Watford health campus: more than half a million pounds spent on consultants fees

Watford Observer: Watford health campus: more than half a million pounds spent on consultants fees Watford health campus: more than half a million pounds spent on consultants fees

Consultants have cashed in on the Watford Health Campus to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds, the project’s accounts have showed.

Over the last three years £550,850 - including more than £21,000 on cost consultancy work - has been shelled out on consultant fees.

The figures emerged as information released by Watford Borough Council showed the project to regenerate land behind Vicarage Road has cost more than £2.3 million since 2011.

The council has refused to name the companies who have worked on the scheme, which promises up to 750 new homes and space for potential new hospital facilities, citing "commercial confidentially".

Watford’s elected mayor, Dorothy Thornhill, said the costs would be more than recouped as the project is set to make a large profit for council.

She said: "We always expected to put the money up front. We are where we should be. The bottom line is everything is on track. The only issue is whether we include the allotments or not and there is such costs associated in fighting legal battles, but that is democracy for you.

"The amount of costs are within the realm of a project of this size but the important thing to know is that we will recuperate that money."

Mayor Thornhill said the council will get a share of the profit once the health campus has been built, explaining: "This is a good scheme that will make money."

Under the current deal, the council and West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust are sharing the costs of health campus expenditure.

However, the profits of the health campus will be split between the council and developers Kier.

According to the figures obtained by the Watford Observer, advice on the commercial aspect of the scheme, accountancy, forming a business case to the project and management support has contributed to the £550,850 consultants’ bill.

Watford Observer:

Figures show how much has been spent on the scheme since it began in 2011 up until September 2013.

The health campus is a £260 million regeneration scheme for a 29 hectare site.

Development management has cost nearly £445,000 and, so far, marketing the scheme has cost £17,756

Figures exclude the amount that Watford Borough Council had to pay the East of England Development Agency to buy back the land before it was dissolved in 2012.

The largest expenditure so far is the amount spent on legal costs, amounting to £642,405.

The controversy which surrounds the health campus escalated last month as it emerged that the High Court granted permission to Farm Terrace campaigners to challenge Eric Pickles’ decision to allow the council to build on their allotment site.

Mayor Thornhill said removing Farm Terrace from the health campus site could jeopardise the financial security of the scheme.

She said: "The issue with Farm Terrace is the viability of the project. If you have to keep the allotments where they are we probably won’t get the money back and won’t get much of the profit."
A contaminated land assessment was carried out at the expense of £211,505 and a wildlife survey cost £15,231.

Kathryn Robson, spokesman for the council, said: "Watford Health Campus is about regenerating an area of west Watford, remediating contaminated land, delivering space for healthcare facilities, new homes and providing jobs.

"Parts of the scheme will be unviable while other parts of the scheme will be viable. Whilst we expect to recoup our costs and create profits, given the length of the project, these will depend on a wide range of factors such as land values and market fluctuations over a twenty year period.

"As a partner in the scheme, any profits that the council may make from Watford Health Campus will be reinvested in the borough for the benefit of council taxpayers."

Comments (42)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:53pm Fri 9 May 14

ramage1996 says...

£642,405 on legal fees..

The allotment holders who are wasting the taxpayers money with appeal after appeal and those political chancers supporting them just to try and pick up a few more votes should be ashamed of themselves.
£642,405 on legal fees.. The allotment holders who are wasting the taxpayers money with appeal after appeal and those political chancers supporting them just to try and pick up a few more votes should be ashamed of themselves. ramage1996
  • Score: -26

1:12pm Fri 9 May 14

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

If I am elected I will get rid of all this secrecy. There is no need to keep this sort of information secret. We should be able to see what has been done, who by, what it has cost and when.

Secrecy is a bad thing. We in UKIP want to bring openness and transparency to the dealings of the Council.

The Council should have nothing to hide. The people have a right to know what is going on and how much it is costing them. It's our money after all, we pay the Mayors wages and she works for us! It's about time someone reminded her of that.

One good way is voting UKIP on the 22nd.
If I am elected I will get rid of all this secrecy. There is no need to keep this sort of information secret. We should be able to see what has been done, who by, what it has cost and when. Secrecy is a bad thing. We in UKIP want to bring openness and transparency to the dealings of the Council. The Council should have nothing to hide. The people have a right to know what is going on and how much it is costing them. It's our money after all, we pay the Mayors wages and she works for us! It's about time someone reminded her of that. One good way is voting UKIP on the 22nd. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 7

1:14pm Fri 9 May 14

ramage1996 says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
If I am elected I will get rid of all this secrecy. There is no need to keep this sort of information secret. We should be able to see what has been done, who by, what it has cost and when.

Secrecy is a bad thing. We in UKIP want to bring openness and transparency to the dealings of the Council.

The Council should have nothing to hide. The people have a right to know what is going on and how much it is costing them. It's our money after all, we pay the Mayors wages and she works for us! It's about time someone reminded her of that.

One good way is voting UKIP on the 22nd.
Talking of chancers.....

Hi Phil
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: If I am elected I will get rid of all this secrecy. There is no need to keep this sort of information secret. We should be able to see what has been done, who by, what it has cost and when. Secrecy is a bad thing. We in UKIP want to bring openness and transparency to the dealings of the Council. The Council should have nothing to hide. The people have a right to know what is going on and how much it is costing them. It's our money after all, we pay the Mayors wages and she works for us! It's about time someone reminded her of that. One good way is voting UKIP on the 22nd.[/p][/quote]Talking of chancers..... Hi Phil ramage1996
  • Score: -11

1:26pm Fri 9 May 14

stuegs says...

How is it even legal to have these secrets? ?? IT IS OUR MONEY

Im am sick and tired of politicians and councillors treating the taxpayers like this. Idiots spending our money like irresponsible teenagers. How do we stop these greedy liars??
How is it even legal to have these secrets? ?? IT IS OUR MONEY Im am sick and tired of politicians and councillors treating the taxpayers like this. Idiots spending our money like irresponsible teenagers. How do we stop these greedy liars?? stuegs
  • Score: 36

1:31pm Fri 9 May 14

Paul Gadd says...

Con Dems will only benefit the fat cats- ask them about help for the poor, unemployed, disabled etc- oh, there's no money....
Con Dems will only benefit the fat cats- ask them about help for the poor, unemployed, disabled etc- oh, there's no money.... Paul Gadd
  • Score: 19

1:38pm Fri 9 May 14

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

Parties may differ in their approach to doing the best for Watford. They have their loud supporters who post on here from time to time.

We believe a new hospital should be the priority for this site, not housing.

That's why we would wait for the NHS to come up with plans for a new hospital before building on the site. Watford needs a new hospital, you just need to look at the old one to know that.

We also believe there is no good enough reason to lose well-used and appreciated allotments that are rightly protected from developers by law.

If our LibDem Mayor takes actions that may be considered contrary to the laws of the land by trying to build on these allotments, then it is every citizens right to take the issue through the courts. People should not be criticised for standing up against a developer of a housing estate, even if that property developer is the council itself, when those plans purport to build on land protected by law from such developments.

If the LibDem Mayor is wrong and huge costs are needlessly racked up by the Council in pursuing this case then the LibDems have no-one to blame but themselves. Sadly, it is the whole of Watford that will pay for it through our taxes.

By this time the council must have legal advice on the merits of their case. If elected I will publish that opinion so the whole of Watford can see what the basis is that LibDem Mayor Dorothy Thornhill is taking this to court.

Wouldn't it be better if Watford Council had no secrets? If we could see that advice? Now?

Only by voting UKIP can you get rid of the secrecy that surrounds this council.

Vote UKIP on May 22nd.
Parties may differ in their approach to doing the best for Watford. They have their loud supporters who post on here from time to time. We believe a new hospital should be the priority for this site, not housing. That's why we would wait for the NHS to come up with plans for a new hospital before building on the site. Watford needs a new hospital, you just need to look at the old one to know that. We also believe there is no good enough reason to lose well-used and appreciated allotments that are rightly protected from developers by law. If our LibDem Mayor takes actions that may be considered contrary to the laws of the land by trying to build on these allotments, then it is every citizens right to take the issue through the courts. People should not be criticised for standing up against a developer of a housing estate, even if that property developer is the council itself, when those plans purport to build on land protected by law from such developments. If the LibDem Mayor is wrong and huge costs are needlessly racked up by the Council in pursuing this case then the LibDems have no-one to blame but themselves. Sadly, it is the whole of Watford that will pay for it through our taxes. By this time the council must have legal advice on the merits of their case. If elected I will publish that opinion so the whole of Watford can see what the basis is that LibDem Mayor Dorothy Thornhill is taking this to court. Wouldn't it be better if Watford Council had no secrets? If we could see that advice? Now? Only by voting UKIP can you get rid of the secrecy that surrounds this council. Vote UKIP on May 22nd. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 7

1:40pm Fri 9 May 14

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

stuegs wrote:
How is it even legal to have these secrets? ?? IT IS OUR MONEY

Im am sick and tired of politicians and councillors treating the taxpayers like this. Idiots spending our money like irresponsible teenagers. How do we stop these greedy liars??
Answer?

In all honesty, vote UKIP.

We are the only party offering that.
[quote][p][bold]stuegs[/bold] wrote: How is it even legal to have these secrets? ?? IT IS OUR MONEY Im am sick and tired of politicians and councillors treating the taxpayers like this. Idiots spending our money like irresponsible teenagers. How do we stop these greedy liars??[/p][/quote]Answer? In all honesty, vote UKIP. We are the only party offering that. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 12

1:53pm Fri 9 May 14

sjtrebar says...

ramage1996 wrote:
£642,405 on legal fees..

The allotment holders who are wasting the taxpayers money with appeal after appeal and those political chancers supporting them just to try and pick up a few more votes should be ashamed of themselves.
Councilor, had you and Mayor Dorothy actually bothered to listen to local residents you would have seen the level of support for the Allotments and not have had to waste valuable Tax Payers money on it. At least now the facts are in that 99% do not want the allotments to be replaced by a car park and housing, you will have to!!
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: £642,405 on legal fees.. The allotment holders who are wasting the taxpayers money with appeal after appeal and those political chancers supporting them just to try and pick up a few more votes should be ashamed of themselves.[/p][/quote]Councilor, had you and Mayor Dorothy actually bothered to listen to local residents you would have seen the level of support for the Allotments and not have had to waste valuable Tax Payers money on it. At least now the facts are in that 99% do not want the allotments to be replaced by a car park and housing, you will have to!! sjtrebar
  • Score: 32

2:01pm Fri 9 May 14

ancientandageing says...

ramage1996 wrote:
£642,405 on legal fees..

The allotment holders who are wasting the taxpayers money with appeal after appeal and those political chancers supporting them just to try and pick up a few more votes should be ashamed of themselves.
The allotment holders won the first appeal and will likely win the second IMO.

As to chancers well there goes, but Labour have been solidly behind the campaigners since day one really so it is not a case of it being just a bunch of fruitcakes and loony anti EU sellof the NHS chancers from UKIP supporting them.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: £642,405 on legal fees.. The allotment holders who are wasting the taxpayers money with appeal after appeal and those political chancers supporting them just to try and pick up a few more votes should be ashamed of themselves.[/p][/quote]The allotment holders won the first appeal and will likely win the second IMO. As to chancers well there goes, but Labour have been solidly behind the campaigners since day one really so it is not a case of it being just a bunch of fruitcakes and loony anti EU sellof the NHS chancers from UKIP supporting them. ancientandageing
  • Score: -5

2:05pm Fri 9 May 14

TRT says...

"that is democracy for you" - what a quote from a democratically elected mayor! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Democracy put you in power. It did NOT give you a mandate to pull the wool over people's eyes, to lie to the electorate, to mislead and deceive, to evade direct and important questions, to concrete over allotments and green spaces (only the other day I was taking an old friend for a walk in the park and a drive around the area and she was asking where all the green spaces had gone in the 15 years since she lived here), to play fast and loose with the tax-payer's money buying purple flags and pointless yet-another-regenera
tion-schemes for e.g. the Parade because some yankie-doodle film studio boss made a passing remark.

"This is a good scheme that will make money." - Showing your true colours there, Dotty... pity it won't make a new hospital.

And Kathryn Robinson... " is about , delivering space for healthcare facilities, " I've got news for you - Amazon delivered me an empty box the other day with a note saying it was OK because that was the space for thing I thought I was getting. Well, it wasn't and I sent that straight back.*

*may contain traces of a made up analogy.

There is already plenty of space there for healthcare facilities - there won't be if you build houses on it. We get a one of the following: a hospital, a hospital WITH a bit of something else or nothing at all. We don't get a lot of houses and shops WITHOUT a hospital. Capiche?
"that is democracy for you" - what a quote from a democratically elected mayor! Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Democracy put you in power. It did NOT give you a mandate to pull the wool over people's eyes, to lie to the electorate, to mislead and deceive, to evade direct and important questions, to concrete over allotments and green spaces (only the other day I was taking an old friend for a walk in the park and a drive around the area and she was asking where all the green spaces had gone in the 15 years since she lived here), to play fast and loose with the tax-payer's money buying purple flags and pointless yet-another-regenera tion-schemes for e.g. the Parade because some yankie-doodle film studio boss made a passing remark. "This is a good scheme that will make money." - Showing your true colours there, Dotty... pity it won't make a new hospital. And Kathryn Robinson... "[...] is about [...], delivering space for healthcare facilities, [...]" I've got news for you - Amazon delivered me an empty box the other day with a note saying it was OK because that was the space for thing I thought I was getting. Well, it wasn't and I sent that straight back.* *may contain traces of a made up analogy. There is already plenty of space there for healthcare facilities - there won't be if you build houses on it. We get a one of the following: a hospital, a hospital WITH a bit of something else or nothing at all. We don't get a lot of houses and shops WITHOUT a hospital. Capiche? TRT
  • Score: 20

2:13pm Fri 9 May 14

ramage1996 says...

I want a new hospital in west Watford, Phil Cox says in this article laying out his 'key pledges' that he would consider moving the hospital out of Watford to Hemel or St Albans..

http://www.watfordob
server.co.uk/news/10
993032.UKIP_mayoral_
candidate_outlines_k
ey_pledges/?ref=mc

"Mr Cox suggested that if elected he would look into whether having the main acute hospital in the "packed" West Watford area was best solution or if it should possibly move to a "more central location" to Watford, Hemel Hempstead and St Albans."


Vote Phil Cox for no hospital in Watford
I want a new hospital in west Watford, Phil Cox says in this article laying out his 'key pledges' that he would consider moving the hospital out of Watford to Hemel or St Albans.. http://www.watfordob server.co.uk/news/10 993032.UKIP_mayoral_ candidate_outlines_k ey_pledges/?ref=mc "Mr Cox suggested that if elected he would look into whether having the main acute hospital in the "packed" West Watford area was best solution or if it should possibly move to a "more central location" to Watford, Hemel Hempstead and St Albans." Vote Phil Cox for no hospital in Watford ramage1996
  • Score: -28

2:15pm Fri 9 May 14

ancientandageing says...

The legal fees are for all sorts I would imagine

re farm terrace I reckon they will win the second court case, but who knows its Judical review and unpredictable.

as for chancers jumping on the bandwagon, I do think the good people of Watford won't fall for it
The legal fees are for all sorts I would imagine re farm terrace I reckon they will win the second court case, but who knows its Judical review and unpredictable. as for chancers jumping on the bandwagon, I do think the good people of Watford won't fall for it ancientandageing
  • Score: 8

2:15pm Fri 9 May 14

Andrew Turpie says...

Disgusted with these figures - I would reckon that that £500,000 would have at least created a new ward on WGH with some extra beds or to recruit some extra NHS Staff and training.

Does no one feel ashamed?
Disgusted with these figures - I would reckon that that £500,000 would have at least created a new ward on WGH with some extra beds or to recruit some extra NHS Staff and training. Does no one feel ashamed? Andrew Turpie
  • Score: 25

2:23pm Fri 9 May 14

ramage1996 says...

Andrew Turpie wrote:
Disgusted with these figures - I would reckon that that £500,000 would have at least created a new ward on WGH with some extra beds or to recruit some extra NHS Staff and training.

Does no one feel ashamed?
The allotment holders and chancer politicians trying to get elected by thinking this will get them a few more votes should be ashamed of the waste of tax payer money for all the appeals they have done and are currently doing..
[quote][p][bold]Andrew Turpie[/bold] wrote: Disgusted with these figures - I would reckon that that £500,000 would have at least created a new ward on WGH with some extra beds or to recruit some extra NHS Staff and training. Does no one feel ashamed?[/p][/quote]The allotment holders and chancer politicians trying to get elected by thinking this will get them a few more votes should be ashamed of the waste of tax payer money for all the appeals they have done and are currently doing.. ramage1996
  • Score: -29

2:23pm Fri 9 May 14

garston tony says...

Ramage, the way we are governed in this country falls well short of ideal far too often. That would only get worse if you take away peoples rights to challenge decisions that may not be right or lawful. You say that it is those pro the allotments that are wasting tax payers money, but if the council are wrong in wanting to get rid of them then it is in fact they that are wasting the money.

But no wonder Dotty is desperate for this project to go ahead, if it doesnt the council has wasted a huge amount of money on making a few people well off for having produced a big fat zero! And having spent what they have already they have to continue spending or they have no hope of getting it back.
Ramage, the way we are governed in this country falls well short of ideal far too often. That would only get worse if you take away peoples rights to challenge decisions that may not be right or lawful. You say that it is those pro the allotments that are wasting tax payers money, but if the council are wrong in wanting to get rid of them then it is in fact they that are wasting the money. But no wonder Dotty is desperate for this project to go ahead, if it doesnt the council has wasted a huge amount of money on making a few people well off for having produced a big fat zero! And having spent what they have already they have to continue spending or they have no hope of getting it back. garston tony
  • Score: 28

2:40pm Fri 9 May 14

Andrew Turpie says...

ramage1996 wrote:
Andrew Turpie wrote:
Disgusted with these figures - I would reckon that that £500,000 would have at least created a new ward on WGH with some extra beds or to recruit some extra NHS Staff and training.

Does no one feel ashamed?
The allotment holders and chancer politicians trying to get elected by thinking this will get them a few more votes should be ashamed of the waste of tax payer money for all the appeals they have done and are currently doing..
I would say that if the council and mayor showed a bit more empathy, acted with transparency, integrity and listened to the residents of the area, there would have been no need for appeals.
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andrew Turpie[/bold] wrote: Disgusted with these figures - I would reckon that that £500,000 would have at least created a new ward on WGH with some extra beds or to recruit some extra NHS Staff and training. Does no one feel ashamed?[/p][/quote]The allotment holders and chancer politicians trying to get elected by thinking this will get them a few more votes should be ashamed of the waste of tax payer money for all the appeals they have done and are currently doing..[/p][/quote]I would say that if the council and mayor showed a bit more empathy, acted with transparency, integrity and listened to the residents of the area, there would have been no need for appeals. Andrew Turpie
  • Score: 18

4:14pm Fri 9 May 14

TRT says...

The council are the ones who appealed first. They appealed to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under s. 8 of the Allotments Act 1925 to de-designated allotment land using an argument which clearly did not fall under the auspices of that act. The allotments at Farm Terrace were not surplus to requirement and were not disused. There are other allotments at the end of Willow Lane which are disused and were also included in the appeal. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government decided to allow the appeal and granted consent for the removal of the legal protection that the 1925 Act provided. This was clearly wrong. As a result of this the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills have decided that the law needs to change to allow allotments and green belts to be far more readily handed over to developers for housing and commercial exploitation.

It's a travesty.
The council are the ones who appealed first. They appealed to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government under s. 8 of the Allotments Act 1925 to de-designated allotment land using an argument which clearly did not fall under the auspices of that act. The allotments at Farm Terrace were not surplus to requirement and were not disused. There are other allotments at the end of Willow Lane which are disused and were also included in the appeal. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government decided to allow the appeal and granted consent for the removal of the legal protection that the 1925 Act provided. This was clearly wrong. As a result of this the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills have decided that the law needs to change to allow allotments and green belts to be far more readily handed over to developers for housing and commercial exploitation. It's a travesty. TRT
  • Score: 19

4:47pm Fri 9 May 14

ramage1996 says...

From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's..

"Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in."

But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer?

He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper..

http://www.watfordob
server.co.uk/news/10
993032.UKIP_mayoral_
candidate_outlines_k
ey_pledges/?ref=mc


Vote Phil Cox get a chancer
From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's.. "Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in." But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer? He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper.. http://www.watfordob server.co.uk/news/10 993032.UKIP_mayoral_ candidate_outlines_k ey_pledges/?ref=mc Vote Phil Cox get a chancer ramage1996
  • Score: -29

5:58pm Fri 9 May 14

crazyfrog says...

It's a financial gravy train and the mayor won't tell us who's riding it !!!!!!

iTS TAXPAYER's MONEY NOT YOURS!!!! We have a right to know
It's a financial gravy train and the mayor won't tell us who's riding it !!!!!! iTS TAXPAYER's MONEY NOT YOURS!!!! We have a right to know crazyfrog
  • Score: 19

6:07pm Fri 9 May 14

ancientandageing says...

ramage1996 wrote:
From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's..

"Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in."

But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer?

He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper..

http://www.watfordob

server.co.uk/news/10

993032.UKIP_mayoral_

candidate_outlines_k

ey_pledges/?ref=mc


Vote Phil Cox get a chancer
I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>>
Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider
I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation."

and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral
fraud as a regular feature of British political life."

vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party
[quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's.. "Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in." But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer? He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper.. http://www.watfordob server.co.uk/news/10 993032.UKIP_mayoral_ candidate_outlines_k ey_pledges/?ref=mc Vote Phil Cox get a chancer[/p][/quote]I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>> Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation." and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral fraud as a regular feature of British political life." vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party ancientandageing
  • Score: -15

6:27pm Fri 9 May 14

crazyfrog says...

ancientandageing wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's..

"Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in."

But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer?

He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper..

http://www.watfordob


server.co.uk/news/10


993032.UKIP_mayoral_


candidate_outlines_k


ey_pledges/?ref=mc


Vote Phil Cox get a chancer
I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>>
Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider
I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation."

and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral
fraud as a regular feature of British political life."

vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party
Yeah you can change the race record now it's Boring !
Everybody's noticing all the main parties desperate attempts to smear UKIP, just goes to show how worried they are that UKIP are actually listening!
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's.. "Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in." But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer? He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper.. http://www.watfordob server.co.uk/news/10 993032.UKIP_mayoral_ candidate_outlines_k ey_pledges/?ref=mc Vote Phil Cox get a chancer[/p][/quote]I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>> Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation." and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral fraud as a regular feature of British political life." vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party[/p][/quote]Yeah you can change the race record now it's Boring ! Everybody's noticing all the main parties desperate attempts to smear UKIP, just goes to show how worried they are that UKIP are actually listening! crazyfrog
  • Score: 11

6:35pm Fri 9 May 14

#UKMum says...

Consultants fees? Hasn't WBC GOT a planning dept?
Consultants fees? Hasn't WBC GOT a planning dept? #UKMum
  • Score: 11

7:09pm Fri 9 May 14

watford gal says...

All that money spent when we have vulnerable residents desperately needing more care at home, a hospital rammed to capacity with patients being discharged far too quickly or placed on inappropriate wards if there is a bed crisis, and the poorest in our community depending on food banks to help make ends meet :-( And who gets the blame in Dotty's eyes ? The allotment holders, for having the balls to stand up to her and Watford Borough Council who want to make a few quid ..and still no new hospital...The whole thing is a sorry mess !
All that money spent when we have vulnerable residents desperately needing more care at home, a hospital rammed to capacity with patients being discharged far too quickly or placed on inappropriate wards if there is a bed crisis, and the poorest in our community depending on food banks to help make ends meet :-( And who gets the blame in Dotty's eyes ? The allotment holders, for having the balls to stand up to her and Watford Borough Council who want to make a few quid ..and still no new hospital...The whole thing is a sorry mess ! watford gal
  • Score: 13

7:12pm Fri 9 May 14

ancientandageing says...

crazyfrog wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's..

"Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in."

But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer?

He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper..

http://www.watfordob



server.co.uk/news/10



993032.UKIP_mayoral_



candidate_outlines_k



ey_pledges/?ref=mc


Vote Phil Cox get a chancer
I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>>
Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider
I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation."

and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral
fraud as a regular feature of British political life."

vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party
Yeah you can change the race record now it's Boring !
Everybody's noticing all the main parties desperate attempts to smear UKIP, just goes to show how worried they are that UKIP are actually listening!
these are qoutes from a UKIP candidate, and you won't refute them!!!
[quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's.. "Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in." But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer? He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper.. http://www.watfordob server.co.uk/news/10 993032.UKIP_mayoral_ candidate_outlines_k ey_pledges/?ref=mc Vote Phil Cox get a chancer[/p][/quote]I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>> Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation." and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral fraud as a regular feature of British political life." vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party[/p][/quote]Yeah you can change the race record now it's Boring ! Everybody's noticing all the main parties desperate attempts to smear UKIP, just goes to show how worried they are that UKIP are actually listening![/p][/quote]these are qoutes from a UKIP candidate, and you won't refute them!!! ancientandageing
  • Score: -4

7:16pm Fri 9 May 14

ancientandageing says...

oh I see the UKIP gang is a gathering expect nore of the same ole same ole
oh I see the UKIP gang is a gathering expect nore of the same ole same ole ancientandageing
  • Score: -6

7:52pm Fri 9 May 14

crazyfrog says...

ancientandageing wrote:
crazyfrog wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's..

"Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in."

But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer?

He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper..

http://www.watfordob




server.co.uk/news/10




993032.UKIP_mayoral_




candidate_outlines_k




ey_pledges/?ref=mc


Vote Phil Cox get a chancer
I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>>
Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider
I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation."

and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral
fraud as a regular feature of British political life."

vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party
Yeah you can change the race record now it's Boring !
Everybody's noticing all the main parties desperate attempts to smear UKIP, just goes to show how worried they are that UKIP are actually listening!
these are qoutes from a UKIP candidate, and you won't refute them!!!
The boring thing is this is about the health campus and you are trying to hijack the issue and move it on to a UKIP smearing session.
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's.. "Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in." But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer? He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper.. http://www.watfordob server.co.uk/news/10 993032.UKIP_mayoral_ candidate_outlines_k ey_pledges/?ref=mc Vote Phil Cox get a chancer[/p][/quote]I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>> Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation." and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral fraud as a regular feature of British political life." vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party[/p][/quote]Yeah you can change the race record now it's Boring ! Everybody's noticing all the main parties desperate attempts to smear UKIP, just goes to show how worried they are that UKIP are actually listening![/p][/quote]these are qoutes from a UKIP candidate, and you won't refute them!!![/p][/quote]The boring thing is this is about the health campus and you are trying to hijack the issue and move it on to a UKIP smearing session. crazyfrog
  • Score: 6

9:09pm Fri 9 May 14

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

crazyfrog wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
crazyfrog wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's..

"Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in."

But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer?

He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper..

http://www.watfordob





server.co.uk/news/10





993032.UKIP_mayoral_





candidate_outlines_k





ey_pledges/?ref=mc


Vote Phil Cox get a chancer
I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>>
Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider
I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation."

and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral
fraud as a regular feature of British political life."

vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party
Yeah you can change the race record now it's Boring !
Everybody's noticing all the main parties desperate attempts to smear UKIP, just goes to show how worried they are that UKIP are actually listening!
these are qoutes from a UKIP candidate, and you won't refute them!!!
The boring thing is this is about the health campus and you are trying to hijack the issue and move it on to a UKIP smearing session.
Well said.

I try not to respond to trolls and their troll wisdom.
[quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's.. "Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in." But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer? He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper.. http://www.watfordob server.co.uk/news/10 993032.UKIP_mayoral_ candidate_outlines_k ey_pledges/?ref=mc Vote Phil Cox get a chancer[/p][/quote]I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>> Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation." and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral fraud as a regular feature of British political life." vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party[/p][/quote]Yeah you can change the race record now it's Boring ! Everybody's noticing all the main parties desperate attempts to smear UKIP, just goes to show how worried they are that UKIP are actually listening![/p][/quote]these are qoutes from a UKIP candidate, and you won't refute them!!![/p][/quote]The boring thing is this is about the health campus and you are trying to hijack the issue and move it on to a UKIP smearing session.[/p][/quote]Well said. I try not to respond to trolls and their troll wisdom. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 5

10:46pm Fri 9 May 14

ancientandageing says...

crazyfrog wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
crazyfrog wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's..

"Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in."

But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer?

He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper..

http://www.watfordob





server.co.uk/news/10





993032.UKIP_mayoral_





candidate_outlines_k





ey_pledges/?ref=mc


Vote Phil Cox get a chancer
I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>>
Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider
I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation."

and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral
fraud as a regular feature of British political life."

vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party
Yeah you can change the race record now it's Boring !
Everybody's noticing all the main parties desperate attempts to smear UKIP, just goes to show how worried they are that UKIP are actually listening!
these are qoutes from a UKIP candidate, and you won't refute them!!!
The boring thing is this is about the health campus and you are trying to hijack the issue and move it on to a UKIP smearing session.
he won't refute the comments will he, why would that be????
[quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's.. "Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in." But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer? He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper.. http://www.watfordob server.co.uk/news/10 993032.UKIP_mayoral_ candidate_outlines_k ey_pledges/?ref=mc Vote Phil Cox get a chancer[/p][/quote]I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>> Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation." and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral fraud as a regular feature of British political life." vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party[/p][/quote]Yeah you can change the race record now it's Boring ! Everybody's noticing all the main parties desperate attempts to smear UKIP, just goes to show how worried they are that UKIP are actually listening![/p][/quote]these are qoutes from a UKIP candidate, and you won't refute them!!![/p][/quote]The boring thing is this is about the health campus and you are trying to hijack the issue and move it on to a UKIP smearing session.[/p][/quote]he won't refute the comments will he, why would that be???? ancientandageing
  • Score: -4

10:48pm Fri 9 May 14

ancientandageing says...

Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford wrote:
crazyfrog wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
crazyfrog wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's..

"Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in."

But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer?

He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper..

http://www.watfordob






server.co.uk/news/10






993032.UKIP_mayoral_






candidate_outlines_k






ey_pledges/?ref=mc


Vote Phil Cox get a chancer
I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>>
Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider
I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation."

and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral
fraud as a regular feature of British political life."

vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party
Yeah you can change the race record now it's Boring !
Everybody's noticing all the main parties desperate attempts to smear UKIP, just goes to show how worried they are that UKIP are actually listening!
these are qoutes from a UKIP candidate, and you won't refute them!!!
The boring thing is this is about the health campus and you are trying to hijack the issue and move it on to a UKIP smearing session.
Well said.

I try not to respond to trolls and their troll wisdom.
you could of course just answer and stop your little show of being on this bandwagon
[quote][p][bold]Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's.. "Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in." But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer? He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper.. http://www.watfordob server.co.uk/news/10 993032.UKIP_mayoral_ candidate_outlines_k ey_pledges/?ref=mc Vote Phil Cox get a chancer[/p][/quote]I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>> Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation." and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral fraud as a regular feature of British political life." vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party[/p][/quote]Yeah you can change the race record now it's Boring ! Everybody's noticing all the main parties desperate attempts to smear UKIP, just goes to show how worried they are that UKIP are actually listening![/p][/quote]these are qoutes from a UKIP candidate, and you won't refute them!!![/p][/quote]The boring thing is this is about the health campus and you are trying to hijack the issue and move it on to a UKIP smearing session.[/p][/quote]Well said. I try not to respond to trolls and their troll wisdom.[/p][/quote]you could of course just answer and stop your little show of being on this bandwagon ancientandageing
  • Score: -3

11:34pm Fri 9 May 14

Andrew1963 says...

The great shame of this important redevelopment scheme is that the mis representation by the Liberal Democrats leaves everyone cynical of the broader aspiration. They misled people by saying the scheme was about delivering a purpose built new general hospital for the 21st century - it isn't, it's a commercial redevelopment of old railway sheds and industrial estate. They said the allotments were essential to enable the scheme to go ahead. They are not, the scheme can go ahead with the allotments intact. They said the finances were on a knife edge. They are not, they scheme will provide vast profits for Kier and the council. They said the scheme will provide a new public park for Watford. It won't, but there will be a broad verge by the river and M1 link road you can walk along. They said the government had given a grant to build the link road. They have not. They have lent money to the council that has to be replayed and the hospital trust received NHS capital money that needs to be repaid if and when the hospital reduces the size of its Watford site, and sells land to Kier and Watford Council.
The great shame of this important redevelopment scheme is that the mis representation by the Liberal Democrats leaves everyone cynical of the broader aspiration. They misled people by saying the scheme was about delivering a purpose built new general hospital for the 21st century - it isn't, it's a commercial redevelopment of old railway sheds and industrial estate. They said the allotments were essential to enable the scheme to go ahead. They are not, the scheme can go ahead with the allotments intact. They said the finances were on a knife edge. They are not, they scheme will provide vast profits for Kier and the council. They said the scheme will provide a new public park for Watford. It won't, but there will be a broad verge by the river and M1 link road you can walk along. They said the government had given a grant to build the link road. They have not. They have lent money to the council that has to be replayed and the hospital trust received NHS capital money that needs to be repaid if and when the hospital reduces the size of its Watford site, and sells land to Kier and Watford Council. Andrew1963
  • Score: 10

7:06am Sat 10 May 14

crazyfrog says...

ancientandageing wrote:
crazyfrog wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
crazyfrog wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's..

"Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in."

But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer?

He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper..

http://www.watfordob






server.co.uk/news/10






993032.UKIP_mayoral_






candidate_outlines_k






ey_pledges/?ref=mc


Vote Phil Cox get a chancer
I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>>
Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider
I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation."

and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral
fraud as a regular feature of British political life."

vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party
Yeah you can change the race record now it's Boring !
Everybody's noticing all the main parties desperate attempts to smear UKIP, just goes to show how worried they are that UKIP are actually listening!
these are qoutes from a UKIP candidate, and you won't refute them!!!
The boring thing is this is about the health campus and you are trying to hijack the issue and move it on to a UKIP smearing session.
he won't refute the comments will he, why would that be????
Because it's a smear tactic !!!!! And the British public can see it and are getting bored of it! You answer me what has that quote got to do with The health campus spending a huge sum of money on fees and won't tell the Herts taxpayers who's earned out of ?
[quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's.. "Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in." But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer? He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper.. http://www.watfordob server.co.uk/news/10 993032.UKIP_mayoral_ candidate_outlines_k ey_pledges/?ref=mc Vote Phil Cox get a chancer[/p][/quote]I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>> Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation." and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral fraud as a regular feature of British political life." vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party[/p][/quote]Yeah you can change the race record now it's Boring ! Everybody's noticing all the main parties desperate attempts to smear UKIP, just goes to show how worried they are that UKIP are actually listening![/p][/quote]these are qoutes from a UKIP candidate, and you won't refute them!!![/p][/quote]The boring thing is this is about the health campus and you are trying to hijack the issue and move it on to a UKIP smearing session.[/p][/quote]he won't refute the comments will he, why would that be????[/p][/quote]Because it's a smear tactic !!!!! And the British public can see it and are getting bored of it! You answer me what has that quote got to do with The health campus spending a huge sum of money on fees and won't tell the Herts taxpayers who's earned out of ? crazyfrog
  • Score: 5

8:14am Sat 10 May 14

ancientandageing says...

crazyfrog wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
crazyfrog wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
crazyfrog wrote:
ancientandageing wrote:
ramage1996 wrote:
From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's..

"Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in."

But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer?

He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper..

http://www.watfordob







server.co.uk/news/10







993032.UKIP_mayoral_







candidate_outlines_k







ey_pledges/?ref=mc


Vote Phil Cox get a chancer
I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>>
Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider
I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation."

and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral
fraud as a regular feature of British political life."

vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party
Yeah you can change the race record now it's Boring !
Everybody's noticing all the main parties desperate attempts to smear UKIP, just goes to show how worried they are that UKIP are actually listening!
these are qoutes from a UKIP candidate, and you won't refute them!!!
The boring thing is this is about the health campus and you are trying to hijack the issue and move it on to a UKIP smearing session.
he won't refute the comments will he, why would that be????
Because it's a smear tactic !!!!! And the British public can see it and are getting bored of it! You answer me what has that quote got to do with The health campus spending a huge sum of money on fees and won't tell the Herts taxpayers who's earned out of ?
who exactly am I smearing if I qoute the words of someone @philcox wants me to voye for??


no an answer isn.t required

VOTE UKIP get no answers
[quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]crazyfrog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ancientandageing[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ramage1996[/bold] wrote: From another article today about the various candidates manifesto's.. "Watford’s mayor currently earns £65,000 a year, but the package comes to more than £80,000 when pension contributions are added in." But Phil Cox hasn't got a manifesto and wants to be elected as Mayor, whats the definition of a chancer? He gives interviews on this very site saying he will consider moving Watford hospital to Hemel or St Albans then denies it even though the article was in this paper.. http://www.watfordob server.co.uk/news/10 993032.UKIP_mayoral_ candidate_outlines_k ey_pledges/?ref=mc Vote Phil Cox get a chancer[/p][/quote]I would also add that flying in the face of UKIP manifesto commitment to cut down on cllr allowances and bloated salaries he is commited to taking the Mayoral salary>> Vote UKIP get a gravy train rider I would also ask about anti Islamic statements like this:- "On an economic level, the impact of Britain’s Muslims is massively negative. Research shows Muslim com munities are typified by heavy levels of welfare dependency and low levels of wealth creation." and this:-"Muslim urban ghettos have also reintroduced electoral fraud as a regular feature of British political life." vote UKIP get an Islamaphobic and racist party[/p][/quote]Yeah you can change the race record now it's Boring ! Everybody's noticing all the main parties desperate attempts to smear UKIP, just goes to show how worried they are that UKIP are actually listening![/p][/quote]these are qoutes from a UKIP candidate, and you won't refute them!!![/p][/quote]The boring thing is this is about the health campus and you are trying to hijack the issue and move it on to a UKIP smearing session.[/p][/quote]he won't refute the comments will he, why would that be????[/p][/quote]Because it's a smear tactic !!!!! And the British public can see it and are getting bored of it! You answer me what has that quote got to do with The health campus spending a huge sum of money on fees and won't tell the Herts taxpayers who's earned out of ?[/p][/quote]who exactly am I smearing if I qoute the words of someone @philcox wants me to voye for?? no an answer isn.t required VOTE UKIP get no answers ancientandageing
  • Score: -2

11:46am Sat 10 May 14

Dab UK says...

Dear Sir,
Watford council is attempting to dispose of Statutory Allotment land that it does not have the legal right to sell. The Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 states that Statutory Allotment land can only be sold if the land is not needed for the purpose of allotments, or that some more suitable land is available, but the daily use of the Allotments by the plot holders that maintain Farm Terrace combined with the objection by 99% of the respondents to the planning application is irrefutable proof that the land is required for allotments and by no stretch of the imagination can uncultivated land 2 miles away be considered more suitable.
But even if the council had the legal right to sell the land, should they? The Council’s reason to sell the land has always been that the Farm Terrace land is needed for a Health Campus, this conjures up the vision of a new hospital being built on the land which Farm Terrace currently occupies, but this is not the case. The reality is that only a small amount of the Allotment will be allocated for Health purposes and there is currently no defined plan of what this actually means. What is clear from both the published plan and from Mayor Thornhill’s statements in this article is that the majority of Farm Terrace will become a housing estate and car parking and the reason for this is purely to generate profit for the council and the contractor. So should Watford council sell public recreational land, (which includes parks and sports pitches as well as allotments) to generate profit for an undisclosed purpose, I think not.
Therefore, I would suggest that Watford Council is both legally and morally errant and should withdraw from the process of attempting to sell Farm Terrace allotments immediately.
Dear Sir, Watford council is attempting to dispose of Statutory Allotment land that it does not have the legal right to sell. The Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 states that Statutory Allotment land can only be sold if the land is not needed for the purpose of allotments, or that some more suitable land is available, but the daily use of the Allotments by the plot holders that maintain Farm Terrace combined with the objection by 99% of the respondents to the planning application is irrefutable proof that the land is required for allotments and by no stretch of the imagination can uncultivated land 2 miles away be considered more suitable. But even if the council had the legal right to sell the land, should they? The Council’s reason to sell the land has always been that the Farm Terrace land is needed for a Health Campus, this conjures up the vision of a new hospital being built on the land which Farm Terrace currently occupies, but this is not the case. The reality is that only a small amount of the Allotment will be allocated for Health purposes and there is currently no defined plan of what this actually means. What is clear from both the published plan and from Mayor Thornhill’s statements in this article is that the majority of Farm Terrace will become a housing estate and car parking and the reason for this is purely to generate profit for the council and the contractor. So should Watford council sell public recreational land, (which includes parks and sports pitches as well as allotments) to generate profit for an undisclosed purpose, I think not. Therefore, I would suggest that Watford Council is both legally and morally errant and should withdraw from the process of attempting to sell Farm Terrace allotments immediately. Dab UK
  • Score: 8

11:53am Sat 10 May 14

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

Dab UK wrote:
Dear Sir,
Watford council is attempting to dispose of Statutory Allotment land that it does not have the legal right to sell. The Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 states that Statutory Allotment land can only be sold if the land is not needed for the purpose of allotments, or that some more suitable land is available, but the daily use of the Allotments by the plot holders that maintain Farm Terrace combined with the objection by 99% of the respondents to the planning application is irrefutable proof that the land is required for allotments and by no stretch of the imagination can uncultivated land 2 miles away be considered more suitable.
But even if the council had the legal right to sell the land, should they? The Council’s reason to sell the land has always been that the Farm Terrace land is needed for a Health Campus, this conjures up the vision of a new hospital being built on the land which Farm Terrace currently occupies, but this is not the case. The reality is that only a small amount of the Allotment will be allocated for Health purposes and there is currently no defined plan of what this actually means. What is clear from both the published plan and from Mayor Thornhill’s statements in this article is that the majority of Farm Terrace will become a housing estate and car parking and the reason for this is purely to generate profit for the council and the contractor. So should Watford council sell public recreational land, (which includes parks and sports pitches as well as allotments) to generate profit for an undisclosed purpose, I think not.
Therefore, I would suggest that Watford Council is both legally and morally errant and should withdraw from the process of attempting to sell Farm Terrace allotments immediately.
I agree with you.

If elected that is exactly what we will do.

All allotments will be safe under UKIP.

How much is all this costing the council? Waste waste waste.
[quote][p][bold]Dab UK[/bold] wrote: Dear Sir, Watford council is attempting to dispose of Statutory Allotment land that it does not have the legal right to sell. The Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 states that Statutory Allotment land can only be sold if the land is not needed for the purpose of allotments, or that some more suitable land is available, but the daily use of the Allotments by the plot holders that maintain Farm Terrace combined with the objection by 99% of the respondents to the planning application is irrefutable proof that the land is required for allotments and by no stretch of the imagination can uncultivated land 2 miles away be considered more suitable. But even if the council had the legal right to sell the land, should they? The Council’s reason to sell the land has always been that the Farm Terrace land is needed for a Health Campus, this conjures up the vision of a new hospital being built on the land which Farm Terrace currently occupies, but this is not the case. The reality is that only a small amount of the Allotment will be allocated for Health purposes and there is currently no defined plan of what this actually means. What is clear from both the published plan and from Mayor Thornhill’s statements in this article is that the majority of Farm Terrace will become a housing estate and car parking and the reason for this is purely to generate profit for the council and the contractor. So should Watford council sell public recreational land, (which includes parks and sports pitches as well as allotments) to generate profit for an undisclosed purpose, I think not. Therefore, I would suggest that Watford Council is both legally and morally errant and should withdraw from the process of attempting to sell Farm Terrace allotments immediately.[/p][/quote]I agree with you. If elected that is exactly what we will do. All allotments will be safe under UKIP. How much is all this costing the council? Waste waste waste. Phil Cox - UKIP Mayoral candidate for Watford
  • Score: 2

2:56pm Sun 11 May 14

Wacko Jacko says...

So the Health Campus regeneration scheme is reported to be worth £260m and fees so far amount to £2.3m as reported by the WObs. That means it has cost just 1% of the total budget to get to a planning application, that sounds remarkably cheap to me. Ask anyone who knows about development projects what percentage of a major project goes on fees. The answer is likely to be somewhere in the 12-15% range or even higher. Funnily enough you can't do any major project without engaging a large team of professionals, and good quality professional cost money, they don't work for free. Yes it costs more than designing a house extension, but that doesn't mean it's not good value. There's an old saying about using expert professionals, if you think experts are expensive, just wait and see how expensive it gets if you don't use them.
As for #UKMum's daft comment about the planning department, firstly their job is development control, not development, and by the way they don't come for free, you pay for them via your council tax.
So the Health Campus regeneration scheme is reported to be worth £260m and fees so far amount to £2.3m as reported by the WObs. That means it has cost just 1% of the total budget to get to a planning application, that sounds remarkably cheap to me. Ask anyone who knows about development projects what percentage of a major project goes on fees. The answer is likely to be somewhere in the 12-15% range or even higher. Funnily enough you can't do any major project without engaging a large team of professionals, and good quality professional cost money, they don't work for free. Yes it costs more than designing a house extension, but that doesn't mean it's not good value. There's an old saying about using expert professionals, if you think experts are expensive, just wait and see how expensive it gets if you don't use them. As for #UKMum's daft comment about the planning department, firstly their job is development control, not development, and by the way they don't come for free, you pay for them via your council tax. Wacko Jacko
  • Score: -2

3:16pm Sun 11 May 14

TRT says...

I hope someone has collected these choice quotes from the mayor and Samantha Jones etc to put before the high courts. All the stuff about the hospital rebuilding being decoupled from the housing, the council making a huge profit like the developers, the non-essential nature of using the allotment land, the fact that the trust haven't produced their future services plan etc.
I hope someone has collected these choice quotes from the mayor and Samantha Jones etc to put before the high courts. All the stuff about the hospital rebuilding being decoupled from the housing, the council making a huge profit like the developers, the non-essential nature of using the allotment land, the fact that the trust haven't produced their future services plan etc. TRT
  • Score: 3

9:02am Mon 12 May 14

garston tony says...

Wacko Jacko wrote:
So the Health Campus regeneration scheme is reported to be worth £260m and fees so far amount to £2.3m as reported by the WObs. That means it has cost just 1% of the total budget to get to a planning application, that sounds remarkably cheap to me. Ask anyone who knows about development projects what percentage of a major project goes on fees. The answer is likely to be somewhere in the 12-15% range or even higher. Funnily enough you can't do any major project without engaging a large team of professionals, and good quality professional cost money, they don't work for free. Yes it costs more than designing a house extension, but that doesn't mean it's not good value. There's an old saying about using expert professionals, if you think experts are expensive, just wait and see how expensive it gets if you don't use them. As for #UKMum's daft comment about the planning department, firstly their job is development control, not development, and by the way they don't come for free, you pay for them via your council tax.
Thats 1% SO FAR. Who knows what it'll end up costing in such fees by the time it is done (or abandoned or whatever)
[quote][p][bold]Wacko Jacko[/bold] wrote: So the Health Campus regeneration scheme is reported to be worth £260m and fees so far amount to £2.3m as reported by the WObs. That means it has cost just 1% of the total budget to get to a planning application, that sounds remarkably cheap to me. Ask anyone who knows about development projects what percentage of a major project goes on fees. The answer is likely to be somewhere in the 12-15% range or even higher. Funnily enough you can't do any major project without engaging a large team of professionals, and good quality professional cost money, they don't work for free. Yes it costs more than designing a house extension, but that doesn't mean it's not good value. There's an old saying about using expert professionals, if you think experts are expensive, just wait and see how expensive it gets if you don't use them. As for #UKMum's daft comment about the planning department, firstly their job is development control, not development, and by the way they don't come for free, you pay for them via your council tax.[/p][/quote]Thats 1% SO FAR. Who knows what it'll end up costing in such fees by the time it is done (or abandoned or whatever) garston tony
  • Score: 1

9:32pm Thu 15 May 14

Popeonarope says...

Is there any reason why a new hospital cant be built on the new site with its better transport links and the old hospital site used for houses with its new rail link for commuters? Gets the hospital away from the stadium and allows a new hospital to be built from scratch instead of 'redeveloped'.
Is there any reason why a new hospital cant be built on the new site with its better transport links and the old hospital site used for houses with its new rail link for commuters? Gets the hospital away from the stadium and allows a new hospital to be built from scratch instead of 'redeveloped'. Popeonarope
  • Score: 5

12:38am Fri 16 May 14

TRT says...

Popeonarope wrote:
Is there any reason why a new hospital cant be built on the new site with its better transport links and the old hospital site used for houses with its new rail link for commuters? Gets the hospital away from the stadium and allows a new hospital to be built from scratch instead of 'redeveloped'.
That was the old plan. There's no money for it.
[quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: Is there any reason why a new hospital cant be built on the new site with its better transport links and the old hospital site used for houses with its new rail link for commuters? Gets the hospital away from the stadium and allows a new hospital to be built from scratch instead of 'redeveloped'.[/p][/quote]That was the old plan. There's no money for it. TRT
  • Score: 2

12:43pm Fri 16 May 14

D_Penn says...

TRT wrote:
Popeonarope wrote: Is there any reason why a new hospital cant be built on the new site with its better transport links and the old hospital site used for houses with its new rail link for commuters? Gets the hospital away from the stadium and allows a new hospital to be built from scratch instead of 'redeveloped'.
That was the old plan. There's no money for it.
And therein lies the whole problem.

The council has only really been concerned with building a housing estate which will bring money into their coffers whilst adhering to the government plan of 'stuff houses and flats onto every square inch of land in towns'.

In 2014 the government announced a New Homes Bonus allocoation of £917million. Any Council that qualifies (and, oh, the Lib Dem Watford Council are determined to qualify as they have been for the last 3 years that the Bonus has been offered), can "decide how to spend the New Homes Bonus".

For example, they might use it to build an eye-catching vanity project (like they have with The Parade) or to keep down Council Tax and try to convince the local electorate about how clever they are, when in fact, any fool can sell of land and make a profit. However, when that money is all spent, you have no land left and residents are squished in like sardines, what then?

If the Council had been serious about a new hospital and there was no money, they could have course given ALL the redevelopment money and government bonus to the trust on the condition that a new hospital would be built there. Then the hospital could have co-ordinated a hospital/housing build as one project. That could have been called, with honesty, a Health Campus unlike what we are actually getting.

Somehow, I don't think the Trust getting any part of the development money was ever part of the LibDem plan. So what we get is a housing estate, no new hospital and a rich Council who will use the money to look good and get themselves re-elected.

Will people see through the backhanded scheme and throw them out? We will see.
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: Is there any reason why a new hospital cant be built on the new site with its better transport links and the old hospital site used for houses with its new rail link for commuters? Gets the hospital away from the stadium and allows a new hospital to be built from scratch instead of 'redeveloped'.[/p][/quote]That was the old plan. There's no money for it.[/p][/quote]And therein lies the whole problem. The council has only really been concerned with building a housing estate which will bring money into their coffers whilst adhering to the government plan of 'stuff houses and flats onto every square inch of land in towns'. In 2014 the government announced a New Homes Bonus allocoation of £917million. Any Council that qualifies (and, oh, the Lib Dem Watford Council are determined to qualify as they have been for the last 3 years that the Bonus has been offered), can "decide how to spend the New Homes Bonus". For example, they might use it to build an eye-catching vanity project (like they have with The Parade) or to keep down Council Tax and try to convince the local electorate about how clever they are, when in fact, any fool can sell of land and make a profit. However, when that money is all spent, you have no land left and residents are squished in like sardines, what then? If the Council had been serious about a new hospital and there was no money, they could have course given ALL the redevelopment money and government bonus to the trust on the condition that a new hospital would be built there. Then the hospital could have co-ordinated a hospital/housing build as one project. That could have been called, with honesty, a Health Campus unlike what we are actually getting. Somehow, I don't think the Trust getting any part of the development money was ever part of the LibDem plan. So what we get is a housing estate, no new hospital and a rich Council who will use the money to look good and get themselves re-elected. Will people see through the backhanded scheme and throw them out? We will see. D_Penn
  • Score: 3

1:52pm Fri 16 May 14

Popeonarope says...

I dont know about the money but there is an opportunity to relocate the hospital to a more suitable location away from the stadium which has always been a problem on match days especially. How many ambulances get stuck in the traffic in Vicarage Road and West Watford historically and how many lives has this cost?
The current hospitals location has a significant footprint which would provide an income to offset some of the costs of a new hospital if this land was redeveloped into housing. If the council has the money for vanity schemes than surely it can find the money to make up any difference?
Is the price of a spanking new state- of-the-art hospital in Watford with near perfect transport links equal to the price of the redeveloped site with its new rail links to London et al? I don’t know but it seems that the financial requirements over rules common sense to the detriment of the town every time.
I dont know about the money but there is an opportunity to relocate the hospital to a more suitable location away from the stadium which has always been a problem on match days especially. How many ambulances get stuck in the traffic in Vicarage Road and West Watford historically and how many lives has this cost? The current hospitals location has a significant footprint which would provide an income to offset some of the costs of a new hospital if this land was redeveloped into housing. If the council has the money for vanity schemes than surely it can find the money to make up any difference? Is the price of a spanking new state- of-the-art hospital in Watford with near perfect transport links equal to the price of the redeveloped site with its new rail links to London et al? I don’t know but it seems that the financial requirements over rules common sense to the detriment of the town every time. Popeonarope
  • Score: 2

2:30pm Fri 16 May 14

TRT says...

Popeonarope wrote:
I dont know about the money but there is an opportunity to relocate the hospital to a more suitable location away from the stadium which has always been a problem on match days especially. How many ambulances get stuck in the traffic in Vicarage Road and West Watford historically and how many lives has this cost?
The current hospitals location has a significant footprint which would provide an income to offset some of the costs of a new hospital if this land was redeveloped into housing. If the council has the money for vanity schemes than surely it can find the money to make up any difference?
Is the price of a spanking new state- of-the-art hospital in Watford with near perfect transport links equal to the price of the redeveloped site with its new rail links to London et al? I don’t know but it seems that the financial requirements over rules common sense to the detriment of the town every time.
There's a "golden triangle" right next to the M1/M25 interchange with links to the A41 and the West Coast main line nearby, and the Abbey line a short shuttle bus trip away. Right in the middle of the three major population areas, it would be a prime location for a proper health campus, with pharmaceutical and medical technology research on site (Astra-Zenica, GE Healthcare - formerly Amersham Inc.) etc Good links into London for UCH at Euston, Mill Hill's NIMR not too far away either...
[quote][p][bold]Popeonarope[/bold] wrote: I dont know about the money but there is an opportunity to relocate the hospital to a more suitable location away from the stadium which has always been a problem on match days especially. How many ambulances get stuck in the traffic in Vicarage Road and West Watford historically and how many lives has this cost? The current hospitals location has a significant footprint which would provide an income to offset some of the costs of a new hospital if this land was redeveloped into housing. If the council has the money for vanity schemes than surely it can find the money to make up any difference? Is the price of a spanking new state- of-the-art hospital in Watford with near perfect transport links equal to the price of the redeveloped site with its new rail links to London et al? I don’t know but it seems that the financial requirements over rules common sense to the detriment of the town every time.[/p][/quote]There's a "golden triangle" right next to the M1/M25 interchange with links to the A41 and the West Coast main line nearby, and the Abbey line a short shuttle bus trip away. Right in the middle of the three major population areas, it would be a prime location for a proper health campus, with pharmaceutical and medical technology research on site (Astra-Zenica, GE Healthcare - formerly Amersham Inc.) etc Good links into London for UCH at Euston, Mill Hill's NIMR not too far away either... TRT
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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