Where is everybody?

[marpleexile]

Tina.. I don't think you need to worry.. noone will lose their job for talking to people or sharing emails.   Unless its in their contract not to and I'm guessing an org like the college wouldnt have thought of that!

I don't know, these days, almost every organisation, for even the most "lowly" of staff, usually has a clause about sharing confidential information, and failing that, a clause about bring the organisation into disrepute.

Now the disrepute clause may not stand up to examination at an employment tribunal in this instance, but that wouldn't stop someone initially getting sacked, and then going through a lot of grief until it got overturned.

[Lisa Oldham]

Tina.. I don't think you need to worry.. noone will lose their job for talking to people or sharing emails.   Unless its in their contract not to and I'm guessing an org like the college wouldnt have thought of that!

And if thats what Tesco were offering.. and the college have gone for asda, then asda must have a "better" deal on the table!!

[tina]

Tina there were three supermarkets at first in the running, you must be aware of that    this is why Tesco was mentioned.  Also it would be now hard to identify why my friend is because more and more staff have come forward and spoke about the said meeting and how staff were informed not to speak outside the college   Debate.   Tina try not to score points please its getting so so predictable and oh so boring ! 

I'm not trying to score points, I know there was a few in talks. But you said it was a person from Tesco in the meeting who answered the question about traffic...who in turn said about the swimming baths. I was only saying if it was Tesco's who said it then it needs to be nil and void as we know it is ASDA who is the favoured supermarket.

As for the member of staff. yes maybe more have since spoken up, my concern is that the original person could be named and then loose their job.

thats all no points to be scored

[Miss Marple]

Tina there were three supermarkets at first in the running, you must be aware of that    this is why Tesco was mentioned.  Also it would be now hard to identify why my friend is because more and more staff have come forward and spoke about the said meeting and how staff were informed not to speak outside the college   Debate.   Tina try not to score points please its getting so so predictable and oh so boring ! 

[marpleexile]

Seeing as you think MIA is a lost cause you certainly use the information.

It's the rediculous comments about demolishing the swimming baths, building a dual carriageway etc. They are truely bizarre. and I also think it's wrong for this kind of talk to have been used to gain the signatures on the petition.

I wonder how many people who signed fearing the worst, when seeing the actual plans (IF they ever should arrive) will think, oh actually it's not that bad?

That's a point I've been making for the a while. It is my opinion (purely opinion, with no facts, figures, or DeepThroats to back it up) that when the planning application is finally submitted, a lot of people who have signed petitions, and been very anti-supermarket will look at it and go "oh, is that all. And they're going to improve the Stockport Road junction that causes all the traffic-jams in the centre of marple, and they're going to turn the open space next to the college into an actual useable park, instead of a tatty piece of grass, cool, bring it on".

I'm with Tricky, in that I don't want a supermarket in Marple either. But I do think that, MIA and some of their more vocal supporters are taking the wrong track, and have focused on the wrong things - eg, instead of proving that the College don't need to sell the land and going after them for taking the easy way out, they've gone after them for selling to the highest bidder, something which MIA acknowledge they are legally required to do!

[tina]

Tricky I am the one who reported about the swimming baths on the first thread re ASDA/Tesco this was long before MIAwas formed.  My friend who I cannot name as they are still employed by CAMSFC were invited to some kind of meeting with who they said was Tesco and the principal.  They were allowed to ask questions and one of those questions was about congestion/traffic the representative was the one why informed all present that the plans were to put a roundabout at the bottom of the new road.   The issue of the baths was them spoke about and this was when they were informed that if the proposals went ahead the swimming baths would be relocated on the Buxton Lane sight
I posted all this and then all staff concerned in that meeting received an email saying that given all this had leaked out there would be no further communication from the corporation to staff until the deal was finalised, these emails were the ones I posted on this site and CAMSFC contacted admin to have them removed which he had to do due to legal reasons, but I still have them.
MIA do not scare monger in fact the opposite as we have information that we have chosen not to put on the web.  As I have said before, like you I am not opposed to supermarkets we live thank god in a democracy so I believe people should shop where they want to without question.  All I am opposed to is a supermarket on HIBBERT Lane !  I don't think I can say this any clearer !

Can I add that it is ADSA who is the favoured supermarket so the comment about the swimming baths becomes nil and void as you say it was Tesco who said it?
The council members even told you its not true! If a supermarket does get built on Hibbert Lane and the supermarket wanted to knock the baths down the the council have already said its something they don't want?
Also I would think again about saying it was friend of yours who told you... that is really unfair on your friend, that person still has to work there and word of mouth gets about, what about that person's job if the wrong person tells Ms Cassidy?

[Miss Marple]

Tricky I am the one who reported about the swimming baths on the first thread re ASDA/Tesco this was long before MIAwas formed.  My friend who I cannot name as they are still employed by CAMSFC were invited to some kind of meeting with who they said was Tesco and the principal.  They were allowed to ask questions and one of those questions was about congestion/traffic the representative was the one why informed all present that the plans were to put a roundabout at the bottom of the new road.   The issue of the baths was them spoke about and this was when they were informed that if the proposals went ahead the swimming baths would be relocated on the Buxton Lane sight
I posted all this and then all staff concerned in that meeting received an email saying that given all this had leaked out there would be no further communication from the corporation to staff until the deal was finalised, these emails were the ones I posted on this site and CAMSFC contacted admin to have them removed which he had to do due to legal reasons, but I still have them.
MIA do not scare monger in fact the opposite as we have information that we have chosen not to put on the web.  As I have said before, like you I am not opposed to supermarkets we live thank god in a democracy so I believe people should shop where they want to without question.  All I am opposed to is a supermarket on HIBBERT Lane !  I don't think I can say this any clearer !

[JMC]

Re:- Comment about going out of Marple to Morrisons.
Morrisons or Safeway when it was built, is on a site that was previously a industrial area not area designated for educational or residential
purposes.
Also that area as always a large amount of traffic for decades,i.e. within in plenty of time for those people to decide to move there
to realise what the traffic etc was like.

Fair point about certain sites but my general point was that for some people it is acceptable to contribute to increased traffic in neighbouring areas yet being aghast at anything that may add traffic to their own areas. This is seen as abit hypocritical to some people. This isn't just my opinion, even people on the Hazel Grove website and newspapers, as well as people I have spoken to, have made the point.

[jethroh65]

I agree with the above two posts. I also think the campaign is abit extreme (not sure if that is MIA itself or some vocal members). Also the personal attacks on people etc. has led me to remain on the fence and sympathising with YES. If it were a more reasoned debate then it would be better. Such as them acknowledging that it would be good for those on a low income to have choice BUT it is outweighed by traffic etc. But simply telling people to get a bus etc. is not a balanced mature argument in my view. Both sides should be acknowledged (and there are very good arguments either way) and THEN say why overall you are in favour of YES/NO. Not just dismiss everything the other side are coming out with. It also seems there is some hypocracy and NIMBYism for some members of NO. Again, not sure if that is the more vocal members colouring my view. It seems people don't mind going out of Marple to Morrisons etc. and adding to traffic in those areas but wanting to keep their own backyards clear.

Re:- Comment about going out of Marple to Morrisons.

Morrisons or Safeway when it was built, is on a site that was previously a industrial area not area designated for educational or residential
purposes.
Also that area as always a large amount of traffic for decades,i.e. within in plenty of time for those people to decide to move there
to realise what the traffic etc was like.

[JMC]

I agree with the above two posts. I also think the campaign is abit extreme (not sure if that is MIA itself or some vocal members). Also the personal attacks on people etc. has led me to remain on the fence and sympathising with YES. If it were a more reasoned debate then it would be better. Such as them acknowledging that it would be good for those on a low income to have choice BUT it is outweighed by traffic etc. But simply telling people to get a bus etc. is not a balanced mature argument in my view. Both sides should be acknowledged (and there are very good arguments either way) and THEN say why overall you are in favour of YES/NO. Not just dismiss everything the other side are coming out with. It also seems there is some hypocracy and NIMBYism for some members of NO. Again, not sure if that is the more vocal members colouring my view. It seems people don't mind going out of Marple to Morrisons etc. and adding to traffic in those areas but wanting to keep their own backyards clear.

[Henry_]

Seeing as you think MIA is a lost cause you certainly use the information.

I don't remember saying MIA is a lost cause, perhaps you can show me where that comment is.

I actually think MIA* could be of great benefit to Marple. I actually admire the energy that some of you put into it. Fair play.


I can't help picking holes in an argument that's flawed, but I am merely playing Devil's advocate.. and I like the debate.

It's the rediculous comments about demolishing the swimming baths, building a dual carriageway etc. They are truely bizarre. and I also think it's wrong for this kind of talk to have been used to gain the signatures on the petition.

I wonder how many people who signed fearing the worst, when seeing the actual plans (IF they ever should arrive) will think, oh actually it's not that bad?


and for the record -
I don't want a 24hr big supermarket on Hibbert Lane.

*or some other democratically elected group

I'm in pretty much full agreement with this. Politics is all won in the centre these days as we know, and the same applies to local issues. I do think MIA have been shooting themselves in the foot with the alarmism and a hard line anti college stance. It may have a short term gain in terms of petition signatures but in time it will put more and more people off, and the common consensus is that we're in this for the long haul. You have to be as inclusive as possible with this kind of thing. I don't think activities such as picketing the college is going to win over hearts and minds.

[Tricky]

Seeing as you think MIA is a lost cause you certainly use the information.

I don't remember saying MIA is a lost cause, perhaps you can show me where that comment is.

I actually think MIA* could be of great benefit to Marple. I actually admire the energy that some of you put into it. Fair play.


I can't help picking holes in an argument that's flawed, but I am merely playing Devil's advocate.. and I like the debate.

It's the rediculous comments about demolishing the swimming baths, building a dual carriageway etc. They are truely bizarre. and I also think it's wrong for this kind of talk to have been used to gain the signatures on the petition.

I wonder how many people who signed fearing the worst, when seeing the actual plans (IF they ever should arrive) will think, oh actually it's not that bad?


and for the record -
I don't want a 24hr big supermarket on Hibbert Lane.

*or some other democratically elected group

[jethroh65]

Exactly.. plus over 7000 people who will not change their shopping habits.

Surely the local shops are safe?

Sorry but when I signed the petition I did not see the statement about having to do 100% your shopping in the local shops before signing.
I thought it said about having objections to a new supermarket being built for a variety of reasons,
i.e. demise of local shops, traffic and change the community forever.
Maybe I misread it, I'll check it out next time I sign it again 

[sooty2]

The big supermarkets are always paying very large fines for price fixing.They can afford too.

[thebigshed]

In Marple's case, it's a safe bet that those people who say that a big supermarket will be a good thing because it will be cheaper than the Co-op will be disappointed. I'd put money on the two of them getting in cahoots and fixing prices as has happened in most places where there have been "competing" supermarkets.

Isn't that illegal?