happen.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: What percentage of all Watford voters have backed the scheme? That will be the killer statistic. It's likely to be tiny.[/p][/quote]....but everyone had the opportunity to say what they think. People are more likely to shout about things they are against - so by your post, the percentage against is even much smaller.[/p][/quote]That doesn't follow Mike, not at all. There is no way of knowing the support for and against on a flawed exercise like this. A better way needs to be found to gauge opinion. Ukip would have a referendum if enough people wanted one, and it would be binding on the council. The LibDems pay lip service to democracy as they have such an unchallengeable majority. This exercise is just window dressing for the LibDems. They're going ahead regardless. I have no faith at all in the current administration. They don't listen and they don't care. They think they know best and anyone who disagrees with them just doesn't understand. I would call that arrogance and our local council should not be based on arrogance and a disregard for the people they serve.. That's why I am trying to replace Dorothy, so that people may once again have a Mayor that fights for them and not just for the LibDems on the council. This Mayor has to go. I will do my best to make that happen. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 2

9:59am Thu 20 Mar 14

yellow hornet says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Mike Watford wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
What percentage of all Watford voters have backed the scheme? That will be the killer statistic. It's likely to be tiny.
....but everyone had the opportunity to say what they think.
People are more likely to shout about things they are against - so by your post, the percentage against is even much smaller.
That doesn't follow Mike, not at all.

There is no way of knowing the support for and against on a flawed exercise like this. A better way needs to be found to gauge opinion.

Ukip would have a referendum if enough people wanted one, and it would be binding on the council.

The LibDems pay lip service to democracy as they have such an unchallengeable majority.

This exercise is just window dressing for the LibDems. They're going ahead regardless.

I have no faith at all in the current administration. They don't listen and they don't care. They think they know best and anyone who disagrees with them just doesn't understand. I would call that arrogance and our local council should not be based on arrogance and a disregard for the people they serve..

That's why I am trying to replace Dorothy, so that people may once again have a Mayor that fights for them and not just for the LibDems on the council.

This Mayor has to go. I will do my best to make that happen.
Phil on the 6th of March at 10.37 you posted;

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

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.

I suppose that statement was an aspiration and not a promise?
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: What percentage of all Watford voters have backed the scheme? That will be the killer statistic. It's likely to be tiny.[/p][/quote]....but everyone had the opportunity to say what they think. People are more likely to shout about things they are against - so by your post, the percentage against is even much smaller.[/p][/quote]That doesn't follow Mike, not at all. There is no way of knowing the support for and against on a flawed exercise like this. A better way needs to be found to gauge opinion. Ukip would have a referendum if enough people wanted one, and it would be binding on the council. The LibDems pay lip service to democracy as they have such an unchallengeable majority. This exercise is just window dressing for the LibDems. They're going ahead regardless. I have no faith at all in the current administration. They don't listen and they don't care. They think they know best and anyone who disagrees with them just doesn't understand. I would call that arrogance and our local council should not be based on arrogance and a disregard for the people they serve.. That's why I am trying to replace Dorothy, so that people may once again have a Mayor that fights for them and not just for the LibDems on the council. This Mayor has to go. I will do my best to make that happen.[/p][/quote]Phil on the 6th of March at 10.37 you posted; Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford says... 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. I suppose that statement was an aspiration and not a promise? yellow hornet
  • Score: -4

1:06pm Thu 20 Mar 14

#UKMum says...

WBC reiniterate their intention to build and concrete all over Farm Terrace even if WW III breaks out; even if future floodwater laps at the door of the Council Chambers; even if a judicial review says not to; even if West Watford might benefit from a Green Lung; even if Yada Yada Yada. - Dontcha just lurve it.
WBC reiniterate their intention to build and concrete all over Farm Terrace even if WW III breaks out; even if future floodwater laps at the door of the Council Chambers; even if a judicial review says not to; even if West Watford might benefit from a Green Lung; even if Yada Yada Yada. - Dontcha just lurve it. #UKMum
  • Score: 13

1:13pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Andrew1963 says...

mattychainsaw32 wrote:
Andrew1963 wrote:
The key thing is that there is a broad agreement that the Cardiff Road industrial estate can and should make a greater contribution to the economic and social well being of the town through redevelopment. The sort of redevelopment will include businesses and homes. There is agreement that the Willow Lane allotment site should be included in that redevelopment proposal. Where the consensus breaks down is over the loss of the Farm Terrace allotment site, which is a green lung in a densely urban Victoria part of town. Everyone knows that this was originally excluded from the land to be built on because of its important amenity value. Everyone knows that it was included in the package of land to be commercially redeveloped because the council tendered the project in the middle of the recession. Everyone knows that Kier are motivated by a desire to make the most money they can out of the project. Everyone knows the plans have taken 15 plus years and there is no rush to start now than there was in 2004 or there would be to start in 2017. Everyone knows that the hospital is not going to need more lane than it has more, and that it is to contract rather than expand its activities in the next few years. So the question is why is the council so he'll bent on having a project, when we know that the hospital has no money or plans to build? Why not just leave the land as it is until the hospital has a planning application to change its site. Letitia go first and fit the commercial development around a rebuilt hospital. No one in Watford today is missing out that there are scrap yards where Kier aspires to build retail boulevards. Why is the council so. Keen now, after 12 years of doing nothing to build on this land. What individuals benefit?
This is far more political than anything else now. As for amenity value am I wrong in thinking the people who benefit from the allotments are the allotment holders themselves
It is not a park where public can walk and as for environmental value maybe if it was covered with trees that would be a valid point didn't think.bare earth and veg would contribute that much. I'm pretty sure the hospital benefits far more people god forbid they try to improve services for the local Area. Is always the same when change is involved
Its true allotments benefit people who rent them, but the open aspect does have an impact on the locality, by being a haven for wildlife and improves the environment, for example reducing the impact of heavy rain fall as run off. If the hospital was built fine. but there are no plans to build a hospital. i suggest that the allotments stay as they are until a hospital planning application is approved - everyone happy. The argument that you can build on allotments because they only serve a few, could apply to other community assets. Only swimmers benefit from swimming pools, only footballers from football pitches, only bowlers from bowling greens. There is an allotment site covered in trees next door at Willow Lane . That is to be built on. The argument for allowing that site to become housing was that Farm Terrace was near by. Until the hospital has a planning application, i see no reason why the allotments have to close, so i ask again who benefits from getting rid of the allotments. I agree when the choice is - Approve this hospital planning application which means the loss of the allotments, the overwhelming majority will support the hospital. But that is not the case at the moment. The football club will get a quarter of the Farm Terrace allotments for car parking and the rest will be built on by Kier for housing to generate profits. The hospital will not be building on any Farm Terrace allotment land.
[quote][p][bold]mattychainsaw32[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew1963[/bold] wrote: The key thing is that there is a broad agreement that the Cardiff Road industrial estate can and should make a greater contribution to the economic and social well being of the town through redevelopment. The sort of redevelopment will include businesses and homes. There is agreement that the Willow Lane allotment site should be included in that redevelopment proposal. Where the consensus breaks down is over the loss of the Farm Terrace allotment site, which is a green lung in a densely urban Victoria part of town. Everyone knows that this was originally excluded from the land to be built on because of its important amenity value. Everyone knows that it was included in the package of land to be commercially redeveloped because the council tendered the project in the middle of the recession. Everyone knows that Kier are motivated by a desire to make the most money they can out of the project. Everyone knows the plans have taken 15 plus years and there is no rush to start now than there was in 2004 or there would be to start in 2017. Everyone knows that the hospital is not going to need more lane than it has more, and that it is to contract rather than expand its activities in the next few years. So the question is why is the council so he'll bent on having a project, when we know that the hospital has no money or plans to build? Why not just leave the land as it is until the hospital has a planning application to change its site. Letitia go first and fit the commercial development around a rebuilt hospital. No one in Watford today is missing out that there are scrap yards where Kier aspires to build retail boulevards. Why is the council so. Keen now, after 12 years of doing nothing to build on this land. What individuals benefit?[/p][/quote]This is far more political than anything else now. As for amenity value am I wrong in thinking the people who benefit from the allotments are the allotment holders themselves It is not a park where public can walk and as for environmental value maybe if it was covered with trees that would be a valid point didn't think.bare earth and veg would contribute that much. I'm pretty sure the hospital benefits far more people god forbid they try to improve services for the local Area. Is always the same when change is involved[/p][/quote]Its true allotments benefit people who rent them, but the open aspect does have an impact on the locality, by being a haven for wildlife and improves the environment, for example reducing the impact of heavy rain fall as run off. If the hospital was built fine. but there are no plans to build a hospital. i suggest that the allotments stay as they are until a hospital planning application is approved - everyone happy. The argument that you can build on allotments because they only serve a few, could apply to other community assets. Only swimmers benefit from swimming pools, only footballers from football pitches, only bowlers from bowling greens. There is an allotment site covered in trees next door at Willow Lane . That is to be built on. The argument for allowing that site to become housing was that Farm Terrace was near by. Until the hospital has a planning application, i see no reason why the allotments have to close, so i ask again who benefits from getting rid of the allotments. I agree when the choice is - Approve this hospital planning application which means the loss of the allotments, the overwhelming majority will support the hospital. But that is not the case at the moment. The football club will get a quarter of the Farm Terrace allotments for car parking and the rest will be built on by Kier for housing to generate profits. The hospital will not be building on any Farm Terrace allotment land. Andrew1963
  • Score: 5

1:24pm Thu 20 Mar 14

sjtrebar says...

mattychainsaw32 wrote:
Andrew1963 wrote:
The key thing is that there is a broad agreement that the Cardiff Road industrial estate can and should make a greater contribution to the economic and social well being of the town through redevelopment. The sort of redevelopment will include businesses and homes. There is agreement that the Willow Lane allotment site should be included in that redevelopment proposal. Where the consensus breaks down is over the loss of the Farm Terrace allotment site, which is a green lung in a densely urban Victoria part of town. Everyone knows that this was originally excluded from the land to be built on because of its important amenity value. Everyone knows that it was included in the package of land to be commercially redeveloped because the council tendered the project in the middle of the recession. Everyone knows that Kier are motivated by a desire to make the most money they can out of the project. Everyone knows the plans have taken 15 plus years and there is no rush to start now than there was in 2004 or there would be to start in 2017. Everyone knows that the hospital is not going to need more lane than it has more, and that it is to contract rather than expand its activities in the next few years. So the question is why is the council so he'll bent on having a project, when we know that the hospital has no money or plans to build? Why not just leave the land as it is until the hospital has a planning application to change its site. Letitia go first and fit the commercial development around a rebuilt hospital. No one in Watford today is missing out that there are scrap yards where Kier aspires to build retail boulevards. Why is the council so. Keen now, after 12 years of doing nothing to build on this land. What individuals benefit?
This is far more political than anything else now. As for amenity value am I wrong in thinking the people who benefit from the allotments are the allotment holders themselves
It is not a park where public can walk and as for environmental value maybe if it was covered with trees that would be a valid point didn't think.bare earth and veg would contribute that much. I'm pretty sure the hospital benefits far more people god forbid they try to improve services for the local Area. Is always the same when change is involved
We have never been against a hospital development but there are no plans and no funding for the hospital. We are certainly not against any development of the brown land surrounding the site.You ARE wrong to think that the only people who benefit from the allotments are 'just' the allotment holders. There are 100+ plots. That is at least 100 families and friends who benefit from the natural home grown fresh produce these plot holders grow. Then there is the fact that these allotments have existed since 1896. How many families have benefited in the past from this and how many future generations (who have small back yards if they are lucky!) will benefit from the chance of exercise/stress release/ interaction with the community and the chance to put healthy veg on the table? If the site is lost people will have to travel miles away to do this and this local amenity will be lost forever. You are also wrong to think there is no environmental value! There is roughly 40% tree cover on Farm Terrace but even ignoring that fact I am sure you do actually understand that cementing over this whole area, part of which is on a flood plain, is complete madness. As for change.. well we are desperate for it! Watford Borough Council has been willfully neglecting Farm Terrace Allotments for years because they want them to look 'derelict'. I personally would love nothing more than to open the gates and create a much better community space with hospital access for patients to come and tend to a plot or just sit in the serenity of the natural habitat. I would like to include schools, community groups and have regular charity events, fetes, workshops and allow people who didn't even know we existed the chance to have their own bit of proper space within an integrated open community with generations of people with helpful advice and experience to offer. but of course the council and yourself would rather loose this 3 hectares of opportunity and create a tiny manicured lawn sandwiched between 750 flats!!! - oh yes much more community minded!!
[quote][p][bold]mattychainsaw32[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew1963[/bold] wrote: The key thing is that there is a broad agreement that the Cardiff Road industrial estate can and should make a greater contribution to the economic and social well being of the town through redevelopment. The sort of redevelopment will include businesses and homes. There is agreement that the Willow Lane allotment site should be included in that redevelopment proposal. Where the consensus breaks down is over the loss of the Farm Terrace allotment site, which is a green lung in a densely urban Victoria part of town. Everyone knows that this was originally excluded from the land to be built on because of its important amenity value. Everyone knows that it was included in the package of land to be commercially redeveloped because the council tendered the project in the middle of the recession. Everyone knows that Kier are motivated by a desire to make the most money they can out of the project. Everyone knows the plans have taken 15 plus years and there is no rush to start now than there was in 2004 or there would be to start in 2017. Everyone knows that the hospital is not going to need more lane than it has more, and that it is to contract rather than expand its activities in the next few years. So the question is why is the council so he'll bent on having a project, when we know that the hospital has no money or plans to build? Why not just leave the land as it is until the hospital has a planning application to change its site. Letitia go first and fit the commercial development around a rebuilt hospital. No one in Watford today is missing out that there are scrap yards where Kier aspires to build retail boulevards. Why is the council so. Keen now, after 12 years of doing nothing to build on this land. What individuals benefit?[/p][/quote]This is far more political than anything else now. As for amenity value am I wrong in thinking the people who benefit from the allotments are the allotment holders themselves It is not a park where public can walk and as for environmental value maybe if it was covered with trees that would be a valid point didn't think.bare earth and veg would contribute that much. I'm pretty sure the hospital benefits far more people god forbid they try to improve services for the local Area. Is always the same when change is involved[/p][/quote]We have never been against a hospital development but there are no plans and no funding for the hospital. We are certainly not against any development of the brown land surrounding the site.You ARE wrong to think that the only people who benefit from the allotments are 'just' the allotment holders. There are 100+ plots. That is at least 100 families and friends who benefit from the natural home grown fresh produce these plot holders grow. Then there is the fact that these allotments have existed since 1896. How many families have benefited in the past from this and how many future generations (who have small back yards if they are lucky!) will benefit from the chance of exercise/stress release/ interaction with the community and the chance to put healthy veg on the table? If the site is lost people will have to travel miles away to do this and this local amenity will be lost forever. You are also wrong to think there is no environmental value! There is roughly 40% tree cover on Farm Terrace but even ignoring that fact I am sure you do actually understand that cementing over this whole area, part of which is on a flood plain, is complete madness. As for change.. well we are desperate for it! Watford Borough Council has been willfully neglecting Farm Terrace Allotments for years because they want them to look 'derelict'. I personally would love nothing more than to open the gates and create a much better community space with hospital access for patients to come and tend to a plot or just sit in the serenity of the natural habitat. I would like to include schools, community groups and have regular charity events, fetes, workshops and allow people who didn't even know we existed the chance to have their own bit of proper space within an integrated open community with generations of people with helpful advice and experience to offer. but of course the council and yourself would rather loose this 3 hectares of opportunity and create a tiny manicured lawn sandwiched between 750 flats!!! - oh yes much more community minded!! sjtrebar
  • Score: 12

4:44pm Thu 20 Mar 14

Boosey says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
Mike Watford wrote:
Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
What percentage of all Watford voters have backed the scheme? That will be the killer statistic. It's likely to be tiny.
....but everyone had the opportunity to say what they think.
People are more likely to shout about things they are against - so by your post, the percentage against is even much smaller.
That doesn't follow Mike, not at all.

There is no way of knowing the support for and against on a flawed exercise like this. A better way needs to be found to gauge opinion.

Ukip would have a referendum if enough people wanted one, and it would be binding on the council.

The LibDems pay lip service to democracy as they have such an unchallengeable majority.

This exercise is just window dressing for the LibDems. They're going ahead regardless.

I have no faith at all in the current administration. They don't listen and they don't care. They think they know best and anyone who disagrees with them just doesn't understand. I would call that arrogance and our local council should not be based on arrogance and a disregard for the people they serve..

That's why I am trying to replace Dorothy, so that people may once again have a Mayor that fights for them and not just for the LibDems on the council.

This Mayor has to go. I will do my best to make that happen.
The mayor has to go, Phil wants her fat salary package!
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: What percentage of all Watford voters have backed the scheme? That will be the killer statistic. It's likely to be tiny.[/p][/quote]....but everyone had the opportunity to say what they think. People are more likely to shout about things they are against - so by your post, the percentage against is even much smaller.[/p][/quote]That doesn't follow Mike, not at all. There is no way of knowing the support for and against on a flawed exercise like this. A better way needs to be found to gauge opinion. Ukip would have a referendum if enough people wanted one, and it would be binding on the council. The LibDems pay lip service to democracy as they have such an unchallengeable majority. This exercise is just window dressing for the LibDems. They're going ahead regardless. I have no faith at all in the current administration. They don't listen and they don't care. They think they know best and anyone who disagrees with them just doesn't understand. I would call that arrogance and our local council should not be based on arrogance and a disregard for the people they serve.. That's why I am trying to replace Dorothy, so that people may once again have a Mayor that fights for them and not just for the LibDems on the council. This Mayor has to go. I will do my best to make that happen.[/p][/quote]The mayor has to go, Phil wants her fat salary package! Boosey
  • Score: -8

5:21pm Thu 20 Mar 14

#UKMum says...

The Mayor has to go because of the 3 strikes and you are out rule.
The Mayor has to go because of the 3 strikes and you are out rule. #UKMum
  • Score: 10

5:55pm Thu 20 Mar 14

#UKMum says...

"What You Get For Your Money" trumpets the Watford BusBrochure page 14 -

"At a total estimated cost of £750million, the project will provide a diverse and exciting mix" . Hmmm that much?
Meanwhile Daily Mail told us that £10 Mill Mary Portas Retail Money was said to have been shared by 100 towns. Watford was said to have received £6 Mill.to rejuvenate High Street shops. I don't see much improvement myself. Money Money Money must be funny in a FibDem world.
"What You Get For Your Money" trumpets the Watford BusBrochure page 14 - "At a total estimated cost of £750million, the project will provide a diverse and exciting mix" . Hmmm that much? Meanwhile Daily Mail told us that £10 Mill Mary Portas Retail Money was said to have been shared by 100 towns. Watford was said to have received £6 Mill.to rejuvenate High Street shops. I don't see much improvement myself. Money Money Money must be funny in a FibDem world. #UKMum
  • Score: 13

10:13am Fri 21 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

dontknowynot wrote:
I am utterly convinced this site is becoming a UKIP propaganda site, sorry thats how I see it.

It is therfore utterly unreasonable to ring fence topics and not comment on this as it demeans the notion of free speech, so even though I hold Farm Terrace campaign in high regard, no because I do and I do not wish them to be tainted by this poison.

So here goes
1) UKIP have promised a manifesto and not delivered it
2) Whilst UKIP are critical of the "gravy train" Phil Cox has said he will not reduce the Mayor Salary.
3) on the other threads The UKIP duo of Penn and Cox have been far from reasoned
4) numerous posters of have been spoken to in a very rude and insulting way be Penn and Cox

Now it is displays a bias that is totally unacceptable to have removed the threads which depict UKIP in a very bad light and I have no idea why the Watford Observer have chosen to do it.
umm indeed
[quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: I am utterly convinced this site is becoming a UKIP propaganda site, sorry thats how I see it. It is therfore utterly unreasonable to ring fence topics and not comment on this as it demeans the notion of free speech, so even though I hold Farm Terrace campaign in high regard, no because I do and I do not wish them to be tainted by this poison. So here goes 1) UKIP have promised a manifesto and not delivered it 2) Whilst UKIP are critical of the "gravy train" Phil Cox has said he will not reduce the Mayor Salary. 3) on the other threads The UKIP duo of Penn and Cox have been far from reasoned 4) numerous posters of have been spoken to in a very rude and insulting way be Penn and Cox Now it is displays a bias that is totally unacceptable to have removed the threads which depict UKIP in a very bad light and I have no idea why the Watford Observer have chosen to do it.[/p][/quote]umm indeed ancientandageing
  • Score: -5

12:17pm Fri 21 Mar 14

D_Penn says...

ancientandageing wrote:
dontknowynot wrote: I am utterly convinced this site is becoming a UKIP propaganda site, sorry thats how I see it. It is therfore utterly unreasonable to ring fence topics and not comment on this as it demeans the notion of free speech, so even though I hold Farm Terrace campaign in high regard, no because I do and I do not wish them to be tainted by this poison. So here goes 1) UKIP have promised a manifesto and not delivered it 2) Whilst UKIP are critical of the "gravy train" Phil Cox has said he will not reduce the Mayor Salary. 3) on the other threads The UKIP duo of Penn and Cox have been far from reasoned 4) numerous posters of have been spoken to in a very rude and insulting way be Penn and Cox Now it is displays a bias that is totally unacceptable to have removed the threads which depict UKIP in a very bad light and I have no idea why the Watford Observer have chosen to do it.
umm indeed
I am totally fed up with dealing with the constant repetitive attacks by dontknowynot who refuses to keep comments on topic, but since you have quoted it, I feel that now I have to respond. Apologies to others for leaving the topic again to handle this rubbish.

First, this is not a UKIP propaganda site. Myself and Phil Cox will be standing for elected Council posts in May. We feel it is right and open for us to comment on stories in the Watford Observer so that people can see where we stand. That may win us votes from some and lose it from others. That is a risk we take and the option to do the same as us is open to all others standing for Council posts. There is therefore no bias in our favour. I suspect others standing for office are driven from posting openly under their own names on this site by posters like DKYN who does not really want free speech, but only her voice to be heard.

Indeed, Dontknowynot calls for free speech but shamelessly abused the privilege by repeatedly producing the same lies, slurs and smears all over the Watford site to discredit me and Phil Cox. There were legal implications and despite the comment by DKYN that ‘I have no idea why the Watford Observer have chosen to do it. ’ it is very obvious why all such posts have been removed. Playing Ms Innocent does not wash with me because I am certain she is well aware of the terms and conditions here…

http://www.watfordob
server.co.uk/my/acco
unt/termsandconditio
ns/

…and of the clear breaches of items 12 and 20 that applied to many of her posts. She is now trying to manipulate moderation by saying it attacks free speech in the hope it will allow her to continue her policy of harassment of my and Phil Cox’s posts all over the Observer.

Instead of moaning about UKIP’s presence here, why does DKYN not ask her Labour prospective councillors to also post under their own names on here? Are they frightened that they might suffer the same anonymous haranguing as DKYN dishes out?

There is a dearth of elected people posting openly on here which is a pity and the likes of DKYN are one of the reasons. That’s a real shame because everyone misses out on witnessing some proper debates. I’d be happy to lose some arguments because we learn most when we debate with those who disagree with us, but that opportunity does not arise because of posts like the one that I’m spending time responding to instead of being able to debate on subjects which are important to people.


As for the other items which keep appearing from DKYN ad nauseum…

1) UKIP have promised a manifesto and not delivered it

Phil Cox never promised a manifesto by a given date, so the above is a LIE. What he said here on this site was that the manifesto would PROBABLY be up last week. Guess what though. We all have jobs to do and finding the time to get us all together means that sometimes things do not run smoothly. Our webmaster has other commitments. We are real people who have to earn our living, see to our families just like everyone else. So we are not perfect and timings are not exact, but it and other material will all be available well before the election.

2) Whilst UKIP are critical of the “ train" Phil Cox has said he will not reduce the Mayor Salary.

For the job the Mayor is supposed to do, the salary is about right but probably significantly less than management roles with similar levels of responsibility in private industry.

3) on the other threads The UKIP duo of Penn and Cox have been far from reasoned

A personal opinion by DKYN that is nothing to do with the article here. Pointless and just an excuse to have a go. DKYN never wants to debate a Watford Observer article. She is like the poor defender in a football match who always resorts to chopping down the man rather than playing the ball.

4) numerous posters of have been spoken to in a very rude and insulting way be Penn and Cox

Just another example of DKYN trying to discredit us by trying to attribute untruths about us. Phil made one comment earlier that someone objected to and he politely apologised. DKYN then takes that and exaggerates it to the max. I have never been rude or insulting to anyone, even DKYN, who by contrast is happy to use some very unladylike language on here when it suits her. A more untrustworthy poster than dontknowynot it is hard to imagine.

Again apologies to all for going off topic, but comments designed to discredit people rather than talk about the article subject have to be countered because if you always ignore them and let them be repeated there’s always the danger that readers who do not know dontknowynot’s modus operandi will start to believe her.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dontknowynot[/bold] wrote: I am utterly convinced this site is becoming a UKIP propaganda site, sorry thats how I see it. It is therfore utterly unreasonable to ring fence topics and not comment on this as it demeans the notion of free speech, so even though I hold Farm Terrace campaign in high regard, no because I do and I do not wish them to be tainted by this poison. So here goes 1) UKIP have promised a manifesto and not delivered it 2) Whilst UKIP are critical of the "gravy train" Phil Cox has said he will not reduce the Mayor Salary. 3) on the other threads The UKIP duo of Penn and Cox have been far from reasoned 4) numerous posters of have been spoken to in a very rude and insulting way be Penn and Cox Now it is displays a bias that is totally unacceptable to have removed the threads which depict UKIP in a very bad light and I have no idea why the Watford Observer have chosen to do it.[/p][/quote]umm indeed[/p][/quote]I am totally fed up with dealing with the constant repetitive attacks by dontknowynot who refuses to keep comments on topic, but since you have quoted it, I feel that now I have to respond. Apologies to others for leaving the topic again to handle this rubbish. First, this is not a UKIP propaganda site. Myself and Phil Cox will be standing for elected Council posts in May. We feel it is right and open for us to comment on stories in the Watford Observer so that people can see where we stand. That may win us votes from some and lose it from others. That is a risk we take and the option to do the same as us is open to all others standing for Council posts. There is therefore no bias in our favour. I suspect others standing for office are driven from posting openly under their own names on this site by posters like DKYN who does not really want free speech, but only her voice to be heard. Indeed, Dontknowynot calls for free speech but shamelessly abused the privilege by repeatedly producing the same lies, slurs and smears all over the Watford site to discredit me and Phil Cox. There were legal implications and despite the comment by DKYN that ‘I have no idea why the Watford Observer have chosen to do it. [remove her posts]’ it is very obvious why all such posts have been removed. Playing Ms Innocent does not wash with me because I am certain she is well aware of the terms and conditions here… http://www.watfordob server.co.uk/my/acco unt/termsandconditio ns/ …and of the clear breaches of items 12 and 20 that applied to many of her posts. She is now trying to manipulate moderation by saying it attacks free speech in the hope it will allow her to continue her policy of harassment of my and Phil Cox’s posts all over the Observer. Instead of moaning about UKIP’s presence here, why does DKYN not ask her Labour prospective councillors to also post under their own names on here? Are they frightened that they might suffer the same anonymous haranguing as DKYN dishes out? There is a dearth of elected people posting openly on here which is a pity and the likes of DKYN are one of the reasons. That’s a real shame because everyone misses out on witnessing some proper debates. I’d be happy to lose some arguments because we learn most when we debate with those who disagree with us, but that opportunity does not arise because of posts like the one that I’m spending time responding to instead of being able to debate on subjects which are important to people. As for the other items which keep appearing from DKYN ad nauseum… 1) UKIP have promised a manifesto and not delivered it Phil Cox never promised a manifesto by a given date, so the above is a LIE. What he said here on this site was that the manifesto would PROBABLY be up last week. Guess what though. We all have jobs to do and finding the time to get us all together means that sometimes things do not run smoothly. Our webmaster has other commitments. We are real people who have to earn our living, see to our families just like everyone else. So we are not perfect and timings are not exact, but it and other material will all be available well before the election. 2) Whilst UKIP are critical of the “ train" Phil Cox has said he will not reduce the Mayor Salary. For the job the Mayor is supposed to do, the salary is about right but probably significantly less than management roles with similar levels of responsibility in private industry. 3) on the other threads The UKIP duo of Penn and Cox have been far from reasoned A personal opinion by DKYN that is nothing to do with the article here. Pointless and just an excuse to have a go. DKYN never wants to debate a Watford Observer article. She is like the poor defender in a football match who always resorts to chopping down the man rather than playing the ball. 4) numerous posters of have been spoken to in a very rude and insulting way be Penn and Cox Just another example of DKYN trying to discredit us by trying to attribute untruths about us. Phil made one comment earlier that someone objected to and he politely apologised. DKYN then takes that and exaggerates it to the max. I have never been rude or insulting to anyone, even DKYN, who by contrast is happy to use some very unladylike language on here when it suits her. A more untrustworthy poster than dontknowynot it is hard to imagine. Again apologies to all for going off topic, but comments designed to discredit people rather than talk about the article subject have to be countered because if you always ignore them and let them be repeated there’s always the danger that readers who do not know dontknowynot’s modus operandi will start to believe her. D_Penn
  • Score: 3

2:19pm Fri 21 Mar 14

ancientandageing says...

@ D_Penn
Whilst I see no clear breach of 12 or indeed 20, which is not a rule but a provision, that is if 12 if broken and it is serious enough then they can do this. For your information section 20 reads
“If we find your use of this site seriously inappropriate, offensive or disruptive, we may use information we have about you to stop such conduct, and this may include informing relevant third parties such as your employer, school, email provider or, in the case of any suspected unlawful activity, the police.”
I do find it however this informative that you quote these rules ;in that clearly if someone were to be complaining they would likely have to revisit them first, as you appear to have done, I won’t risk your Wrath by accusing you directly of having anything to do with what appears like the banning of Dontknowwhonot, Rammpage, Big….? And others but will let others draw their own conclusions

Just wondering about something David when you refer to ...Dontknowwhonot. as her I always thought that Dontknowwhonot was a man, what makes you so sure he is a she, I swear at one point he was mocking you on this with female impersonator lines.
@ D_Penn Whilst I see no clear breach of 12 or indeed 20, which is not a rule but a provision, that is if 12 if broken and it is serious enough then they can do this. For your information section 20 reads “If we find your use of this site seriously inappropriate, offensive or disruptive, we may use information we have about you to stop such conduct, and this may include informing relevant third parties such as your employer, school, email provider or, in the case of any suspected unlawful activity, the police.” I do find it however this informative that you quote these rules ;in that clearly if someone were to be complaining they would likely have to revisit them first, as you appear to have done, I won’t risk your Wrath by accusing you directly of having anything to do with what appears like the banning of Dontknowwhonot, Rammpage, Big….? And others but will let others draw their own conclusions Just wondering about something David when you refer to ...Dontknowwhonot. as her I always thought that Dontknowwhonot was a man, what makes you so sure he is a she, I swear at one point he was mocking you on this with female impersonator lines. ancientandageing
  • Score: -6

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