Updated: 'Community stadium not needed', readers say in poll (From Bucks Free Press)

Updated: 'Community stadium not needed', readers say in poll

7:06pm Wednesday 10th November 2010 in Sport By James Nadal

The clubs' current ground - Adams Park

Story updated Thursday at 2.10pm.

A NEW community stadium is not needed in the Wycombe area, readers have overwhelmingly voted in a poll.

The record breaking response to a Bucks Free Press ballot showed 87 per cent against.

Thirteen per cent voted in favour.

4,799 votes were registered – significantly more than any previous poll.

The highest previously came in a poll asking readers their voting intentions before the General Election – 3,732.

But Wycombe Sports Developments Ltd today reacted angrily to the poll, saying the result was 'ridiculous' because multiple voting could not be controlled on internet ballots.

Message board users had 'skewed' the vote, it said.

More in depth statistical examination of the votes today shows there were 402 'distinct browsers' voting yes and 1,312 'distinct browsers' for no.

This gives a closer figure to the number of individuals who voted.

If these figures were used instead, nearly 77 per cent say 'no', a new community stadium is not needed, as opposed to just over 23 per cent that said 'yes' it is.

The ability to register more than one vote depends on a number of technical issues, including what computer operating system and internet browser are being used.

Related links

Multiple votes occurred for answering both yes and no.

Mike Brooks, Chief Executive of Wycombe Sports Developments Ltd said: “We do not believe this survey is in any way a reliable indication of the views of local people.

“With such internet polls there is no control on multiple voting by a single person and we know for example that those people opposed to the plans have been using message boards encouraging people to vote "no" multiple times and skew the vote.

“We did no such activities and we also note that the early days of the poll showed an even split.

“The only proper forum for assessing true and credible public opinion is the Council run consultation process and we await the results of this.

“The benefits of the Sports Village for the whole of Wycombe are absolutely clear and we have been inundated with support.

“Quite apart from allowing both clubs to remain and thrive in Wycombe, it would bring new jobs and investment and provide first class sports facilities for everyone to use.

“To suggest that 87 per cent of people oppose this is simply ridiculous.”

Wycombe District Council, which has pledged cash for a feasibility study, has asked the public's views in a consultation, which has now ended.

Wycombe Wanderers and Wasps have already announced Wycombe Air Park, Booker, Great Marlow, is where they want the new ground to be.

Wycombe District Councillor Darren Hayday, Conservative, is quitting because of his anger over the proposed stadium.

He does not believe taxpayers money should be spent on the project.

Reacting to the poll, he said: “This reiterates what I have said all along that this has already gone too far and it shows people power.

“People don't want the stadium and I hope the powers that be look at this carefully.”

Wycombe District Council did not say whether it would take the result into account alongside the findings of its consultation.

It released this statement: “We know from the consultation we have just completed that there is a lot of local interest in the community stadium and sports project and a great many people have made their views known to us.

“We are very pleased that local people are finding out about the project, making informed choices and telling us their views.

“We have had our best ever response to the recent consultation we ran as king local people for their detailed comments about the stadium.

“With over 8,500 responses received during the consultation, we now have a wealth of information and specific feedback from local people.”

Comments(33)

wayneo says...
7:17pm Wed 10 Nov 10

http://www.facebook.
com/group.php?gid=16
3959270285614

Report this post »

hondo says...
7:42pm Wed 10 Nov 10

Astonishing statement from WDC.
~
Just what part of NO don't they understand?
~
Still I am impressed by the stoicism of those who are opposed to this flagrant stupidity, what with their low profile notices in Lane End, leafleting at Adams Park and letters to the local press, not to mention the persistence of wayneo.
~
In France, barricades would be built. Italy would have another change of government (but with the same leader; as in WDC). In Australia, despite their propensity to play football with their hands, a national strike would be called.
~
The best we appear to be able to produce is a "BUZZ OFF WASPS" poster. I suspect Aussies would substitute a more expletive though less expressive four letter word.
~
Pull the plug before any more of the ratepayers' money is spent, and which those responsible will be unable to re-imburse; one way or another.

Report this post »

stevfire2 says...
7:46pm Wed 10 Nov 10

Has the message sunk in yet, WDC?. Listen to the people. (otherwise known as the ELECTORATE)!

Report this post »

Steve Totteridge Hill says...
8:48pm Wed 10 Nov 10

WDC your public has spoken

Report this post »

jxm says...
8:59pm Wed 10 Nov 10

Hondo, if you are tired of writing comments on news articles you are welcome to come and help with the leaflets and posters, which are an attempt to keep the issue in the news and energise the people of Wycombe to protest. And they seem to be having some sort of effect, they are being uprooted and damaged, presumably by supporters of the plan who wish to suppress dissent.

Report this post »

BigTommy says...
9:29pm Wed 10 Nov 10

The multimillinaire Steve Hayes neglects to mention the benefit that he personally will get from the project.
~
I am surprised that Hayes didn't manage to get more of his friends from out of the area to take part in the vote.
~
Many of the comments presented to the council have been from people from outside Wycombe. The council need to remember that.

Report this post »

ivor says...
9:33pm Wed 10 Nov 10

The people of Wycombe do not want a new stadium.
~
It's time for WDC to accept they have misjudged public opinion and stop the whole scheme before even more money is wasted.
~
Give us decent services and not an unwanted and unnecessary stadium!
~
Have you read Ivor’s blog today? Click on the “BLOGS” link at the top of the page.

Report this post »

zwizz says...
10:14pm Wed 10 Nov 10

WDC comments above include this paragraph: “With over 8,500 responses received during the consultation, we now have a wealth of information and specific feedback from local people.”

How can they possibly claim their feedback is from LOCAL people when no address details were needed for the consultation, and BFP have also reported the clubs circulating requests to members asking them to complete the consultation and providing helpful guidance for their answers?
This is looking more and more like a sham.
These proposals should be withdrawn immediately, before they become an even bigger burden on the council taxpayers of WDC.

Report this post »

totteridge resident says...
10:37pm Wed 10 Nov 10

zwizz wrote:
WDC comments above include this paragraph: “With over 8,500 responses received during the consultation, we now have a wealth of information and specific feedback from local people.”

How can they possibly claim their feedback is from LOCAL people when no address details were needed for the consultation, and BFP have also reported the clubs circulating requests to members asking them to complete the consultation and providing helpful guidance for their answers?
This is looking more and more like a sham.
These proposals should be withdrawn immediately, before they become an even bigger burden on the council taxpayers of WDC.

There were no address details required on the BFP poll and no restriction on how often you voted so I hope you are not suggesting the BFP poll is more accurate!

Report this post »

wayneo says...
11:25pm Wed 10 Nov 10

totteridge resident wrote:

zwizz wrote: WDC comments above include this paragraph: “With over 8,500 responses received during the consultation, we now have a wealth of information and specific feedback from local people.” How can they possibly claim their feedback is from LOCAL people when no address details were needed for the consultation, and BFP have also reported the clubs circulating requests to members asking them to complete the consultation and providing helpful guidance for their answers? This is looking more and more like a sham. These proposals should be withdrawn immediately, before they become an even bigger burden on the council taxpayers of WDC.
There were no address details required on the BFP poll and no restriction on how often you voted so I hope you are not suggesting the BFP poll is more accurate!

I voted only once for myself,despite one having to release their ip address, deleting cookies or using other computers, the results are Indicative but not accurate, however 87% is quite a high result, nearly 5000 responses is a considerable achievement for a local paper. Only a referendum would be accurate and reflective and i'm sure that will be next.

Report this post »

ferrellcat says...
12:30am Thu 11 Nov 10

I dont give a monkey about the new stadium, as I did not about Eden I do However give a monkey about Wycombe Wanderers. The blah blah about all this is missing a history of a great club.Hayes has no idea of it WDC has no idea of it.You need to stand on a wet cold night in Grimbsy with a long journey home having lost to appreciate the soul of football.WWFC are being ignored in this conversation and it is astonishing that the powers that be can rail road them into something that has never happened.When what they have done for this town has happened.KEEP WWFC AT ADAMS PARK ITS THERE HOME AND THE HOME OF THIS TOWN!

Report this post »

BigTommy says...
8:03am Thu 11 Nov 10

There are so many public projects being touted around at the moment which need to be paid for by the private sector. This is because the private sector will benefit to a large degree. Why should this one be any different?
~
We seem to be using public money to pay for a stadium that will benefit the private sector more than anyone else.
~
This whole scheme, wherever it is built, smacks of someone in the private sector using his friendships with public officials and veiled threats about the demise of the area if he doesn't get his way, in order to raid the public purse for his own benefit.
~
The "community" bit is just tagged on to make it seem justifiable.
~
Yes, it would be good to have wonderful, public amenities for everyone. However, in the current climate the council has to be seen to be spending OUR money wisely. Despite what the multimillionaire Steve Hayes says, it will take years and years of Wasps/WW rent payments to make even a small dent in the cost of construction.
~
Why should the Council Tax payers of Wycombe support Mr Hayes' ailing sports clubs? They have intentionally been put heavily in debt (mostly to Mr Hayes himself).
~
The fact that the multimillionaire Steve Hayes is threatening the area with decline if he doesn't get what he wants speaks volumes for the man's integrity.
~
Remember, this has ALWAYS been his intention. Move from Loftus Road in London. buy into WW, loan them money, put them in even more debt that they were in already, buy out WW claiming to be the club's saviour (which too many people fell for), then start on plans for a new publicly funded stadium for which he does not have to pay a penny. (Ok, a few hundred thousand as a "gesture" to help the consultation process - or maybe to help "influence" the consultation process.)
~
Still to be sorted, the sale of Adams Park so Mr Hayes can recoup his "loans". At the end of it all Hayes will have access to a brand new stadium and will have recouped all or part of his money. Wycombe Wanderers will then be kicked into touch (to use the rugby analogy) and Hayes' plan is complete.

There are so many public projects being touted around at the moment which need to be paid for by the private sector. This is because the private sector will benefit to a large degree. Why should this one be any different? ~ We seem to be using public money to pay for a stadium that will benefit the private sector more than anyone else. ~ This whole scheme, wherever it is built, smacks of someone in the private sector using his friendships with public officials and veiled threats about the demise of the area if he doesn't get his way, in order to raid the public purse for his own benefit. ~ The "community" bit is just tagged on to make it seem justifiable. ~ Yes, it would be good to have wonderful, public amenities for everyone. However, in the current climate the council has to be seen to be spending OUR money wisely. Despite what the multimillionaire Steve Hayes says, it will take years and years of Wasps/WW rent payments to make even a small dent in the cost of construction. ~ Why should the Council Tax payers of Wycombe support Mr Hayes' ailing sports clubs? They have intentionally been put heavily in debt (mostly to Mr Hayes himself). ~ The fact that the multimillionaire Steve Hayes is threatening the area with decline if he doesn't get what he wants speaks volumes for the man's integrity. ~ Remember, this has ALWAYS been his intention. Move from Loftus Road in London. buy into WW, loan them money, put them in even more debt that they were in already, buy out WW claiming to be the club's saviour (which too many people fell for), then start on plans for a new publicly funded stadium for which he does not have to pay a penny. (Ok, a few hundred thousand as a "gesture" to help the consultation process - or maybe to help "influence" the consultation process.) ~ Still to be sorted, the sale of Adams Park so Mr Hayes can recoup his "loans". At the end of it all Hayes will have access to a brand new stadium and will have recouped all or part of his money. Wycombe Wanderers will then be kicked into touch (to use the rugby analogy) and Hayes' plan is complete. BigTommy

Report this post »

danb21t says...
8:25am Thu 11 Nov 10

Wasps are like cancer, they come in, spread their disease, consume local resources and then move on to the next area.

Report this post »

Phredd says...
8:30am Thu 11 Nov 10

BigTommy,
-
If you intend to make well reasoned arguements about something don't make incorrect statements as these will be picked-on and any real facts will then be ignored.
.
Wasps moved from Loftus Road when Hayes had no involvement with them (they were owned by Chris Wright, the owner of Chrysalis Records, then.) Hayes didn't get involved with Wasps until about 3 or 4 years ago.
.
However like you I do believe he sees this as a money-raising scheme.
.
Before you then accuse me of being an apologist for him, I am a Wasps Season Ticket holder and am 100% against against this , so-called, "Community" Stadium.
.
I have stated on many times before on other threads about the stadium that I believe the Cuoncil would be better-off spending that £750k on helping real amateur community sports clubs in the communities they operate in - and that isn't confined to football and rugby.
.
Hayes would be better-off improving Adams Park. If the Council want to help him increase capacity they could helpby facilitating (not paying for) transport/road improvements in the approaches to Adams Park.

Report this post »

nellyfire says...
9:03am Thu 11 Nov 10

i can see both sides, i go to the football every week and 5000 people in a 20000 stadium would mean we would be rattling around .
wasps need it to continue to grow and in time the football club would.
my fear is if we do not move then mr hayes will move the rugby else were or transfer the stadium to wasps make the football club pay rent! put the rent up and force the football club out!

Report this post »

wayneo says...
9:10am Thu 11 Nov 10

nellyfire wrote:
i can see both sides, i go to the football every week and 5000 people in a 20000 stadium would mean we would be rattling around . wasps need it to continue to grow and in time the football club would. my fear is if we do not move then mr hayes will move the rugby else were or transfer the stadium to wasps make the football club pay rent! put the rent up and force the football club out!

I don't think he could afford to Nellyfire, nearly every week we keep getting threatened by Mr Hayes that the clubs will go if he doesn't get his way, similiar threats were used when the supporters were brow beaten into giving up their shares of WWFC, the trouble with being threatened, is that people get fedup with it and say that "enough is enough".

Report this post »

Stranded Pilot says...
9:28am Thu 11 Nov 10

Big Tommy says 'it will take years and years of Wasps/WW rent payments to make even a small dent in the cost of construction'. I think he is being optimistic.

I would not be surprised to find that whatever rent WDC expect Hayes to pay for the stadium will be 'capitalised' in order to raise funds to build it. I doubt there will ever be a pay back on the stadium. Certainly not if Hayes' financial plans fail and he pulls out / goes broke.

Report this post »

Keith Francis says...
10:10am Thu 11 Nov 10

totteridge resident wrote:

zwizz wrote: WDC comments above include this paragraph: “With over 8,500 responses received during the consultation, we now have a wealth of information and specific feedback from local people.” How can they possibly claim their feedback is from LOCAL people when no address details were needed for the consultation, and BFP have also reported the clubs circulating requests to members asking them to complete the consultation and providing helpful guidance for their answers? This is looking more and more like a sham. These proposals should be withdrawn immediately, before they become an even bigger burden on the council taxpayers of WDC.
There were no address details required on the BFP poll and no restriction on how often you voted so I hope you are not suggesting the BFP poll is more accurate!

I would not put too much faith on the WDC responses. It has been stated here many times how the whole exercise has resulted in corrupted data. For example, officials at Wasp games distributing the response form to fans and directing them how to compete them. A high number of fans were outside this area. The two club officials, their suppliers, and Hayes’s suppliers and friends, who again mostly came from outside the area, attending the two forums to directly influence its outcome has corrupted this data as well.

Even if the Council remove respondees not living in the area they cannot filter out the impact of Hayes supporters distorting the forum findings. They could of course ignore the data from the forums, but then the benchmark to sense check the response data is lost. Even if they ignore the corrupted forum data, and filter out all outside respondees in the responses, there is still the problem of Steve Hayes’s people in the town on the last two days of the consultation period approaching people and asking those for the stadium to complete the response form and helping them do so. This is fine as long as they equally persuaded those against the stadium to fill out the form and help them in the same way. Of course this did not happen the ‘against’ were just ignored. This is partly why there were such a high number of responses coming in at the very end of the period. The data on the whole WDC consultation exercise has been corrupted.

The last time this positive lobbying of residents took place the council rightly said the data was corrupt and ignored it, but then of course doing so supported their agenda. Even so a president has been set.
Which is why increasingly witnesses of these shenanigans and attempts to overrode a democratic process are coming forward to us every day as the realization of what they observed is sinking-in.

So you cannot hold the WDC survey as any better than the BFP, in fact considering the above I suggest it is the lesser. The WDC survey may have addresses, but who is going to check all 8,000 of them.? Who is going to check for similar hand writing, or the same statements? Nobody is going to check because it will take too long and be far too expensive.

The BFP survey on the other hand would only accept one vote from one computer, where this may not have been the case, as said by another posting, URL addresses are recorded and can be checked very easily and at no real cost. Because these addresses are set by each respondee’s computer and is therefore more secure than relying on people giving their address.
Totteridge resident, I suggest another reason why this BFP should be considered seriously is that it took place a while after the consultation period ended when many more people become aware of the project. It is important to keep in mind that WDC’s communication of the consultation period was very poor and we believe the six weeks it was gave is well short of the governments recommended minimum of twelve weeks. Many people in Marlow for example are just becoming aware of the proposed stadium, and by the way so too are many in Booker.

So in balance. yes I do suggest the BFP poll is more accurate of local opinion than the WDC consultation. Especially when you consider the difference of 87% to 13%, that is significant.

[quote][p][bold]totteridge resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]zwizz[/bold] wrote: WDC comments above include this paragraph: “With over 8,500 responses received during the consultation, we now have a wealth of information and specific feedback from local people.” How can they possibly claim their feedback is from LOCAL people when no address details were needed for the consultation, and BFP have also reported the clubs circulating requests to members asking them to complete the consultation and providing helpful guidance for their answers? This is looking more and more like a sham. These proposals should be withdrawn immediately, before they become an even bigger burden on the council taxpayers of WDC.[/p][/quote]There were no address details required on the BFP poll and no restriction on how often you voted so I hope you are not suggesting the BFP poll is more accurate![/p][/quote]I would not put too much faith on the WDC responses. It has been stated here many times how the whole exercise has resulted in corrupted data. For example, officials at Wasp games distributing the response form to fans and directing them how to compete them. A high number of fans were outside this area. The two club officials, their suppliers, and Hayes’s suppliers and friends, who again mostly came from outside the area, attending the two forums to directly influence its outcome has corrupted this data as well. Even if the Council remove respondees not living in the area they cannot filter out the impact of Hayes supporters distorting the forum findings. They could of course ignore the data from the forums, but then the benchmark to sense check the response data is lost. Even if they ignore the corrupted forum data, and filter out all outside respondees in the responses, there is still the problem of Steve Hayes’s people in the town on the last two days of the consultation period approaching people and asking those for the stadium to complete the response form and helping them do so. This is fine as long as they equally persuaded those against the stadium to fill out the form and help them in the same way. Of course this did not happen the ‘against’ were just ignored. This is partly why there were such a high number of responses coming in at the very end of the period. The data on the whole WDC consultation exercise has been corrupted. The last time this positive lobbying of residents took place the council rightly said the data was corrupt and ignored it, but then of course doing so supported their agenda. Even so a president has been set. Which is why increasingly witnesses of these shenanigans and attempts to overrode a democratic process are coming forward to us every day as the realization of what they observed is sinking-in. So you cannot hold the WDC survey as any better than the BFP, in fact considering the above I suggest it is the lesser. The WDC survey may have addresses, but who is going to check all 8,000 of them.? Who is going to check for similar hand writing, or the same statements? Nobody is going to check because it will take too long and be far too expensive. The BFP survey on the other hand would only accept one vote from one computer, where this may not have been the case, as said by another posting, URL addresses are recorded and can be checked very easily and at no real cost. Because these addresses are set by each respondee’s computer and is therefore more secure than relying on people giving their address. Totteridge resident, I suggest another reason why this BFP should be considered seriously is that it took place a while after the consultation period ended when many more people become aware of the project. It is important to keep in mind that WDC’s communication of the consultation period was very poor and we believe the six weeks it was gave is well short of the governments recommended minimum of twelve weeks. Many people in Marlow for example are just becoming aware of the proposed stadium, and by the way so too are many in Booker. So in balance. yes I do suggest the BFP poll is more accurate of local opinion than the WDC consultation. Especially when you consider the difference of 87% to 13%, that is significant. Keith Francis

Report this post »

hondo says...
11:04am Thu 11 Nov 10

Thank you for your gracious offer. I do appreciate the effort that many of you are making to publicise this assault on the ratepayers' wallets but this sword is rusty and even the pen a little blunt.
~
Unfortunately those vandalising your efforts may even be WWFC supporters who have failed to grasp that it's not about sport at all, but all about developers making a final desperate assault on Green Belt using the fifth column in WDC, naive councillors as storm troopers and bona fide sportsmen and supporters as canon fodder.
~
Currently there are few other methods of accumulating money apart from using someone elses.
~
Ask any banker.

Report this post »

BOGITS says...
11:11am Thu 11 Nov 10

As we are supposibly a democratic society and have freedom of speech the Council Tax payer has spoken. "No Stadium". Perhaps we as a society start from where it seems the WDC have left off or forgotten about. WDC should start looking after the needs of our public, ie public services such as hospitals, transport, housing etc not pandering up to a Football Stadium and a henchman who seems to have our voted in councillors in his pocket! I didnt pay my council tax to fund his ambitions and to suck the council tax payer of its hard earnings. I cant wait till the next local elections because as far as I'm concerned they are all out of a cushy job. Perhaps IF Steve Hayes wants a Community Stadium he should at least do something for the Community. I havent seen a single thing within the community with a Hayes name on it? I remember when somebody who was held in high esteem in our community was someone who had been around for years doing all manner of things to better our area. Hayes has been here for a short while and wont be around for long either once he has his grubby little mitts on our money. Bloodsucker Hayes go elsewhere ! Dont want you or your paid off brown envelope friends. Thames Valley Police should start to investigate this potential fraudulent development. Its not looking too good and I smell a Rat! so does a lot more people

Report this post »

maxy11 says...
1:26pm Thu 11 Nov 10

I agree the whole stinks of backhanders.

Report this post »

Lane-ender says...
4:02pm Thu 11 Nov 10

easiest way of knowing who votes yes and no is for WDC to mail a form to every house in the district with a simple --
" stadium Yes / no " and delete as applicable.
once those have been sent back with the name / address of the individual who has voted. then count them all up and bingo, you will see that 70%-ish of people in the wycombe district DO NOT WANT A STADIUM IN BOOKER.

A simple way to find out once and for all, it would'nt cost too much and in the bigger picture would save WDC millions of pounds on a massive white elephant.
just develop the ground now and put an access road through to bullocks farm road onto west wycombe road.

Report this post »

Stranded Pilot says...
4:02pm Thu 11 Nov 10

Quite a thing to see Mike Brooks stamp his little feet and cry foul!

Oh, mummy...they want to stop me getting the money.

Yes we do, Mike. Please go away.

Report this post »

wayneo says...
4:30pm Thu 11 Nov 10

REFERENDUM

Report this post »

wayneo says...
4:35pm Thu 11 Nov 10

“The only proper forum for assessing true and credible public opinion is the Council run consultation process and we await the results of this. "
!
!
!
!
Please tell me you're joking?

Report this post »

wayneo says...
4:46pm Thu 11 Nov 10

Let's have a look at WSDL and skewing shall we Mr Brooks?????
!
!
!
!WSDL Consultation guide:

"This link will take you directly to the Council's online consultation pages where you can make your views easily known. Please join us and back Booker now by:

Clicking here to go to the Council's consultation and information pages

You will then be taken through a series of five questions:
on Question 2, select option D 'sports village'.
When you go to Question 4, select the option for Wycombe Air Park. "

Foot-mouth

Report this post »

ChilternsBlue says...
6:31pm Thu 11 Nov 10

Ironic that Brooks complains about message boards skewing results over only a few days. WSDL have been trying to skew the results of the public consultation for months.

Personally I'm happy with the revised figure of 77% of unique voters being against the stadium.

Maybe Mr Brooks is just annoyed that he didn't have time to get Lawrence Dallaglio to send out another message to everyone in his address book with specific instructions on how to vote in this poll?

Report this post »

swearmeister says...
7:28pm Thu 11 Nov 10

Of course it is skewed. 13% voted YES.
How unrealistic does it need to be ?

Report this post »

gpn01 says...
11:48pm Thu 11 Nov 10

So, the Chief Exec of WSD Ltd says “The only proper forum for assessing true and credible public opinion is the Council run consultation process and we await the results of this. "

That's completely untrue. The only proper forum is to insist that all ratepayers are issued with voting papers and that a proper poll/survey is conducted with the same rigour as that of a local election. The survey should also be devised by an independent organisation to ensure that it doesn't contain the evident built-in bias of the WDC community "Consultation". Most importantly it should include a DO NOTHING option, whereby ratepayers would have the option of not being forced to spend ANY council funds to subside the private, loss-making, businesses.

Have you read some of the other background at http://www.facebook.
com/?ref=home#!/grou
p.php?gid=1639592702
85614 yet?

Report this post »

Save Wycombe says...
9:33am Fri 12 Nov 10

I wonder if people will remember this next May, when they get a vote which (a) is only open to Wycombe residents and (b) is very hard to skew?

Report this post »

gungun says...
3:38pm Fri 12 Nov 10

I quite Agree - However when pushed on this Cllr Jean Teasdale said that WDC had considered this but as it would have to be held on the same day as the national referendum on Proportional Representation it might cause confusion to us poor little confused Bucks people when faced with having to put a cross in two boxes on the same day - Who says that WDC don't care for us!

Password - Your Seat! I wonder how many members of WDC will be hear those words in the build up to May

Report this post »

gpn01 says...
1:27pm Wed 17 Nov 10

gungun wrote:
I quite Agree - However when pushed on this Cllr Jean Teasdale said that WDC had considered this but as it would have to be held on the same day as the national referendum on Proportional Representation it might cause confusion to us poor little confused Bucks people when faced with having to put a cross in two boxes on the same day - Who says that WDC don't care for us! Password - Your Seat! I wonder how many members of WDC will be hear those words in the build up to May

"Do you want WDC to sell off Council assets to pay for a Rugby & Football stadium that the Rugby & Football Clubs are themselves unwilling and unable to pay for - YES or NO?" doesn't seem that confusing to me.

Report this post »

wayneo says...
4:15pm Wed 17 Nov 10

Perphaps it has something to do with the fact that real public opinion, that which can't be manipulated, scares the hell out of the Cabinet. I think we need to turn up the volume and ramp this up.

Report this post »

click2find

@BucksFreePress

Bucks Free Press

Updated: 'Community stadium not needed', readers say in poll (From Bucks Free Press)

Sport RSS Feed