IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Victoria Park.
Penelope
post Nov 1 2012, 03:41 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 865
Joined: 8-December 11
From: Not Here anymore!
Member No.: 8,392



So, Costains have delivered their (long overdue) report on the subsidence in the park and yet the council have not deemed it necessary to pass on the findings to the taxpayers, I wonder why?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Nov 1 2012, 03:54 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Penelope @ Nov 1 2012, 03:41 PM) *
So, Costains have delivered their (long overdue) report on the subsidence in the park and yet the council have not deemed it necessary to pass on the findings to the taxpayers, I wonder why?

If you read the article, it tells you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penelope
post Nov 1 2012, 04:38 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 865
Joined: 8-December 11
From: Not Here anymore!
Member No.: 8,392



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Nov 1 2012, 03:54 PM) *
If you read the article, it tells you.


Oh you mean the bit where it says the information could be commercially sensitive. Do you still put letters up the chimney for Santa?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Nov 1 2012, 04:42 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Penelope @ Nov 1 2012, 04:38 PM) *
Oh you mean the bit where it says the information could be commercially sensitive. Do you still put letters up the chimney for Santa?

bit further on than that - “I understand the frustrations of Newbury residents but we have to abide by the legal restrictions which are preventing us from publishing full details.”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Nov 1 2012, 04:46 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Nov 1 2012, 03:54 PM) *
If you read the article, it tells you.


This is probably council speak for "Taxpayers get your hands in your pockets this is going to cost you" rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Nov 1 2012, 04:56 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Nov 1 2012, 04:42 PM) *
bit further on than that - “I understand the frustrations of Newbury residents but we have to abide by the legal restrictions which are preventing us from publishing full details.”

Aren't they the same legal restrictions which means we get FOI?!?


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Penelope
post Nov 1 2012, 05:09 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 865
Joined: 8-December 11
From: Not Here anymore!
Member No.: 8,392



QUOTE (motormad @ Nov 1 2012, 04:56 PM) *
Aren't they the same legal restrictions which means we get FOI?!?


Those are the ones. It's our park! Heavily subsidised be us, and its "oh no, we can't tell you why we buggered it up"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 1 2012, 05:42 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Penelope @ Nov 1 2012, 05:09 PM) *
Those are the ones. It's our park! Heavily subsidised be us, and its "oh no, we can't tell you why we buggered it up"


Frankly you are right. This is actually quite astonishing. We have spent a large sum of money for absolutely nothing. This has been going on for two years - quite long enough. Rather than hiding behind lame excuses, the Council Leader should resign. The money could have been better spent elsewhere perhaps protecting some of the key services we've lost.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 1 2012, 05:55 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



I think people might be speaking with an element of hind sight here. They were advised by the 'Uni' that did the test that it would be a 'few weeks' job and a few grand; however, it snowballed. I think the council were duty-bound to try and find out the route cause, but they have been caught-out by the vultures that are lawyers and a developer with a profit margin to protect.

Personally I think the whole thing is grossly indecent; surrendering a lot of public land for a few exclusive shops.

At the end of the day, 'if you dine with the devil, you will eventually find yourself on the menu'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Nov 1 2012, 06:19 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 1 2012, 05:55 PM) *
I think people might be speaking with an element of hind sight here. They were advised by the 'Uni' that did the test that it would be a 'few weeks' job and a few grand; however, it snowballed. I think the council were duty-bound to try and find out the route cause, but they have been caught-out by the vultures that are lawyers and a developer with a profit margin to protect.

Personally I think the whole thing is grossly indecent; surrendering a lot of public land for a few exclusive shops.

At the end of the day, 'if you dine with the devil, you will eventually find yourself on the menu'.


Of which a large number are still empty!


Even more of a certainty when our local council has a hand in the proceedings! rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Adrian Hollister
post Nov 1 2012, 07:01 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 299
Joined: 6-January 10
Member No.: 613



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 1 2012, 06:55 PM) *
At the end of the day, 'if you dine with the devil, you will eventually find yourself on the menu'.

I've got to get that line in a hustings or debate smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 1 2012, 07:49 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Adrian Hollister @ Nov 1 2012, 07:01 PM) *
I've got to get that line in a hustings or debate smile.gif

wink.gif


I have heard rumours that Richard Garvie is claiming that the council are allegedly asking Costain to claim partial liability.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Nov 1 2012, 07:51 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 1 2012, 07:49 PM) *
wink.gif


I have heard rumours that Richard Garvie is claiming that the council are allegedly asking Costain to claim partial liability.

you mean it wasn't totally the fault of the the drought?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 1 2012, 07:58 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Nov 1 2012, 07:51 PM) *
you mean it wasn't totally the fault of the the drought?

I have no idea. I guess that the fault might be a combination of things. Mind you, it is only an allegation I have heard.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Nov 1 2012, 08:00 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 1 2012, 07:58 PM) *
I have no idea. I guess that the fault might be a combination of things. Mind you, it is only an allegation I have heard.

Sounds logical - to try & get Costain to accept total liability would be a tall order.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 1 2012, 08:02 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Nov 1 2012, 08:00 PM) *
Sounds logical - to try & get Costain to accept total liability would be a tall order.

Yes. I suppose both wish to avoid court and are holding out for an out of court settlement. If so, then there will always be a compromise. Especially when it cannot be proven beyond doubt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Berkshirelad
post Nov 2 2012, 04:52 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 810
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 271



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 1 2012, 09:02 PM) *
Yes. I suppose both wish to avoid court and are holding out for an out of court settlement. If so, then there will always be a compromise. Especially when it cannot be proven beyond doubt.


It's not a criminal matter, it's civil. The burden of proof is one of "on the balance of probability"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Nov 2 2012, 05:10 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Nov 2 2012, 04:52 PM) *
It's not a criminal matter, it's civil. The burden of proof is one of "on the balance of probability"


The probability is that it is going to cost the taxpayer again if it works out to the standard that the council usually works to! rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Nov 2 2012, 05:29 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



Don't really understand why the Council got involved in the first place. Should have just let the insurance companies fight it out.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Nov 2 2012, 06:17 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Berkshirelad @ Nov 2 2012, 04:52 PM) *
It's not a criminal matter, it's civil. The burden of proof is one of "on the balance of probability"

If something can be proven beyond doubt (I didn't say beyond reasonable doubt), then it is immaterial whether it is a civil or a criminal matter; that is my point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th July 2024 - 03:46 PM