Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
yorksguy1865 wrote:What I do find daft about this is that the gate is opened when city games are on so what allam is saying is we will close the gate to stop a terrorist attack when the stadium is empty but leave it open to make it easier for the terrorist when there is a bunch of people in there...
Well, exactly. This is what I don’t get. Surely the “risk” is elevated on matchday therefore the requirement to close this ISIS barrier should be then? The whole rationale sounds bonkers to me.
Mrs Barista wrote:Well, exactly. This is what I don’t get. Surely the “risk” is elevated on matchday therefore the requirement to close this ISIS barrier should be then? The whole rationale sounds bonkers to me.
With the Allams, it’s almost a threat from within, they seem to want to “blow up” the KC from within. The old man seems intent on misery to achieve his own happiness. All that money, no conscience or morals.
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
PCollinson1990 wrote:With the Allams, it’s almost a threat from within, they seem to want to “blow up” the KC from within. The old man seems intent on misery to achieve his own happiness. All that money, no conscience or morals.
The response from councillors, at least on Twitter and in the poorly articulated "statements" seems high on emotion and low on detailed critique and dismantling of the rationale put forward by the SMC. Whether that's through lack of capability, appetite or resources to fund appropriately specialist legal counsel I don't know, but posturing about taking the gate down themselves then having to concede that in the main it will stay shut is exactly the response the Allams would have been hoping for IMO.
Joined: Oct 26 2007 Posts: 2570 Location: East Hull is Wonderful
knockersbumpMKII wrote:Wasn't it a Labour council that essentially gave away the asset and the opportunity to get some of the money back they'd spent on it, including being able to utilise their property without being charged for it. the whole thing was a massive cockup from day 1 and the council don't have the know-how or gumption to rectify the mistakes made.
No it wasn’t, it was the Lib Dem’s under Simone Butterworth that put together the contract and signed it. And it isn’t about having the know how, the contract is air tight, we have had QCs look at it over the air I arena farce.
Barton Flyer wrote:texted my son to say light at the end of the tunnel, unfortunately it was a train coming! Re:- Rovers v Salford 29/03/09
HFC Boy wrote:Hull FC have not risen to the Challenge of Hull KR .
Success consists of getting up just one more time than you've fallen down.
Joined: Oct 26 2007 Posts: 2570 Location: East Hull is Wonderful
Mrs Barista wrote:The response from councillors, at least on Twitter and in the poorly articulated "statements" seems high on emotion and low on detailed critique and dismantling of the rationale put forward by the SMC. Whether that's through lack of capability, appetite or resources to fund appropriately specialist legal counsel I don't know, but posturing about taking the gate down themselves then having to concede that in the main it will stay shut is exactly the response the Allams would have been hoping for IMO.
The statements put out by whom? The SMC manage the grounds and as we found at great cost have an airtight contract, the councils only recourse is through the planning process. The footpath was built for the Stadium and as such is not a public right of way.
Barton Flyer wrote:texted my son to say light at the end of the tunnel, unfortunately it was a train coming! Re:- Rovers v Salford 29/03/09
HFC Boy wrote:Hull FC have not risen to the Challenge of Hull KR .
Success consists of getting up just one more time than you've fallen down.
Joined: Jul 15 2005 Posts: 29811 Location: West Yorkshire
phil webbo wrote:The statements put out by whom? The SMC manage the grounds and as we found at great cost have an airtight contract, the councils only recourse is through the planning process. The footpath was built for the Stadium and as such is not a public right of way.
The one they put out yesterday saying the gate would be open for a few hours. I think the ambitions of the Allams now, having already alienated FC and City's fans is to cast the net wider and get after fairgoers
Seriously though, from a planning consent perspective does the rationale for putting a gate in which (fairtime apart) is shut apart from on the few hours each week when there are substantial numbers of people in attendance, as a way of mitigating terrorism risk stack up? I simply don't see it, unless I've missed something.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
