manc_don Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 ED and myself have had plenty of fun abusing them and calling them out on Twitter. They are the biggest purveyors of fake news. Seems like their campaign of lies is being run by a bunch of petulant kids (I acknowledge they're not). Quote
Edinburghdon Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 ED and myself have had plenty of fun abusing them and calling them out on Twitter. They are the biggest purveyors of fake news. Seems like their campaign of lies is being run by a bunch of petulant kids (I acknowledge they're not). Abusing is most definitely the wrong word to use there Manc! Calling out covers it. Quote
Elgindon Posted February 20, 2017 Report Posted February 20, 2017 Drove past one of the signs on the way to Kingswells the other day. "No to traffic chaos". What?,you wont manage a couple of hours once a fortnight?,but you'll manage a new Tesco 24 hours a day,and those subsea buildings et al. Have they ever wondered how a more built up area like Pittodrie has coped all these years Quote
Slim Posted February 21, 2017 Report Posted February 21, 2017 Would certainly be interesting to see the numbers of people who live in the city and work in Westhill. Wouldn't be surprised if there were more cars using the dual carriageway during rush hour 10 times a week than there would be for a football match. Quote
Garlogie_Granite Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 Flicking through some of the objections lodged with planning, I really do despair. Came across this beaut: "As a resident of prperty within the eastern & northern elevated part of Westhill..........this not only affects me as a resident, but also as a keen golfer & walker in the area. I am also concerned on [sic] the impact that the significant effect on views may have on the resale value of my house" How exactly does this affect Westhill golf club? (in fairness anything that did could only improve that fucking shitehole). How does it affect his walking, the parks concerned are not a walking area. His house price - yup that's a planning issue Quote
manc_don Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 They really are getting desperate: Dr Nicola Seal, speaking on behalf of the Say No to Kingsford group, read out a testimony from a former landfill worker claiming that asbestos, removed from the old stand at Pittodrie, had been dumped in the ground at Kingsford. She quoted the worker and said: “While I was working for MPH (McIntosh Plant Hire) in the 90s, we demolished the old stand at Pittodrie – asbestos was discovered on site, a very large amount from the old beach end stand. “It was ordered to be taken to England for safe disposal, but only a handful of loads ever went to England and the majority went to the Kingsford site – many, many loads. “We were ordered to keep quiet – there are many thousands of tons of asbestos under that site, so you can imagine the horror just waiting to be uncovered.” Dr Seal added: “The investigations for asbestos are woefully inadequate. Just four shallow soil samples have been tested at depths of 1-2metres, which is topsoil and not the building rubble underneath.” Well if that's the case, the club will have to pay for the safe removal of the material, which would be the case anyway. Shocking if it is true but it doesn't stop any development, just means they'll have to factor the removal works in and it'll cost a shit load. Quote
RicoS321 Posted February 22, 2017 Report Posted February 22, 2017 Surely that should be a police matter too (if it's not - as is likely - horse shite)? It could be part of a 20+ year conspiracy, featuring several other red-herring stadium proposals, where Stewarty and McIntosh have colluded to cover up asbestos dumping with the final part of the jigsaw being to cover the entire thing up (literally) with a fitba grun. It'll come to light after Johnny Hayes collapses on a training pitch as his lungs give-way after two years of belting up and down on top of a pile of ancient asbestos. Think of all the hooligans that could get poisoned on their way to the game after shiteing in a local gairden. Quote
manc_don Posted February 28, 2017 Report Posted February 28, 2017 https://publicaccess.aberdeencity.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJMF3EBZIED00 Seems like a few people have lodged their objections more than once. I'd like to hope that the council have a filter which would check this sort of thing... Edit: Not sure why that was in there Rico! Quote
RicoS321 Posted February 28, 2017 Report Posted February 28, 2017 I'd like to hope that the council have a filter city Me too, we could move the stadium there. Quote
Garlogie_Granite Posted February 28, 2017 Report Posted February 28, 2017 4489 for, 4443 against. Quote
manc_don Posted March 7, 2017 Report Posted March 7, 2017 Obviously not ours, but this is quite progressive for the US! MLS side Orlando City have opened their new stadium, which has a safe standing area and a special section for fans wanting to use flares at matches. (Daily Mail) Quote
rocket_scientist Posted March 7, 2017 Report Posted March 7, 2017 Obviously not ours, but this is quite progressive for the US! MLS side Orlando City have opened their new stadium, which has a safe standing area and a special section for fans wanting to use flares at matches. (Daily Mail) Why would anyone want to use a flare? I just don't get it. Wooo? Whee? What the fuck? I reckon these cunts should read more and expand their horizons sufficiently that a bright light doesn't float their boats. Quote
OxfordDon Posted March 7, 2017 Report Posted March 7, 2017 https://publicaccess.aberdeencity.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OJMF3EBZIED00 Seems like a few people have lodged their objections more than once. I'd like to hope that the council have a filter which would check this sort of thing... Edit: Not sure why that was in there Rico! I had a (very) quick scan, there are definitely duplications, but indications would be that they are not directly by the residents themselves - rather the duplicates tend to be where a resident has completed the tickbox form the opposition group have been getting folk to sign, and the same form has been submitted more than once. There are also a number of other errors in their bulk submissions. Examples: 170021_DPP-Objects__LRep_-_A_Scott-1461161.pdf and 170021_DPP-Objects__LRep_-_A_Scott-1463054.pdf are two separate scans of the same completed form. The handwriting is identical but the redaction of the signatures is different, indicating it was scanned, modified and submitted twice. 170021_DPP-Objects___LRep_-_A_Stewart-1477420.pdf No checkboxes ticked, therefore no concrete objection, plus also potential duplicate of 170021_DPP-Objects___LRep_-_A_Stewart-1477423.pdf (although this could be a husband/relative at the same address with a forename beginning with A). In both cases, the name submitted is Stewart whereas the actual resident's name is Stuart. 170021_DPP-Objects__LRep_-_A_Duncan-1470391.pdf submitted claiming to be on someone else's behalf, which is invalid, AFAIK. Also a duplicate of 170021_DPP-Objects__LRep_-_A_Duncar-1470388.pdf, which has been incorrectly entered as "A Duncar", instead of "A Duncan". That was in a 30 second check of 4 potential groups of duplicate names, where 3 of those groups showed the errors above. That doesn't suggest a lot of confidence in the quality of the data inputting of these forms (by the opposition group directly or by the council - whoever created these records). Disclaimer: i am neither for nor against the proposed stadium location, but shoddy handling of information gets my goat every time. Quote
manc_don Posted March 7, 2017 Report Posted March 7, 2017 Links don't work, OD. Do you have to sign in to view them all? Quote
OxfordDon Posted March 7, 2017 Report Posted March 7, 2017 Links don't work, OD. Do you have to sign in to view them all? Nope, they work for me - they just go straight to the PDFs. What you trying to open them on? Quote
manc_don Posted March 7, 2017 Report Posted March 7, 2017 Nope, they work for me - they just go straight to the PDFs. What you trying to open them on? Chrome? This is the message it comes up with: Document Unavailable This document is unavailable for viewing at this time. Quote
OxfordDon Posted March 7, 2017 Report Posted March 7, 2017 Chrome? This is the message it comes up with: Hah, right enough - just tried it both in chrome and an icognito firefox window and it does the same. I guess you have to have accessed the link from the planning documents list first, or something. That's a pain. Edit - that's indeed what it is - there's a unique token generated in the link when you click from the planning documents list. If it is removed, it still gives the error message so can't get round it that way either. Pain in the arse. I'm afraid you'll have to go to the original link and find them individually if you want to view them. Quote
manc_don Posted March 7, 2017 Report Posted March 7, 2017 Hah, right enough - just tried it both in chrome and an icognito firefox window and it does the same. I guess you have to have accessed the link from the planning documents list first, or something. That's a pain. Edit - that's indeed what it is - there's a unique token generated in the link when you click from the planning documents list. If it is removed, it still gives the error message so can't get round it that way either. Pain in the arse. I'm afraid you'll have to go to the original link and find them individually if you want to view them. cheers, will have a look when I get home Quote
RicoS321 Posted March 7, 2017 Report Posted March 7, 2017 I'm afraid you'll have to go to the original link and find them individually if you want to view them. We'll just believe you... the whole objections thing is a farce on these types of development anyway. An objection should only be allowed to be registered once, with duplicates of the same objection just up-voted or similar. Number of up-votes should have little to no relevance. Something is either a valid objection or not, regardless of how many agree. Anyway, you've been pretty quiet on the loanee updates since McKenna got sent off for a murderous challenge on McGinn against hibees last week. That was an amazing challenge. Quote
Elgindon Posted March 7, 2017 Report Posted March 7, 2017 4489 for, 4443 against. What would those those figures mean (if anything) as far as the planning going ahead? Quote
tom_widdows Posted March 7, 2017 Report Posted March 7, 2017 What would those those figures mean (if anything) as far as the planning going ahead? basically means the project has to be determined by Committee rather than the designated Planning Officer. Given the size of the development that was pretty much going to happen anyway. Even if it had been completely one sided (for or against) that would only have a slight bearing on the final decision. There is an art to objecting to/ Supporting a planning application and I reckon more than 50% of those comments are in the bin already. Quote
OxfordDon Posted March 7, 2017 Report Posted March 7, 2017 Anyway, you've been pretty quiet on the loanee updates since McKenna got sent off for a murderous challenge on McGinn against hibees last week. That was an amazing challenge. True, i've got a long train journey tomorrow so i might dae it when i'm bored of watching sheep whizz past backwards Quote
manc_don Posted March 16, 2017 Report Posted March 16, 2017 According to the BBC the shire are due to deliver their verdict on the stadium today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-39290459 Quote
manc_don Posted March 16, 2017 Report Posted March 16, 2017 and....they object. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-39290459 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.