It would appear that NOMINET have got the NIMBY's to change the illegal domain registration and take it out of Ted Richardson name... but the big question is.. who is Janet Bennett and why does she not live in the UK? I thought getting objections from Kent was taking things a bit far... but now the person who owns the domain URL: www.heartinternet.co.uk Relevant dates: Registered on: 24-Sep-2010 Renewal date: 24-Sep-2012 Last updated: 14-Dec-2010 Registration status: Registered until renewal date. Name servers: ns.mainnameserver.com ns2.mainnameserver.com WHOIS lookup made at 21:30:27 16-Dec-2010

It would appear that NOMINET have got the NIMBY's to change the illegal domain registration and take it out of Ted Richardson name... but the big question is.. who is Janet Bennett and why does she not live in the UK? I thought getting objections from Kent was taking things a bit far... but now the person who owns the domain URL: www.heartinternet.co.uk Relevant dates: Registered on: 24-Sep-2010 Renewal date: 24-Sep-2012 Last updated: 14-Dec-2010 Registration status: Registered until renewal date. Name servers: ns.mainnameserver.com ns2.mainnameserver.com WHOIS lookup made at 21:30:27 16-Dec-2010

Well my friend is called Jan (Janice) Bennett but she wrote in to support ... and certainly would know nothing about websites etc..

The wife of Gordon?

I'm Spartacus!

"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!!!

I think if it was not for the original issue, then possibly yes, but if you are not fully aware of that and that this site domain was originally registered illegally under Ted Richardson's name, then it is not sinister at all... plus it is public record information and if you stick a website up then, whatever that might be for, this is legally required information.

The reason that has become an issue also, is that 'they' have actual gone to so much trouble to conceal their identities and they only changed the original domain for this site from

Quote: bren2k "The current issue we are tackling is the proposed destruction of Green Belt land in Stanley, Wakefield. For the now the website is dedicated to this pressing issue, and will resume to normal in the coming months.'"

Do you mean a website that did not exist until May this year and went live with this subject and only this subject... clever and deliberate choice of words don't you think!

Quote: bren2k "W.A.R (Wakefield Angry Residents) are a group of Wakefield rate payers, who have pooled their intellectual and financial resources to question the public spending by Wakefield Council.

The group was founded by Arthur Murray, who has spent his own time and money to get this group going and inform people about the pressing issues in Wakefield District, with the current most important issue being the proposed destruction of Green Belt land in Stanley.

The group is ever increasing, we now have members from all parts of the Wakefield District , South Leeds and West Yorkshire. We'd like to thank the time all the people and effort of everyone who has contributed.'"

Same lie again, restated and also why do you have members in South Leeds and West Yorkshire (?) when you are a Wakefield Rate payers group? Ok, you are 'currently' tacking the issue of Newmarket but you can't have people from Leeds attacking Wakefield's spending plans in relation to this site, they can moan about the site, but not about this issue... good old Arthur should point them in the direction of Wakefield (and now Leeds) Community Conservation Group if they are from Leeds... but of course, it is the same people and they don't really exist either!

Right, must do some work... I will come back to reply to Rugbyball later... he raises some very good points, some I agree with, some I don't!

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.

No! I'm Spartacus!!

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.

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.

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.

'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.