Public backs Booker for stadium site, says council

12:10am Friday 7th January 2011 in News By Simon Farr

Public backs Booker for stadium site, says council Public backs Booker for stadium site, says council

WYCOMBE Air Park has the “best potential” for a community stadium, according to findings released today from a council's public consultation.

More than 70 per cent of 8,376 written responses received by Wycombe District Council were in favour of the site at Booker, with 71 per cent saying they supported plans for a sports village.

The authority said that just 19 per cent of the people that responded to the consultation voted for Wycombe Wanderers and London Wasps to remain at their current home at Adams Park, or a “Do Nothing approach”.

However, the above results were obtained by an embargoed press release handed to the Bucks Free Press on Wednesday and not the full report available to the public today.

The BFP was denied access to the full report before its public release, despite numerous requests.

A “Do Nothing approach” is not an option on the consultation formal, though respondents had a chance to vote for “none” of the shortlisted options presented to them.

WDC Leader Lesley Clarke said the report shows “the big picture” that a stadium would boost the local economy and raise the profile of the district.

She added that protesters concerns are “summarised” in the report, and vowed that further public consultation would be held prior to a planning application.

She said: “The report identifies that the stadium project is about much more that just a new stadium for Wycombe Wanderers and Wasps.

“The big picture which has been revealed shows that the project could give the local economy a significant boost, raise the profile of the district and encourage wider participation in sports.

“We are taking seriously issues raised about infrastructure and the environment and they will be looked at very carefully at every stage of the planning process.”

The six-week consultation also included results from six focus groups from across the district. While about 1,400 people attended two discussion forums and three public exhibitions organised and hosted by the council.

The consultation's findings will be put before the authority's Cabinet on Monday, January 17, where members will decide on the next course of action for the plans.

The full report on the consultation's results will be published on the council's website today.

Comments (46)

12:24am Fri 7 Jan 11

zwizz says...

I don't understand the claim that "residents" support the proposals as there was absolutely no guarantee that consultees lived anywhere near the WDC area, far more likely that they were influenced by the efforts of WSDL and their friends at matches and on web-sites.
The public meetings held during the consultation, along with the BFP's own referendum showed overwhelming opposition to the entire scheme. That must surely give a much truer picture of the views of local residents, especially when taken into account with the sixteen local groups opposing the scheme.
I don't understand the claim that "residents" support the proposals as there was absolutely no guarantee that consultees lived anywhere near the WDC area, far more likely that they were influenced by the efforts of WSDL and their friends at matches and on web-sites. The public meetings held during the consultation, along with the BFP's own referendum showed overwhelming opposition to the entire scheme. That must surely give a much truer picture of the views of local residents, especially when taken into account with the sixteen local groups opposing the scheme. zwizz

1:01am Fri 7 Jan 11

J B Blackett says...

What a farce. This used to be an almost democratic country - look what these gangsters have done to it. Back to feudal times
What a farce. This used to be an almost democratic country - look what these gangsters have done to it. Back to feudal times J B Blackett

1:52am Fri 7 Jan 11

ivor says...

How many of the 8,376 respondents were actually from Wycombe? I suspect probably very few....
~
Let's have a local referendum on the issue.
~
Have you read Ivor’s blog today? Click on the “BLOGS” link at the top of the page.
How many of the 8,376 respondents were actually from Wycombe? I suspect probably very few.... ~ Let's have a local referendum on the issue. ~ Have you read Ivor’s blog today? Click on the “BLOGS” link at the top of the page. ivor

2:04am Fri 7 Jan 11

Writeswrongs says...

'the big picture' involves allowing people who live miles away the ability to vote. Will there be stats to show this in the report? I know someone who has only ever been to one rugby match ever (at Twickenham) and he was emailed by Wasps asking for his vote.
I'm going to sign up to GASP-no.org as I feel that's where the true 'big picture' is being shown.
'the big picture' involves allowing people who live miles away the ability to vote. Will there be stats to show this in the report? I know someone who has only ever been to one rugby match ever (at Twickenham) and he was emailed by Wasps asking for his vote. I'm going to sign up to GASP-no.org as I feel that's where the true 'big picture' is being shown. Writeswrongs

7:47am Fri 7 Jan 11

swearmeister says...

Vote them out in the Spring. End of.
Vote them out in the Spring. End of. swearmeister

7:47am Fri 7 Jan 11

wayneo says...

70% of the public back Wycombe Air Park!
!
!
!
And if you believe that, you'll believe anything. LOL

Time to get angry
70% of the public back Wycombe Air Park! ! ! ! And if you believe that, you'll believe anything. LOL Time to get angry wayneo

8:03am Fri 7 Jan 11

Micklefield Matt says...

swearmeister wrote:
Vote them out in the Spring. End of.
Exactly - these consultations are so expensive because they are very carefully engineered to produce the desired outcome for the council.

Fortunately it is not so easy, and illegal, to operate an election in such a way.

I know that most wards will have an excellent anti-stadium/anti corruption/pro local people candidate, either as an independent or from another political party. We all need to get behind those candidates, not only giving them our vote but helping them win.
[quote][p][bold]swearmeister[/bold] wrote: Vote them out in the Spring. End of.[/p][/quote]Exactly - these consultations are so expensive because they are very carefully engineered to produce the desired outcome for the council. Fortunately it is not so easy, and illegal, to operate an election in such a way. I know that most wards will have an excellent anti-stadium/anti corruption/pro local people candidate, either as an independent or from another political party. We all need to get behind those candidates, not only giving them our vote but helping them win. Micklefield Matt

9:20am Fri 7 Jan 11

gpn01 says...

"More than 70 per cent of 8,376 written responses received by Wycombe District Council were in favour of the site at Booker"

....So what's happened to all the responses that were submitted electronically? Someobody conveinently press the key?
"More than 70 per cent of 8,376 written responses received by Wycombe District Council were in favour of the site at Booker" ....So what's happened to all the responses that were submitted electronically? Someobody conveinently press the key? gpn01

9:35am Fri 7 Jan 11

billsheppard says...

Hardly a surprise but this is a clear case of agents outside of WDC's juristiction (i.e. Wasps fans and others living outside of Wycombe District) manipulated into voting for Hayes's stadium at Booker.
-
WDC were quick to discount the Holymead lido consulation because of the very same reason, yet because it is in favour one of its prestige projects it will be used as 'proof' some sort of a majority are in favour of it. Where were these people in favour at the consultation meetings? Are they cowards or do they actually not exist?
Hardly a surprise but this is a clear case of agents outside of WDC's juristiction (i.e. Wasps fans and others living outside of Wycombe District) manipulated into voting for Hayes's stadium at Booker. - WDC were quick to discount the Holymead lido consulation because of the very same reason, yet because it is in favour one of its prestige projects it will be used as 'proof' some sort of a majority are in favour of it. Where were these people in favour at the consultation meetings? Are they cowards or do they actually not exist? billsheppard

10:00am Fri 7 Jan 11

Trip says...

Anyone want to form a vigilante group?
Anyone want to form a vigilante group? Trip

10:26am Fri 7 Jan 11

Monte Cristo says...

So the Council is saying that only 2512 people objected to the Booker option.
I find that rather unlikely.
So the Council is saying that only 2512 people objected to the Booker option. I find that rather unlikely. Monte Cristo

10:48am Fri 7 Jan 11

danb21t says...

gpn01 wrote:
"More than 70 per cent of 8,376 written responses received by Wycombe District Council were in favour of the site at Booker"

....So what's happened to all the responses that were submitted electronically? Someobody conveinently press the key?
hmmmm
rm -rf

ooops what data?? computer says nooo
[quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: "More than 70 per cent of 8,376 written responses received by Wycombe District Council were in favour of the site at Booker" ....So what's happened to all the responses that were submitted electronically? Someobody conveinently press the key?[/p][/quote]hmmmm rm -rf ooops what data?? computer says nooo danb21t

10:53am Fri 7 Jan 11

2001AD says...

So WDC can tell us that over 70% of the responses support Booker, but at the Full Council meeting in December, they couldn't tell us how many responses were from local residents or how many responses were duplicates because "we didn't collect the data that way".... how very convenient.

Wayneo - you're right, time to get angry. What will it take to make OUR councillors listen to the overwhelming opposition for this scheme?
So WDC can tell us that over 70% of the responses support Booker, but at the Full Council meeting in December, they couldn't tell us how many responses were from local residents or how many responses were duplicates because "we didn't collect the data that way".... how very convenient. Wayneo - you're right, time to get angry. What will it take to make OUR councillors listen to the overwhelming opposition for this scheme? 2001AD

10:58am Fri 7 Jan 11

sai-diva says...

What a farce, but really no surprise, what Lesley wants, Lesley gets. I for one would welcome an independent assesment of these figures.
How does it go...... there are lies, **** lies and statistics.
People who don't live in the area shouldn't be allowed to have a say unless of course they're prepared to pay the same council tax as the rest of us.
No representation without taxation.
They pay no tax so they should have no say in this matter.
What a farce, but really no surprise, what Lesley wants, Lesley gets. I for one would welcome an independent assesment of these figures. How does it go...... there are lies, **** lies and statistics. People who don't live in the area shouldn't be allowed to have a say unless of course they're prepared to pay the same council tax as the rest of us. No representation without taxation. They pay no tax so they should have no say in this matter. sai-diva

11:04am Fri 7 Jan 11

M B Cinzento says...

great result!!!

True capitalism. The majority of the people who would use it want it. Therefore bringing money into the area.
great result!!! True capitalism. The majority of the people who would use it want it. Therefore bringing money into the area. M B Cinzento

11:27am Fri 7 Jan 11

Steve Totteridge Hill says...

Free tickets for Lesley Clarke for Abu Dhabi???
Free tickets for Lesley Clarke for Abu Dhabi??? Steve Totteridge Hill

11:49am Fri 7 Jan 11

freeforall says...

In the interests of transparency and the democratic process the Council’s analysis of the returned questionnaires has to distinguish between those returns that were made from addresses within and those from outside the district. Those from outside the district should be disqualified. Any failure to do so would render the entire exercise as being meaningless
In the interests of transparency and the democratic process the Council’s analysis of the returned questionnaires has to distinguish between those returns that were made from addresses within and those from outside the district. Those from outside the district should be disqualified. Any failure to do so would render the entire exercise as being meaningless freeforall

12:14pm Fri 7 Jan 11

gastropod says...

This is entirely at odds with the straw polls which have been taken by the BFP. These indicate an opposition of around 92%.

Somebody, somewhere (and I have strong suspicions about where) has been telling porkies methinks.

At least it will give those who spend their time and effort bleating on about aircraft noise, something to really complain about!
This is entirely at odds with the straw polls which have been taken by the BFP. These indicate an opposition of around 92%. Somebody, somewhere (and I have strong suspicions about where) has been telling porkies methinks. At least it will give those who spend their time and effort bleating on about aircraft noise, something to really complain about! gastropod

12:21pm Fri 7 Jan 11

gpn01 says...

freeforall wrote:
In the interests of transparency and the democratic process the Council’s analysis of the returned questionnaires has to distinguish between those returns that were made from addresses within and those from outside the district. Those from outside the district should be disqualified. Any failure to do so would render the entire exercise as being meaningless
More fundamentally a poll should be conducted which prevents fake entries being made. Not difficult to put in a false entry with a local 'postcode' is it? This proposed expenditure affects ALL ratepayers in the Wycombe District and so they should ALL be allowed to vote.

Come along to the protest outside the Council offices on 17th January!
[quote][p][bold]freeforall[/bold] wrote: In the interests of transparency and the democratic process the Council’s analysis of the returned questionnaires has to distinguish between those returns that were made from addresses within and those from outside the district. Those from outside the district should be disqualified. Any failure to do so would render the entire exercise as being meaningless[/p][/quote]More fundamentally a poll should be conducted which prevents fake entries being made. Not difficult to put in a false entry with a local 'postcode' is it? This proposed expenditure affects ALL ratepayers in the Wycombe District and so they should ALL be allowed to vote. Come along to the protest outside the Council offices on 17th January! gpn01

12:36pm Fri 7 Jan 11

washondo says...

Steve Totteridge Hill wrote:
Free tickets for Lesley Clarke for Abu Dhabi???
Single?
[quote][p][bold]Steve Totteridge Hill[/bold] wrote: Free tickets for Lesley Clarke for Abu Dhabi???[/p][/quote]Single? washondo

12:52pm Fri 7 Jan 11

Agniesca says...

I would have voted for a large stadium to be constructed in East London for the Olympic Games as it meant that it wouldn't be near me! I would have prefered anything to a large stadium in my neighbourhood
I would have voted for a large stadium to be constructed in East London for the Olympic Games as it meant that it wouldn't be near me! I would have prefered anything to a large stadium in my neighbourhood Agniesca

1:49pm Fri 7 Jan 11

sai-diva says...

Got to laugh at the BFP for editing my 'statistics' quote which is attributed to local resident Benjamin Disraeli,is it towing the party line by censuring the voice of yet another local resident, much the same as our council.
I've seen far worse language, I would like to think that those who post on here are old enough not to be offended by the 'd' word.
Got to laugh at the BFP for editing my 'statistics' quote which is attributed to local resident Benjamin Disraeli,is it towing the party line by censuring the voice of yet another local resident, much the same as our council. I've seen far worse language, I would like to think that those who post on here are old enough not to be offended by the 'd' word. sai-diva

2:03pm Fri 7 Jan 11

washondo says...

It's fairly obvious that there has been some misunderstanding regarding the results of the Survey.
~
BFP asked "Do we need a new Stadium"? 92% said No.
~
Booker Common survey asked. "Do you want to protect your environment"? 88% said Yes
~
WDC survey asked. "Do you work for Steve Hayes"?
It's fairly obvious that there has been some misunderstanding regarding the results of the Survey. ~ BFP asked "Do we need a new Stadium"? 92% said No. ~ Booker Common survey asked. "Do you want to protect your environment"? 88% said Yes ~ WDC survey asked. "Do you work for Steve Hayes"? washondo

4:08pm Fri 7 Jan 11

purepurple says...

Strange that, seeing as I don't know anyone who wants a stadium complex at Booker!
Strange that, seeing as I don't know anyone who wants a stadium complex at Booker! purepurple

4:17pm Fri 7 Jan 11

totteridge resident says...

Isn't it funny how when a consultation gives a result people don't like they claim the consultation must be flawed. I am sure that if the result had been different people would be claiming how good the consultation was!

If people can be bothered to look at the full report they would see that 70% of both WDC residents and non residents supported the Booker option.
Isn't it funny how when a consultation gives a result people don't like they claim the consultation must be flawed. I am sure that if the result had been different people would be claiming how good the consultation was! If people can be bothered to look at the full report they would see that 70% of both WDC residents and non residents supported the Booker option. totteridge resident

4:38pm Fri 7 Jan 11

Ewartwhatyoubulldoze says...

totteridge resident wrote:
Isn't it funny how when a consultation gives a result people don't like they claim the consultation must be flawed. I am sure that if the result had been different people would be claiming how good the consultation was! If people can be bothered to look at the full report they would see that 70% of both WDC residents and non residents supported the Booker option.
No, not that funny really. And on previous form I wouldn't trust any outcome from a 'consultation' conducted by WDC, especially when WDC clearly has an interest in the outcome.
[quote][p][bold]totteridge resident[/bold] wrote: Isn't it funny how when a consultation gives a result people don't like they claim the consultation must be flawed. I am sure that if the result had been different people would be claiming how good the consultation was! If people can be bothered to look at the full report they would see that 70% of both WDC residents and non residents supported the Booker option.[/p][/quote]No, not that funny really. And on previous form I wouldn't trust any outcome from a 'consultation' conducted by WDC, especially when WDC clearly has an interest in the outcome. Ewartwhatyoubulldoze

4:50pm Fri 7 Jan 11

EGF says...

I seem to remember when filling out the survey, people were told to "choose option 2 - new community stadium" and "Booker Air Park" as preferred site. Nice free choice there.

And @totteridgeresident, if the polls beforehand had been close to this, maybe we wouldn't. But all other results on BFP had been 80%+ against the stadium.
I seem to remember when filling out the survey, people were told to "choose option 2 - new community stadium" and "Booker Air Park" as preferred site. Nice free choice there. And @totteridgeresident, if the polls beforehand had been close to this, maybe we wouldn't. But all other results on BFP had been 80%+ against the stadium. EGF

4:57pm Fri 7 Jan 11

sorrystate says...

The only peeps who should gert a say in this are Wyc council tax payers.

Its our land they sell to get the money to build the thing. So its our money. Why spend it on this project? Plenty of other things I can think to spend it on.

This idea they peddle that 'it costs tax payers nothing' makes my blood boil. No such thing as a free lunch
The only peeps who should gert a say in this are Wyc council tax payers. Its our land they sell to get the money to build the thing. So its our money. Why spend it on this project? Plenty of other things I can think to spend it on. This idea they peddle that 'it costs tax payers nothing' makes my blood boil. No such thing as a free lunch sorrystate

5:03pm Fri 7 Jan 11

sorrystate says...

totteridge resident wrote:
Isn't it funny how when a consultation gives a result people don't like they claim the consultation must be flawed. I am sure that if the result had been different people would be claiming how good the consultation was!

If people can be bothered to look at the full report they would see that 70% of both WDC residents and non residents supported the Booker option.
How did they fix the number of WDC residents?

Easy. Find out how many votes came from Bucks New Uni. Then you have the answer.
[quote][p][bold]totteridge resident[/bold] wrote: Isn't it funny how when a consultation gives a result people don't like they claim the consultation must be flawed. I am sure that if the result had been different people would be claiming how good the consultation was! If people can be bothered to look at the full report they would see that 70% of both WDC residents and non residents supported the Booker option.[/p][/quote]How did they fix the number of WDC residents? Easy. Find out how many votes came from Bucks New Uni. Then you have the answer. sorrystate

5:12pm Fri 7 Jan 11

cw1989 says...

Due to the poor response to the consultation with only 8,376 people replying I would declare these results null and void. This is especially the case as about half of the responses came from outside the district and pay no taxes to the council. Therefore if 4,150 people have replied from a district population, according to the census of 2001 of 92,300, then only about 4.5% of the residents of the district have taken an interest. Arguably it is the case then that only 3% of the population of the Wycombe district have voted in favour of Wycombe Air Park. For such a project to be undertaken I would expect a majority to be in favour, not just 3%.

Page 22 of the report outlines the replies in a table. Only about 4000 people replied from our district of 92,300. That adds up to 3% of the district in favour and 1.5% against. That is not a reliable result and should be dismissed.
Due to the poor response to the consultation with only 8,376 people replying I would declare these results null and void. This is especially the case as about half of the responses came from outside the district and pay no taxes to the council. Therefore if 4,150 people have replied from a district population, according to the census of 2001 of 92,300, then only about 4.5% of the residents of the district have taken an interest. Arguably it is the case then that only 3% of the population of the Wycombe district have voted in favour of Wycombe Air Park. For such a project to be undertaken I would expect a majority to be in favour, not just 3%. Page 22 of the report outlines the replies in a table. Only about 4000 people replied from our district of 92,300. That adds up to 3% of the district in favour and 1.5% against. That is not a reliable result and should be dismissed. cw1989

5:14pm Fri 7 Jan 11

cw1989 says...

To everyone saying the consultation is flawed I disagree, it is absolutely correct. However the reading from the council is wrong. Only 4.5% of the district replied. How can they undertake a huge spending plan on the knowledge such a small amount of people are interested in it.
To everyone saying the consultation is flawed I disagree, it is absolutely correct. However the reading from the council is wrong. Only 4.5% of the district replied. How can they undertake a huge spending plan on the knowledge such a small amount of people are interested in it. cw1989

5:23pm Fri 7 Jan 11

gungun says...

Flawed, a demonstration of a corrupt body using corrupted data. Its already been mentioned about how they discounted the swimming pool consultation. Evidence if ever needed that this is an in your pocket done deal. under 9,000 returns is low for the area, but then given how badly publicised this 6 week consultation was its hardly a shock.

I very much doubt the council will be interested in the Uni vote or the Wasps debarcle with Mr D mailing everyone to urge them to vote.

Maybe now the BFP will smell a rat and Mr Cohen will begin to enchant us with proper investigative Journalism.....Or Maybe we will have to do it for him!
Flawed, a demonstration of a corrupt body using corrupted data. Its already been mentioned about how they discounted the swimming pool consultation. Evidence if ever needed that this is an in your pocket done deal. under 9,000 returns is low for the area, but then given how badly publicised this 6 week consultation was its hardly a shock. I very much doubt the council will be interested in the Uni vote or the Wasps debarcle with Mr D mailing everyone to urge them to vote. Maybe now the BFP will smell a rat and Mr Cohen will begin to enchant us with proper investigative Journalism.....Or Maybe we will have to do it for him! gungun

5:28pm Fri 7 Jan 11

cw1989 says...

The return was under 5,000 as almost half came from outside the district. 3% of the district voted in favour of the stadium at Booker.
The return was under 5,000 as almost half came from outside the district. 3% of the district voted in favour of the stadium at Booker. cw1989

5:31pm Fri 7 Jan 11

sai-diva says...

Can some one please clarify a point for me, these results are only taken from written representations, not objections raised by e-mail? sorry if I appear a bit dense, but I would like to know that i wasn't being 'led up the garden path' by the council official that I wrote to, who assured me that my views would be 'taken into consideration'.
Can some one please clarify a point for me, these results are only taken from written representations, not objections raised by e-mail? sorry if I appear a bit dense, but I would like to know that i wasn't being 'led up the garden path' by the council official that I wrote to, who assured me that my views would be 'taken into consideration'. sai-diva

5:37pm Fri 7 Jan 11

gpn01 says...

The Council does not know how many of the respondents were local. All it can correctly say is that a local postcode was entered on the survey form. As they made no effort to check if this was done fraudulently or not then they cannot honestly assert that were ANY local responses.
The Council does not know how many of the respondents were local. All it can correctly say is that a local postcode was entered on the survey form. As they made no effort to check if this was done fraudulently or not then they cannot honestly assert that were ANY local responses. gpn01

5:41pm Fri 7 Jan 11

cw1989 says...

Sai-Diva, the consultation report 'stats' only include those filling in the form. However other responses are considered in the writings and findings within the report.
Sai-Diva, the consultation report 'stats' only include those filling in the form. However other responses are considered in the writings and findings within the report. cw1989

5:41pm Fri 7 Jan 11

cw1989 says...

Sai-Diva, the consultation report 'stats' only include those filling in the form. However other responses are considered in the writings and findings within the report.
Sai-Diva, the consultation report 'stats' only include those filling in the form. However other responses are considered in the writings and findings within the report. cw1989

6:55pm Fri 7 Jan 11

CBHYC says...

I'm a resident if Wycombe and not a rugby fan at all, but I think this is a good thing for the town. Despite many people disagreeing I suspect the silent majority are in favour of this project.
I'm a resident if Wycombe and not a rugby fan at all, but I think this is a good thing for the town. Despite many people disagreeing I suspect the silent majority are in favour of this project. CBHYC

6:56pm Fri 7 Jan 11

washondo says...

Every cloud.
~
Subsequent to the decision of Wasps (London) to play in Abu Dhabi, Lesley has been appointed to take the under8 wanderers soccer team to Quatar in anticipation of the 2022 World Cup where she hopes to be photographed with Sepp Blatter (burkha optional). A GOLD-framed copy will probably (possibly) be hung in someone's office.
~
Following her departure in May, Lesley hopes to go into Management Training.
"I shall miss the bullying, abuse and brow-beating, but the crown was getting a bit heavy", said Lesley.
~
I hope you will join with me in wishing Lesley a long
long trip and a long
long
retirement.
Every cloud. ~ Subsequent to the decision of Wasps (London) to play in Abu Dhabi, Lesley has been appointed to take the under8 wanderers soccer team to Quatar in anticipation of the 2022 World Cup where she hopes to be photographed with Sepp Blatter (burkha optional). A GOLD-framed copy will probably (possibly) be hung in someone's office. ~ Following her departure in May, Lesley hopes to go into Management Training. "I shall miss the bullying, abuse and brow-beating, but the crown was getting a bit heavy", said Lesley. ~ I hope you will join with me in wishing Lesley a long long trip and a long long retirement. washondo

8:12pm Fri 7 Jan 11

sai-diva says...

cw1989 wrote:
Sai-Diva, the consultation report 'stats' only include those filling in the form. However other responses are considered in the writings and findings within the report.
Thanks for that cw, so the figures quoted really are not representative of all opinions voiced, when do you think the council will give us all of the results.
Made an impressive, though completely inaccurate headline tho'.
[quote][p][bold]cw1989[/bold] wrote: Sai-Diva, the consultation report 'stats' only include those filling in the form. However other responses are considered in the writings and findings within the report.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that cw, so the figures quoted really are not representative of all opinions voiced, when do you think the council will give us all of the results. Made an impressive, though completely inaccurate headline tho'. sai-diva

8:38pm Fri 7 Jan 11

stevet123 says...

what can i say but more Tory sleeze and sleeze from outsiders, as all they want is to see there beloved Wasps

Give another access road into adams park and let them extend the stadium and let them stay put, as to much of all the council taxpayers has been wasted, plus there is the iceland bank that the council like too
what can i say but more Tory sleeze and sleeze from outsiders, as all they want is to see there beloved Wasps Give another access road into adams park and let them extend the stadium and let them stay put, as to much of all the council taxpayers has been wasted, plus there is the iceland bank that the council like too stevet123

4:58am Sat 8 Jan 11

wayneo says...

CBHYC wrote:
I'm a resident if Wycombe and not a rugby fan at all, but I think this is a good thing for the town. Despite many people disagreeing I suspect the silent majority are in favour of this project.
You pay for the bugger then. How do you quantify a 'silent majority'.
[quote][p][bold]CBHYC[/bold] wrote: I'm a resident if Wycombe and not a rugby fan at all, but I think this is a good thing for the town. Despite many people disagreeing I suspect the silent majority are in favour of this project.[/p][/quote]You pay for the bugger then. How do you quantify a 'silent majority'. wayneo

12:36pm Sat 8 Jan 11

Maxer says...

Unfortunately, it seems that WDC is confusing 'the public' with 'the electorate' in interpreting the results.
~
Just to clarify WDC, 'the electorate' are the people that vote you in (and out) and pay council tax.
~
I particularly enjoyed Lesley Clarke's comments, though:
~
“The big picture which has been revealed shows that the project COULD give the local economy a significant boost, raise the profile of the district and encourage wider participation in sports."
~
Interesting choice of word: 'could', not 'will'...
~
“We are taking seriously issues raised about infrastructure and the environment and they will be looked at very carefully at every stage of the planning process.”
~
What about the issue of financing? Or has that been magically solved?
~
Oh, and I'm still not sure whether WDC took into account the electronically-submi
tted responses or not. Let's hope someone didn't hit the Delete key by mistake.
Unfortunately, it seems that WDC is confusing 'the public' with 'the electorate' in interpreting the results. ~ Just to clarify WDC, 'the electorate' are the people that vote you in (and out) and pay council tax. ~ I particularly enjoyed Lesley Clarke's comments, though: ~ “The big picture which has been revealed shows that the project COULD give the local economy a significant boost, raise the profile of the district and encourage wider participation in sports." ~ Interesting choice of word: 'could', not 'will'... ~ “We are taking seriously issues raised about infrastructure and the environment and they will be looked at very carefully at every stage of the planning process.” ~ What about the issue of financing? Or has that been magically solved? ~ Oh, and I'm still not sure whether WDC took into account the electronically-submi tted responses or not. Let's hope someone didn't hit the Delete key by mistake. Maxer

2:17pm Sun 9 Jan 11

BOGITS says...

Consultation results are a laugh! We all know the corrupt side of the council lot, this time you will be found out and lets get the Police involved to do some digging on a frauldulaent basis. No one wants this Stadium and as for a Wycombe resident stating it will be good for the town, it's miles from the town!!! Nice to see Wasps are playing in the middle east perhaps they could stay there and build a Stadium and take WW with them that would solve the problem!!!
Consultation results are a laugh! We all know the corrupt side of the council lot, this time you will be found out and lets get the Police involved to do some digging on a frauldulaent basis. No one wants this Stadium and as for a Wycombe resident stating it will be good for the town, it's miles from the town!!! Nice to see Wasps are playing in the middle east perhaps they could stay there and build a Stadium and take WW with them that would solve the problem!!! BOGITS

12:22pm Tue 11 Jan 11

CBHYC says...

wayneo wrote:
CBHYC wrote: I'm a resident if Wycombe and not a rugby fan at all, but I think this is a good thing for the town. Despite many people disagreeing I suspect the silent majority are in favour of this project.
You pay for the bugger then. How do you quantify a 'silent majority'.
I think the phrase silent majority speaks for itself, Wycombe will be a better place for having the stadium.
[quote][p][bold]wayneo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CBHYC[/bold] wrote: I'm a resident if Wycombe and not a rugby fan at all, but I think this is a good thing for the town. Despite many people disagreeing I suspect the silent majority are in favour of this project.[/p][/quote]You pay for the bugger then. How do you quantify a 'silent majority'.[/p][/quote]I think the phrase silent majority speaks for itself, Wycombe will be a better place for having the stadium. CBHYC

10:09pm Tue 11 Jan 11

wayneo says...

CBHYC wrote:
wayneo wrote:
CBHYC wrote: I'm a resident if Wycombe and not a rugby fan at all, but I think this is a good thing for the town. Despite many people disagreeing I suspect the silent majority are in favour of this project.
You pay for the bugger then. How do you quantify a 'silent majority'.
I think the phrase silent majority speaks for itself, Wycombe will be a better place for having the stadium.
The "silent majority", please tell me how you quanitify the 'silent majority'? Would it be at elections where the "silent majority' don't bother to vote, thereby leaving the rest of us to fester with a Government that minority has voted for? Please tell me exactly where your so-called silent majority comes from for I will paint you a very different picture and you really will look quite stupid.
[quote][p][bold]CBHYC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wayneo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CBHYC[/bold] wrote: I'm a resident if Wycombe and not a rugby fan at all, but I think this is a good thing for the town. Despite many people disagreeing I suspect the silent majority are in favour of this project.[/p][/quote]You pay for the bugger then. How do you quantify a 'silent majority'.[/p][/quote]I think the phrase silent majority speaks for itself, Wycombe will be a better place for having the stadium.[/p][/quote]The "silent majority", please tell me how you quanitify the 'silent majority'? Would it be at elections where the "silent majority' don't bother to vote, thereby leaving the rest of us to fester with a Government that minority has voted for? Please tell me exactly where your so-called silent majority comes from for I will paint you a very different picture and you really will look quite stupid. wayneo

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree