Cole and Fox Interior Design Marple | Romiley | Stockport

Author Topic: Fighting Dirty  (Read 53739 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

alstan

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #86 on: October 11, 2012, 07:53:16 PM »
Maria, previously on this website it is stated that  “MIA would welcome a new supermarket within the district centre of Marple to provide competition for the Co-op and choice for local residents. “ Given that I would expect them to support the Chadwick Street proposal but they don’t and I would like to know why. So the puzzle is not why do they not oppose it, as they do Hibbert Lane, but why don’t they welcome it in accordance with the earlier statement

amazon

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #85 on: October 11, 2012, 04:51:18 PM »
Looks like ASDA and the YES Campaign are starting to focus their big guns on this site.  Lots of attempts to undermine MIA and any opposition to the store.  The NO Campaign and its supporters are keeping their powder dry - they haven't gone away...
Just diminished in numbers .

sleepless

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #84 on: October 11, 2012, 03:12:18 PM »
Looks like ASDA and the YES Campaign are starting to focus their big guns on this site.  Lots of attempts to undermine MIA and any opposition to the store.  The NO Campaign and its supporters are keeping their powder dry - they haven't gone away...

Maria

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #83 on: October 11, 2012, 01:25:06 PM »
If you read the news section on the MIA page they clearly state they do not take a view either way re Chadwick Street.

Marple in Action was formed to fight the proposal for a supermarket on Hibbert Lane and as such, does not have a position for or against a development on Chadwick Street.

As far as I know they have only ever been against a supermarket on Hibbert Lane, not another supermarket in Marple. 

alstan

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #82 on: October 11, 2012, 06:31:34 AM »
The questions seem to be mounting. The questions not the answers.One of the principal allegations levelled at the college, sometimes in disgraceful terms, was that they were uncommunicative, that they failed to keep the community informed and so on. For an organisation that claims to represent the views of 80% of Marple people (I know, I know, I'm laughing too), the lack of response  and communication with its  community is surprising. Other than the chairman we know not who they are nor where they are.

amazon

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #81 on: October 10, 2012, 07:30:12 PM »
The view has substantially changed within the town and MiAhave failed to respond to it, not that they had any influence at their peak as thankfully decisions are taken in a more rational way rather than mob rule and bullying/intimidation which was a feature of MiA a year ago.

Still not had Mia views on the Chadwick street development are they for it or against it .

Who cares what their views are anyway?
Ok how can they be against one and not the other it's still a smaller supermarket .

the rover

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #80 on: October 10, 2012, 06:07:30 PM »
The view has substantially changed within the town and MiAhave failed to respond to it, not that they had any influence at their peak as thankfully decisions are taken in a more rational way rather than mob rule and bullying/intimidation which was a feature of MiA a year ago.

Still not had Mia views on the Chadwick street development are they for it or against it .

Who cares what their views are anyway?

amazon

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #79 on: October 09, 2012, 09:41:52 PM »
The view has substantially changed within the town and MiAhave failed to respond to it, not that they had any influence at their peak as thankfully decisions are taken in a more rational way rather than mob rule and bullying/intimidation which was a feature of MiA a year ago.

Still not had Mia views on the Chadwick street development are they for it or against it .

wheels

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1460
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #78 on: October 09, 2012, 08:46:41 PM »
The view has substantially changed within the town and MiAhave failed to respond to it, not that they had any influence at their peak as thankfully decisions are taken in a more rational way rather than mob rule and bullying/intimidation which was a feature of MiA a year ago.

alstan

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #77 on: October 09, 2012, 04:45:57 PM »
That's very presumptious of you Henry. Wrong I am afraid. I don't neeed a briefing from Asda and would have considerable reservations about it if I did. I was present when the trip to Downing Street was announced. I was also able to count the attendance at the Area Committee Meeting, 79 members of the public, deducting those there for matters concerning Compstall and Mill Brow and some Yes campaigners, (of which I am not one), it leaves about 60 MIA supporters although it was difficult to tell, they were quite quiet. There were 300 at a comparable meeting last year, 60=20% of 300 and therefore represents a fall of 80%, with me so far?
MIA estimate that there were "about 200" at the march on 7th July. I witnessed it and I am confident that there were more that 150 although I don't think there were more than 200 so lets take that figure. At a similar march last year there were "1000+". You wont need me to run through the maths again but a drop of 80%+. OK?
It was easier to count the numbers at the last march as they straggled along the pavement. 108 but I suppose I could have missed a few toddlers. That represents a drop of 90% on last years figure of 1000+. I have since spoken to an MIA member who tells me they were dismayed and could offer no explanation other than "late notification" which doesn't cut the mustard.
Anyway, we will wait and see what MIA's response is, if any.

admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8477
    • The Marple Website
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #76 on: October 09, 2012, 12:14:05 PM »
Admin,
What happened to that multi choice poll about ASDA/CAMSFC that you posted a few months back ? It seems to have disappeared or is it just me that can't find it ?
What were the outcomes for it ?

I think it must just be you! I haven't posted a poll and I haven't removed any either. I think you are probably referring to this one created by "tricky":

http://www.marple-uk.com/smf/index.php?topic=4463.0
Mark Whittaker
The Marple Website

guy

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #75 on: October 09, 2012, 11:18:36 AM »
Hello alstan

another little briefing from Asda's representative,I presume?

simonesaffron

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #74 on: October 09, 2012, 09:54:17 AM »
Admin,


What happened to that multi choice poll about ASDA/CAMSFC that you posted a few months back ? It seems to have disappeared or is it just me that can't find it ?

What were the outcomes for it ?

alstan

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #73 on: October 09, 2012, 07:23:12 AM »
Well at least the “5 in 5 out” (latest news 8th October) shouldn’t have taken too long given the derisory turnout. The response to appeals by MIA for support at marches and public meetings over the past two months have seen falls of between 80% and 90% on the responses received to similar appeals a year ago. Why not put that in Latest News?

No mention yet of the announcement on 29th August that our MP has agreed to arrange for the petition to be presented at 10 Downing Street. Why not put that in Latest News?

No date arranged yet for the presentation. Is that because MIA are waiting to present it after the Asda CAMSFC planning application to give the false impression that it represents a public reaction to that application? Why not put that in latest news?

Despite 14 months of campaigning by MIA and its members, much of it fuelled by hyperbole, falsehoods, exaggeration and personal abuse, the online and paper petitions  are still 5,500 names short of their target. Why not put that in Latest News?


Dave

  • Guest
Re: Fighting Dirty
« Reply #72 on: October 06, 2012, 09:42:02 AM »
Thanks belly, I get it  ;D

As for Asda's  interesting communication to our councillors, it's also interesting that although the letter is signed by an Asda person, it is also sent 'on behalf of Asda and Cheadle & Marple Sixth Form College.'  So the college also stands by the assertion that 'students numbers [at Marple] have declined by 17% over the past four years, a trend not replicated at the Cheadle Campus,' even though its own data in that FOI response seem to suggest that this is not true.  I say 'seem to suggest' because we still don't know for certain, and we won't know unless we see the 2011 figures, and also the enrolments expressed as full-time equivalents.  This latter issue is important, because if, for example, the decline in enrolments at Cheadle is mostly in part-time students, whereas at Marple it is full-time students, than it could turn out that Marple's decline in FTE terms is greater than that at Cheadle.  

But on the face of it, that statement does look pretty misleading, and I'm quite puzzled by it, because in my view the case for the college's improvement scheme is an overwhelmingly strong one, and they simply don't need to resort to issuing misleading information in order to support it.