|
FORUMS > Wakefield Trinity > Who is Janet Bennett? |
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1494 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2009 | 16 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2011 | Feb 2011 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| "issues such as noise pollution, loss of amenity etc"
Please name these issues. Please state how they cannot be rectified. Please bear in mind loss of amenity hardly applies within this situation as the land is private property & classed by opponents as "contaminated" so hardly somewhere you want to take the kids for a walk and the dog for a paddle! Noise pollution? Sorry have you not noticed the small road to the side of the site, I think it goes by the name of the M62! The same road being overhauled to accommodate new traffic.
The fact is the baseline argument our opponents put up on the 22nd was paper thin, with a legal team examining their arguments with a fine tooth comb in the hearings they will come out for what they are.
How you can talk of "mud slinging" is sickening and laughable. You my friend are pond scum, who only come to gloat when things are bad, what does that say about you as a person? And that's before we look at your motives.
If you actually feel so passionate about NM you should get out from behind the keyboard, get your armour on and meet us at the PI! Because my friend as far as I'm concerned this is WAR.
Wakefield Angry Resident. You bet I am!!!
| | |
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 4259 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2007 | 17 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2020 | Feb 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: bren2k "All of that notwithstanding, publicising the detail seems unnecessary; feels a bit like an attempt to out people, and I'm not sure of the value of that.'"
I clearly wound not have posted it had it not been for the previous issue, but mainly because it would be pointless, at the end of the day it is just a public record and to be fair, it is just a name and in all probability it is now a false made-up name anyway... which is what whomever (we have a good idea who the real person is) registered the website should have done in the first place instead of trying to be clever.
Also, for me this is still an issue of having some integrity. It is no secret who I am and why I am involved in this supporting the development of Newmarket (despite what the write on the Cas Forum)... it has been posted here several times if you want to do a search so I am not hiding behind anything... would I publish my address and phone number on here, no, but given my name and approximate location has, it would bot be hard to find me now would it! If anyone asked for it I would probably giv
If you believe strongly in something, you should stand up and be counted, so June Fender has my respect even though I disagree with most the stuff she says and does of course!
Equally, I do feel that people are using her integrity to hide behind and she may, or may not, be complicit in that deception.
| | |
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 5781 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Sep 2009 | 15 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2024 | Nov 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: rugbyball "I will be more concise for you SWC. Nobody who has any power gives a poop about this website. The decision will be made in line with planning law. The most damming information against the site comes from statutory responses not the NIMBYS. The spatial planning one is a killer in its self.
And I may well come to the public enquiry as I am sure I could make a much better case than the NIMBYs as you call them did. Having said that I have no real intention of putting a spanner in your works, All along I have just tried to give some balance to your rose tinted view, and up until now I have not been far wrong. You keep flogging your flawed arguments, I have tried to point out the real issues and have just received abuse.'"
'All along I have just tried to give some balance to your rose tinted view, and up until now I have not been far wrong'
What a load of rubbish, the one thing that you've not shown, ever on this subject is balance. You have never seen any of the benefits of the development or advantages that this could bring to a City like Wakefield and to be honest, I don't think you have ever wanted to. People that bring a balanced point of view,don't just pop up when their is bad news or no news, which is what you've done, and put the boot in.I don't know what your angle has been in all this but you've always come over as a NIMBY yourself, nothing more nothing less.
| | |
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 456 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2010 | 15 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Mar 2012 | Feb 2012 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: Sandal Wild Cat "If you were to answer like that you wouldn't last 2 minutes under cross examination.
What loss of amenity? You are not entitled to anything as far as the amenity goes.
Everything else could be mediated. Do you really think that YK will just be sitting back until the PI? I know for a fact they have been working very closely with the HA (the biggest obstacle- including LCC), so it is likely that the HA direction will be lifted before the PI.
NM will happen, mark my words.'"
The reason I have not answered you specific points is because you took my post our of context, I was not saying that their were not counter measures for their arguments. The point I was making was that the people objecting on the Whole are LOCAL to the site weather living in Leeds Or Wakefield they live LOCALLY to the site. I also stated that both groups of people for and against can say all they want ultimately it will be decided on planning Law. I was using the amenity example of genuine grounds that LOCAL people have to object on.
As for lasting two minutes under cross examination, I would take my chances, for example if a councillor had made the argument about pit trucks running up and down the roads 10 years ago, I would have asked him what the site had been before and after the pit, and what relevance that has now. As for increased bus services I would have asked him to show me the evidence of this, or what measures he was going to put in place to make sure the plan was adhered to.
But hey what do I know, your probably right they probably just called it in for enquiry because they don't like Wakefield and not because they have serious concerns.
As for "This is war" "we are Wakefield " and the rest of it, they are just meaningless words.
| | | |
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 456 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2010 | 15 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Mar 2012 | Feb 2012 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote: Shifty Cat "'All along I have just tried to give some balance to your rose tinted view, and up until now I have not been far wrong'
What a load of rubbish, the one thing that you've not shown, ever on this subject is balance. You have never seen any of the benefits of the development or advantages that this could bring to a City like Wakefield and to be honest, I don't think you have ever wanted to. People that bring a balanced point of view,don't just pop up when their is bad news or no news, which is what you've done, and put the boot in.I don't know what your angle has been in all this but you've always come over as a NIMBY yourself, nothing more nothing less.'"
I did not say I had been balanced in my views, I said I had given balance to the rose tinted view those on here. In other words, I pointed out the downsides when others were blinded by the pro's which gives balance to the over all view.
| | |
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1347 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jun 2008 | 16 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2022 | May 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Why are you so worked up about a website that has not been updated since March?
| | |
| |
|
All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or its subsites.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.
RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.
Copyright 1999 - 2024 RLFANS.COM
You must be 18+ to gamble, for more information and for help with gambling issues see https://www.begambleaware.org/.
Please Support RLFANS.COM
7.04150390625:10
|
|
POSTS | ONLINE | REGISTRATIONS | RECORD | 19.65M | 1,665 ↑121 | 80,156 | 14,103 |
| LOGIN HERE or REGISTER for more features!.
When you register you get access to the live match scores, live match chat and you can post in the discussions on the forums.
|
RLFANS Match Centre
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1 | | PLD | F | A | DIFF | PTS |
Wigan |
29 |
768 |
338 |
430 |
48 |
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Hull KR |
29 |
731 |
344 |
387 |
44 |
Warrington |
29 |
769 |
351 |
418 |
42 |
Leigh |
29 |
580 |
442 |
138 |
33 |
Salford |
28 |
556 |
561 |
-5 |
32 |
St.Helens |
28 |
618 |
411 |
207 |
30 |
|
Catalans |
27 |
475 |
427 |
48 |
30 |
Leeds |
27 |
530 |
488 |
42 |
28 |
Huddersfield |
27 |
468 |
658 |
-190 |
20 |
Castleford |
27 |
425 |
735 |
-310 |
15 |
Hull FC |
27 |
328 |
894 |
-566 |
6 |
LondonB |
27 |
317 |
916 |
-599 |
6 |
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1 | | PLD | F | A | DIFF | PTS |
Wakefield |
27 |
1032 |
275 |
757 |
52 |
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Toulouse |
26 |
765 |
388 |
377 |
37 |
Bradford |
28 |
723 |
420 |
303 |
36 |
York |
29 |
695 |
501 |
194 |
32 |
Widnes |
27 |
561 |
502 |
59 |
29 |
Featherstone |
27 |
634 |
525 |
109 |
28 |
|
Sheffield |
26 |
626 |
526 |
100 |
28 |
Doncaster |
26 |
498 |
619 |
-121 |
25 |
Halifax |
26 |
509 |
650 |
-141 |
22 |
Batley |
26 |
422 |
591 |
-169 |
22 |
Swinton |
28 |
484 |
676 |
-192 |
20 |
Barrow |
25 |
442 |
720 |
-278 |
19 |
Whitehaven |
25 |
437 |
826 |
-389 |
18 |
Dewsbury |
27 |
348 |
879 |
-531 |
4 |
Hunslet |
1 |
6 |
10 |
-4 |
0 |
|