Master Plan to regenerate the town How could anyone vote against it..........

Started by mk1, May 22, 2012, 10: PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

From a distance

It is too early for anything to be set in stone but the partners involved have put a reasonably detailed proposal to the council. The next step would be for the council to agree that, providing all is as it seems at this stage, they agree. Then a lot more work would have to take place adding the level of detail that would be needed for any provisional agreement to become a full agreement. I was assuming that anything voted on in the near future would be to empower council officers and the developers  to proceed with further work on the scheme but would also include a get out clause in case of any serious problems emerging. A yes with no protection or guarantees built in would of course be ridiculous.

marky

I'd like to see it go ahead but it would have to be on a sound basis. Some of the rhetoric surrounding this subject really isn't helping matters and it's interesting that we're now being told that the transfer of the ground to IOR is only a small part of the scheme - you don't have to step back in time many weeks to see that at the time it was all people were interested in. A change of tactics perhaps or maybe reality has finally stepped in.
Does anyone know the URL of IOR's website - buggered if I can find it?

mk1

The Pool's supporters do not care in the least about anything other than getting the ground.
If you read the threads on The Bunker you will see warnings where the more 'excitable' members were told to push the regeneration bits  and tone down the 'football' side of the development.

no6bus

Quote from: mk1 on June 07, 2012, 03: PM
The Pool's supporters do not care in the least about anything other than getting the ground.
If you read the threads on The Bunker you will see warnings where the more 'excitable' members were told to push the regeneration bits  and tone down the 'football' side of the development.


in your opinion.

whereas some of us are actually hoping this scheme goes ahead, i for 1 would rather see a revamped odeon than the run down site it is today.

so are you in favour of the proposed plans ?

marky

Given some of the things that have been said about HTH on the bunker and about the posters on this forum, I'm surprised admin has allowed this thread to continue - or perhaps not - I guess it says much about the differences between the two forums.
I have a feeling that if these plans do go ahead then it will be inspite of the 2-dimensional rantings on the bunker and not because of them.

marky

When 'the plans' for Naviagtion Point were first announced there was to be a Tall Ships Exhibition Centre, a Hotel, a Garden Centre and a row of high class cafe-culure restaurants. We ended up with 100 pigeon-loft flats, a builders yard, a fish and chip shop, a newsagents, a smattering of half-decent restaurants and the relocation of the Church Street wine-bar binge drinkers.
All we have at the moment is a half-baked wish list for Mill house - when we have some proper plans I'll let you know. 

From a distance

I think you should bear in mind that The Bunker is basically a forum where the sort of humour you might hear in a pub with your mates is expected. People on there exaggerate and rant for comic effect. The fact that they got a Mayor elected and got a single into the charts should give you a clue that they aren't thick and that they have a decent range of skills at their disposal. The action group is putting some of those skills to use and I think they'll probably run a good campaign that won't include any daft rants which would allow politically adept opponents to sidetrack the debate. What you've noticed is a shift between online individuals expressing a bit of outrage to a proper single issue campaign. If I was part of the Labour Group I'd be thinking very carefully about whether rejecting the plan before it is even fully discussed was a foolish course of action.

As far as Navigation Point is concerned it hasn't turned out well but it is still better than derelict docks. The council would be sensible to ensure that they have a watertight agreement but scuppering the scheme just to be on the safe side makes no sense at all.

no6bus

Quote from: marky on June 07, 2012, 04: PM
Given some of the things that have been said about HTH on the bunker and about the posters on this forum, I'm surprised admin has allowed this thread to continue - or perhaps not - I guess it says much about the differences between the two forums.
I have a feeling that if these plans do go ahead then it will be inspite of the 2-dimensional rantings on the bunker and not because of them.

oh the irony of that post.
of course nothing has been posted on here that could be construed as anti bunker  ::)
why shouldnt the debate be allowed to continue any bickering is between the usual hth members
and accusing the bunker of 2 dimensional rantings when members are banned from this forum on a more regular basis than since the bunker started is priceless.
thank you you have brightened up an otherwise boring day, no cricket due to rain , no holiday this week because tesco havent been paying my wife her full £12.50 per hour wages and no olympics for another 50 days, i hope someone is going down to count the crowds in london we dont want another tall ships fiasco  ;D

Inspector Knacker

Quote from: marky on June 07, 2012, 04: PM
Given some of the things that have been said about HTH on the bunker and about the posters on this forum, I'm surprised admin has allowed this thread to continue - or perhaps not - I guess it says much about the differences between the two forums.
I have a feeling that if these plans do go ahead then it will be inspite of the 2-dimensional rantings on the bunker and not because of them.
The opinions of a knot of posters on the Bunker are hardly representative of the typical Pools supporter, I'm sick to death of people assuming because a minute group of posters like to express their views, all fans are tarred with the same brush.
What can be asserted without proof,
can be dismissed without proof.

Inspector Knacker

A thought's just occured, if this is rejected, this could do more harm to the Labour Party locally than they bargained for .... one thing a Pools supporter has is a long memory.
What can be asserted without proof,
can be dismissed without proof.

rabbit

The URL for IOR (Increased Oil Recovery Ltd)

is/was www.ior.co.uk

but it doesn`t work/

It used to. Perhaps it has been hit by a bug?

marky

Quote: "Racism, sexism, homophobia and rose coloured glasses about the past will not be tolerated unless you're a member."
This is how the bunker currently introduces itself - it's all just for a laugh, of course, which is the normal excuse for bigotry. I don't think the bunker represents in any way the typical pools supporter; my auntie goes to Pools and she's 76! In a way that's my point when I say that if the scheme goes ahead it will be in spite of the rantings of the bunker posters and not because of them. They represent no one. Not the genuine Pools supporter and certainly not the other 87,000 people that live in the town.
As for comparing the two forums...you're having a laugh, surely.

Inspector Knacker

Quote from: marky on June 07, 2012, 11: PM
Quote: "Racism, sexism, homophobia and rose coloured glasses about the past will not be tolerated unless you're a member."
This is how the bunker currently introduces itself - it's all just for a laugh, of course, which is the normal excuse for bigotry.
Sorry, but you wouldn't get away with any of the above if you tried it and would be quickly barred if you did ... actually, it is said tongue in cheek, if you don't believe me, give it a try.
What can be asserted without proof,
can be dismissed without proof.

no6bus

yes your right i shouldnt compare the 2 forums, the bunker has organised things which have actually happened whereas this forum is merely somewhere people talk about their vision of the utopia that hartlepool would be if the council admitted only 37 people turned up for the tall ships, the mayor was a long gone memory and people were not voting labour in every election.

marky

Careful, your new tactics are showing. Of course it's all tongue in cheek as were the threats to beat up people in the Hillcarter for daring to wear Man Utd shirts, the idea that The Mail should be stopped from printing any letters which opposed giving away the ground for free etc etc.
The obvious question is that if you think so little of this forum then why bother posting on it - p**s off to the two-dimensional world of the bunker and rejoin your your neanderthalic colleagues.
Remember Plan B now - play down the football and push the regeneration.