By Martin Neville
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
ASDA plans, due to go before Isle of Wight councillors next week, are at the centre of two reports published today (Tuesday).
Log-in or register to comment on this story. See our House Rules here.
By ticking "Remember me" you agree to a cookie being stored on your computer - no personal data is shared.
Log-in to Report
by alan naylor
28th June 2014, at 17:52:13
I am not familier with the asda situation how ever will someone correct me if I am wrong my point is if asda want to build a supermarket outside Newport what has it got to do with a third party with land to sell who have the OPINION it would be better for the town.... simplifyed
by roger mazillius
27th June 2014, at 21:27:29
"Open to interpretation" is no defence (as many litigants have found to their cost) but we are now at least agreed on one thing, we are now off topic!Mind you, I am glad I managed to be credible enough to be elected time and time again over 20 years of serving my community - although you probably have no idea what that actually means!
by Owen Burson
27th June 2014, at 18:18:37
It wasn't intended as wit Roger. I've not said that I didn't say it, what I did say was that the statement was open to interpretation therefor your inference that it was libelous is as credible as your political career was. However if you are convinced about it being libelous please feel free to do something about it, rarther than trying to talk big. Your right about one thing, and one thing only, we are off topic. I also wait with interest.
27th June 2014, at 17:45:25
Well Owen, they do say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and it really is not nonsense to point out that your comment linking council officials with the SCL bid was potentially libellous. Now you are wriggling like mad to pretend that you did not make that comment.Caught red-handed if you ask me although we are probably now off topic!I look forward the Planning Committee's decision next week which hopefully will put us all out of our misery!
27th June 2014, at 15:42:58
Well Roger either my sarcasm didn't come through, or you are choosing to ignore it. I am well aware of the structure, aware that the officials carry out statutory duties as well as the political will of the elected local representatives. I am also perfectly well aware that your nonsense threats of libel are to offset my suggestions of incompetence and a lack of vision.
27th June 2014, at 14:10:31
Thanks Owen. Officials/Officers are staff who actually do the work. Members are elected every four years and set the policies of the Council which are then put into practical form and carried out by the staff.Much of this work is based on statutory necessity eg planning, social care, education etc, only part of the Council's functions are in the discretion of the ruling Group.So I trust you now understand the sensitivity of claiming there is something going on between a planning applicant and a council official and then telling us that you do not understand the distinction between officials and members!Triviality to some, a serious potential libel to others. I am sure those planning officers involved with the SCL planning application are, to say the least, not amused by your muddled assertion.
27th June 2014, at 12:00:20
Seems I've touched a nerve, but thanks for the clarification regarding terminology. So they are officials not members. Seems a trivial thing to be focussing on though. If only I could think of a role where that seems to be considered an essential skill. I'll have to remember: Not a bunch of members.
26th June 2014, at 18:02:12
Thanks Owen. First it is officers ,now members. Seems you have got your wires crossed or don't really know "jack s..t" about this subject.So just what exactly did you mean by posting "there has to be something going on here between SCL and a council official"?You now state you do not believe there has been or is any corruption so what could be "going on" between this company and a council official?I think we should be told otherwise it would appear you are making allegations without any foundation whatsover!
26th June 2014, at 16:02:22
Thanks for your advice Roger but I'm quite happy for my comment to stand; my comment is open to interpretation. Further to your own interpretation and your question however; I dont believe there has been, or is any corruption as that would take the ability to do some 'joined up thinking'. Not a phrase that springs to mind when describing our senior council members over recent years.
26th June 2014, at 15:20:04
Thanks David. Why has the SCL application "no foundation"? It is irrelevant in planning terms that eg they do not have a ready customer. The test is whether or not it is capable of being developed for the use applied for. Similarly for example, land is given planning permission for residential development without any homes being sold beforehand.Mind you I am no fan whatsoever of the SCL application, the opportunism of which has been well-described by other posters.As regard the IWC, I would most strongly assert that it was about to be determined when the elections intervened.Owen, with respect, that does not answer my question because to most readers, your comment appears to infer some corrupt activity between SCL and a council official. Corruption is one thing, incompetence quite another!So unless you have evidence of corruption, you may feel it prudent to withdraw your comment.
Any views or opinions presented in the comments above are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the Isle of Wight County Press.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Monday, July 28, 2014
IWCP v4.0 © Isle of Wight County Press 2011. All Rights Reserved. Web Design By Matrix Create.
Contact Us | Disclaimer
| Cookies | Links | Sitemap
Isle of Wight County Press Ltd. Registered office: Brannon House, 123 Pyle Street,
Newport, Isle of Wight PO30 1ST. Registered in England. Registered number: 1342243.