I think your whining about ad homs started here...
http://www.skybluestalk.co.uk/threads/44983-Council-Protest/page5?p=701896#post701896
It's perhaps no surprise you don't remember, given that almost all of your posts seem to go off on one about how people are idiots, f*cking heroes (ironic), w*nkers, etc.. Which was my point. You are a hypocrite mate, you complain about personal insults whilst dishing them out at every opportunity.
And now it appears that you don't like it when someone gives you a bit back. If you're going to dish it, my suggestion is that you learn how to take it.
So, wind your neck in and make your point without insults, or expect to called out for what you are. And that's me leaving you to it, because I'm sure most here aren't interested in this particular sideshow.
Oh look, the usual lot shuffling over the result of a by-election. As usual more interested in the Council than the club. You'd have thought the main interest would have been on CCFC, but sadly no.
You're a parody act, surely? It was you who is and has been moaning about personal insults. I was pointing out the irony of you moaning about personal insults yet using personal insults.
I honestly don't give a toss what people on an internet forum call me. It's just photons on a screen. If I want to make my point using insults I will. You can always ignore them if they bother you so much.
Idiot.
Parody? Seriously.
You complained about ad homs when there clearly weren't any in my original posting way back when, this whilst chucking them out right, left and centre yourself before and since. That makes you a hypocrite. Or you don't understand what ad homs are, which makes you a halfwit. It's admitted that you illuminate every argument with an insult, which makes you rude.
If you don't like being called a rude, half-wit, hypocrite, stop behaving like one.
And please feel free to ignore me too, but don't expect not to get called out on your bullshit every now and then - if it doesn't bother you, then quit whining about it. We're done here, I think.
I think you missed the point. The third party tried to broker talks, the council said no. This all happened in private a couple of weeks ago. Didn't even get to the stage of a negotiation between the two sides so no 'gentlemen's agreement' to worry about.
Haha! I’d forgotten about him. I can clarify it wasn’t.Rob, when you say third party can you just clarify that it wasn't that self publicising CCFC "fan" ex pat from America promoting his company crowd boarders (or whatever it was called)?
Haha! I’d forgotten about him. I can clarify it wasn’t.
Haha! I’d forgotten about him. I can clarify it wasn’t.
So who was it and how do you know when apparently no one else does?
I think you are missing the point. It was a council election - not a supporters club opinion poll. The voters were supposed to be more interested in the council.
If people come on here talking about jobs, road surfaces, hospitals etc. you would say they are on the wrong forum.
Haha! I’d forgotten about him. I can clarify it wasn’t.
So who was it and how do you know when apparently no one else does?
Well, I've got this one weird trick (that internet people hate!)*So who was it and how do you know when apparently no one else does?
Haha! I’d forgotten about him. I can clarify it wasn’t.
Which is why the "Poor tax payers", "community asset" thing is crap. No one in Cov apart from supporters gives a fuck about the Ricoh, ACL, SISU, CCFC, etc etc.
Which is why the "Poor tax payers", "community asset" thing is crap. No one in Cov apart from supporters gives a fuck about the Ricoh, ACL, SISU, CCFC, etc etc.
I reckon lots probably don't even know about it and wouldn't be that fussed. Most people probably think tax payers money is wasted in loads of different ways anyway.
Thank you for that answer Simon.
I would rather things in the open myself.
We tried to help get talks back on a couple of weeks ago.
We also agreed (at Mr Labovitch's request) not to write about it at the time because we took the view it would be better if talks were, at least initially, conducted away from the media spotlight to hopefully allow some progress.
The last I heard we could expect some movement after the JR.
As we're not in the habit of breaking confidences, we have kept quiet about it on the understanding we could pick it up when something concrete happens - such as an actual meeting date.
There's certainly no ACL/council-driven conspiracy here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
.Are you sure? Look at all of the heat around taking on the mortgage. And can you remember all of the fuss when there was the vote to step into the Ricoh build in the first place? This is a pretty big issue now in the City, whether you're a fan or not, imho.
.
You have no evidence to support that. The Ricoh arena offers the taxpayer no commercial benefit whatsoever. Most Coventry would have total apathy. You are swallowing your own council bullshit and believing it little man.
.
You have no evidence to support that. The Ricoh arena offers the taxpayer no commercial benefit whatsoever. Most Coventry would have total apathy. You are swallowing your own council bullshit and believing it little man.
The Ricoh arena offers the taxpayer no commercial benefit whatsoever: Disagree there. When something big is on, hotels, restaurants etc. benefit. That is commercial benefit and you just made a sweeping statement that you cannot possibly back up. When we get back - as we will at some time - then that benefit will increase.
If it offers the people of Coventry no commercial benefit what so ever, then why haven't they knocked it down to sell for housing land then? The people of Coventry wouldn't give a shit ....... Apathy and all that.
It wasn't Ian Calvert again either, was it? He didn't exactly cover himself in glory.
Regardless, I know you've been told otherwise, but I think SISU could stop the JR if they wanted to. The precise rules seem to be here.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...x7_Soqjl8uHwWclXwHPJmYw&bvm=bv.67720277,d.ZWU
Horrible link, but basically it says...
17.3 There is a right to discontinue a claim at any time, except where:
An interim injunction has been granted or an undertaking has been given - in
those circumstances the permission of the court is required to discontinue the
proceedings (an example of this would be where bail had been granted pending
determination of the application for judicial review)
Interim payment has been made by defendant - in those circumstances the consent
of the defendant or the permission of the court is required to discontinue the
proceedings
There is more than one claimant - in those circumstances the consent of every
other claimant or the permission of the court is required to discontinue the
proceedings.
I don't think any of those circumstances apply here, do they. Could it be that the talks failed because SISU really do not want to drop the JR, as opposed to cannot drop the JR?
I heard second hand from a lawyer but feel free to chase up ML to confirm
235 votes, more of a laughing stock than a stalking horse. Ann Lucas got more votes than all the votes cast for the other candidates added together.
i rather think that Rob Stevens has a long way to go if he is to become a political strategist!
You're at it again, what's your main gripe with Rob and Co aside from them having a slightly different opinion to you?
That's certainly another way of looking at it. However, I'm not sure it's particularly useful for any sort of context unless you apply the same measure to the other candidates.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting - how much is it worth then?
You're at it again, what's your main gripe with Rob and Co aside from them having a slightly different opinion to you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?