New Forest must be protected as buffer from urban expansion

Daily Echo: New Forest must be protected as buffer from urban expansion New Forest must be protected as buffer from urban expansion

IN the Daily Echo of January 4, there were two worrying articles. First, the idea that the Waterside, which is now New Forest East, should be used as a container dock.

The New Forest is meant to be protected and must act as a rural area between Southampton and Christchurch/Bournemouth.

We local people must make sure that no Conservative or Labour Government tries to alter the constituency boundaries again.

Secondly your plan showing Southampton housing extending into the New Forest.

I believe the European Union will not back such a scheme and that is once again a good reason why the New Forest needs Liberal Democrat MPs.

We cannot trust the Conservative or Labour parties.

RICHARD GRANT, Burley.

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:31pm Fri 10 Jan 14

tharg64 says...

If you look at the development allowed along the whole of The Waterside then you'll realise that the New Forest won't be protected in the long run.
There is too much incentive for too many people (in national / local Govt and businesses?) to make a quick buck at the expense of locals and the environment....
The worst thing about it all is that the majority of people won't care unless it is on their door step.
If you look at the development allowed along the whole of The Waterside then you'll realise that the New Forest won't be protected in the long run. There is too much incentive for too many people (in national / local Govt and businesses?) to make a quick buck at the expense of locals and the environment.... The worst thing about it all is that the majority of people won't care unless it is on their door step. tharg64

12:38pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Andy Locks Heath says...

As I said in my longer letter and subsequent discussion, Waterside is not culturally, historically economically geologically or ecologically connected to the New Forest, which leaves only proximity. I challenge you to describe the impacts a port at Dibden Bay would have west of the A326 (which is a better delineator between the Forest and Waterside on all the above counts). There is no transport corridor to the west that runs through the Forest. The biggest impact Waterside has on the FOrest is its people. Paradoxically nobody seems to complain at the presence of new housing yet this provably generates more infrastructure impact in a given area that industry, and of course people can, do and will swarm anywhere in the Forest. Mr Grant may not be aware, but Dibden "Bay" does not exist. 50 years ago the dredging from SOuthampton Western DOcks was used to infill the old bay and construct a quayside which can be clearly seen today. Dibden Bay is brownfield land next to another large port complex (Marchwood military port) right opposite another very large container port. Your letter suggests you have never actually been there
As I said in my longer letter and subsequent discussion, Waterside is not culturally, historically economically geologically or ecologically connected to the New Forest, which leaves only proximity. I challenge you to describe the impacts a port at Dibden Bay would have west of the A326 (which is a better delineator between the Forest and Waterside on all the above counts). There is no transport corridor to the west that runs through the Forest. The biggest impact Waterside has on the FOrest is its people. Paradoxically nobody seems to complain at the presence of new housing yet this provably generates more infrastructure impact in a given area that industry, and of course people can, do and will swarm anywhere in the Forest. Mr Grant may not be aware, but Dibden "Bay" does not exist. 50 years ago the dredging from SOuthampton Western DOcks was used to infill the old bay and construct a quayside which can be clearly seen today. Dibden Bay is brownfield land next to another large port complex (Marchwood military port) right opposite another very large container port. Your letter suggests you have never actually been there Andy Locks Heath

9:39am Sun 12 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Where the hell did you get the idea that a piece of river bed dredged & a bay filled in with it is part of the forest?
If you can make that claim how about the reclamation that took part at Hythe to build a marina on what you say is the New Forest?
what about all the new housing estates built in Marchwood,Dibden & Hythe etc;?
was that okay to build on the New Forest? stop being a total hypocrite!
Where the hell did you get the idea that a piece of river bed dredged & a bay filled in with it is part of the forest? If you can make that claim how about the reclamation that took part at Hythe to build a marina on what you say is the New Forest? what about all the new housing estates built in Marchwood,Dibden & Hythe etc;? was that okay to build on the New Forest? stop being a total hypocrite! loosehead

9:45am Sun 12 Jan 14

Linesman says...

If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council?

By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own.

The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised.

If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership.

By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council.

I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them.

Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port?

I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard.

In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.
If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council? By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own. The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised. If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership. By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council. I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them. Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port? I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard. In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount. Linesman

9:51am Sun 12 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Where the hell did you get the idea that a piece of river bed dredged & a bay filled in with it is part of the forest?
If you can make that claim how about the reclamation that took part at Hythe to build a marina on what you say is the New Forest?
what about all the new housing estates built in Marchwood,Dibden & Hythe etc;?
was that okay to build on the New Forest? stop being a total hypocrite!
Which local authority does Dibden come under loosehead?

In which political constituency is Dibden situated loosehead?

Is Totton a district of Southampton loosehead?

If you travel from Southampton to Dibden, do you pass through Totton loosehead?

Does the River Test form the Western boundary of Southampton loosehead?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Where the hell did you get the idea that a piece of river bed dredged & a bay filled in with it is part of the forest? If you can make that claim how about the reclamation that took part at Hythe to build a marina on what you say is the New Forest? what about all the new housing estates built in Marchwood,Dibden & Hythe etc;? was that okay to build on the New Forest? stop being a total hypocrite![/p][/quote]Which local authority does Dibden come under loosehead? In which political constituency is Dibden situated loosehead? Is Totton a district of Southampton loosehead? If you travel from Southampton to Dibden, do you pass through Totton loosehead? Does the River Test form the Western boundary of Southampton loosehead? Linesman

9:52am Sun 12 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Where the hell did you get the idea that a piece of river bed dredged & a bay filled in with it is part of the forest?
If you can make that claim how about the reclamation that took part at Hythe to build a marina on what you say is the New Forest?
what about all the new housing estates built in Marchwood,Dibden & Hythe etc;?
was that okay to build on the New Forest? stop being a total hypocrite!
Which local authority does Dibden come under loosehead?

In which political constituency is Dibden situated loosehead?

Is Totton a district of Southampton loosehead?

If you travel from Southampton to Dibden, do you pass through Totton loosehead?

Does the River Test form the Western boundary of Southampton loosehead?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Where the hell did you get the idea that a piece of river bed dredged & a bay filled in with it is part of the forest? If you can make that claim how about the reclamation that took part at Hythe to build a marina on what you say is the New Forest? what about all the new housing estates built in Marchwood,Dibden & Hythe etc;? was that okay to build on the New Forest? stop being a total hypocrite![/p][/quote]Which local authority does Dibden come under loosehead? In which political constituency is Dibden situated loosehead? Is Totton a district of Southampton loosehead? If you travel from Southampton to Dibden, do you pass through Totton loosehead? Does the River Test form the Western boundary of Southampton loosehead? Linesman

12:54pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Andy Locks Heath says...

Linesman wrote:
If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council?

By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own.

The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised.

If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership.

By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council.

I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them.

Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port?

I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard.

In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.
You are making the mistake of just picking any old area that happens to be brownfield and just thinking it could be used instead. Woolston would not even make it to round 2 of a list of candidate sites for many reasons, of which the following might give just an idea. a) Thelocal road network could not handle the huge amount of vehcles needing to get to and from the M27. The whole of east Southampton would grind to a halt. Dibden Play plans included a new dedicated private spur to the A326 near Pumpfeld Farm. THe A326 itself was planned to be dualled north at this point to the A35 so it was zero sum gain for anyone living to the south. . b) THere is no rail network at Woolston, but up to 25 freight ttrains a day are estimated to be required. Where are they going to go to and from? There is insufficient hinterland at Woolston. The site is nowhere near large enough. There is by the way a complete rail link available at Dibden Bay requiring just a spur off the Military connection. 3) There are far more people around Woolston than Dibden Bay so if you think a few are going to "suffer" at Dibden why do you think it is accetable for thousands to "suffer" around Woolston from traffic gridlock and whatever else it is you think people would suffer from? You talk about backyards as being important. How big are these imagined backyards? People in Marchwood today live closer to the Military port AND even to the current Southampton container port than they would to Dibden Bay so how exactly are they going to "suffer"? What is going to happen to them? THey can't legally walk on Dibden Bay today anyway so they aren't losing an amenity they once had. If "the local view is paramount" then nothing would ever be built anywhere, would it. We will have stagnation and paralysis while our infrastructure slowly decays and fails. You say you are familiar with the area but I challenge you to quantify the actual losses you say will be felt by people from Dibden Bay port and where. I maintain that the New Forest is illrelevant and will not be damaged in any way whatsoever from Waterside industry. Even the prevailing wind blows the other way for over 300 days in the year!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council? By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own. The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised. If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership. By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council. I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them. Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port? I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard. In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.[/p][/quote]You are making the mistake of just picking any old area that happens to be brownfield and just thinking it could be used instead. Woolston would not even make it to round 2 of a list of candidate sites for many reasons, of which the following might give just an idea. a) Thelocal road network could not handle the huge amount of vehcles needing to get to and from the M27. The whole of east Southampton would grind to a halt. Dibden Play plans included a new dedicated private spur to the A326 near Pumpfeld Farm. THe A326 itself was planned to be dualled north at this point to the A35 so it was zero sum gain for anyone living to the south. . b) THere is no rail network at Woolston, but up to 25 freight ttrains a day are estimated to be required. Where are they going to go to and from? There is insufficient hinterland at Woolston. The site is nowhere near large enough. There is by the way a complete rail link available at Dibden Bay requiring just a spur off the Military connection. 3) There are far more people around Woolston than Dibden Bay so if you think a few are going to "suffer" at Dibden why do you think it is accetable for thousands to "suffer" around Woolston from traffic gridlock and whatever else it is you think people would suffer from? You talk about backyards as being important. How big are these imagined backyards? People in Marchwood today live closer to the Military port AND even to the current Southampton container port than they would to Dibden Bay so how exactly are they going to "suffer"? What is going to happen to them? THey can't legally walk on Dibden Bay today anyway so they aren't losing an amenity they once had. If "the local view is paramount" then nothing would ever be built anywhere, would it. We will have stagnation and paralysis while our infrastructure slowly decays and fails. You say you are familiar with the area but I challenge you to quantify the actual losses you say will be felt by people from Dibden Bay port and where. I maintain that the New Forest is illrelevant and will not be damaged in any way whatsoever from Waterside industry. Even the prevailing wind blows the other way for over 300 days in the year! Andy Locks Heath

12:58pm Sun 12 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Where the hell did you get the idea that a piece of river bed dredged & a bay filled in with it is part of the forest?
If you can make that claim how about the reclamation that took part at Hythe to build a marina on what you say is the New Forest?
what about all the new housing estates built in Marchwood,Dibden & Hythe etc;?
was that okay to build on the New Forest? stop being a total hypocrite!
Which local authority does Dibden come under loosehead?

In which political constituency is Dibden situated loosehead?

Is Totton a district of Southampton loosehead?

If you travel from Southampton to Dibden, do you pass through Totton loosehead?

Does the River Test form the Western boundary of Southampton loosehead?
I take it you never listened to the politics show today where your beloved PPC Rowenna said the Western side of the Itchen the Labour council would love to build on but can't because it's a flood plain & they need flood defences first yet YOUR beloved council IS building Flats on that flood plains so which one is right & how wrong are you a old Socialist protesting against the proposed production of jobs?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Where the hell did you get the idea that a piece of river bed dredged & a bay filled in with it is part of the forest? If you can make that claim how about the reclamation that took part at Hythe to build a marina on what you say is the New Forest? what about all the new housing estates built in Marchwood,Dibden & Hythe etc;? was that okay to build on the New Forest? stop being a total hypocrite![/p][/quote]Which local authority does Dibden come under loosehead? In which political constituency is Dibden situated loosehead? Is Totton a district of Southampton loosehead? If you travel from Southampton to Dibden, do you pass through Totton loosehead? Does the River Test form the Western boundary of Southampton loosehead?[/p][/quote]I take it you never listened to the politics show today where your beloved PPC Rowenna said the Western side of the Itchen the Labour council would love to build on but can't because it's a flood plain & they need flood defences first yet YOUR beloved council IS building Flats on that flood plains so which one is right & how wrong are you a old Socialist protesting against the proposed production of jobs? loosehead

1:06pm Sun 12 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council?

By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own.

The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised.

If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership.

By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council.

I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them.

Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port?

I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard.

In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.
wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans?
Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it?
you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it?
under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council? By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own. The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised. If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership. By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council. I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them. Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port? I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard. In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.[/p][/quote]wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans? Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it? you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it? under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge! loosehead

7:17pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Where the hell did you get the idea that a piece of river bed dredged & a bay filled in with it is part of the forest?
If you can make that claim how about the reclamation that took part at Hythe to build a marina on what you say is the New Forest?
what about all the new housing estates built in Marchwood,Dibden & Hythe etc;?
was that okay to build on the New Forest? stop being a total hypocrite!
Which local authority does Dibden come under loosehead?

In which political constituency is Dibden situated loosehead?

Is Totton a district of Southampton loosehead?

If you travel from Southampton to Dibden, do you pass through Totton loosehead?

Does the River Test form the Western boundary of Southampton loosehead?
I take it you never listened to the politics show today where your beloved PPC Rowenna said the Western side of the Itchen the Labour council would love to build on but can't because it's a flood plain & they need flood defences first yet YOUR beloved council IS building Flats on that flood plains so which one is right & how wrong are you a old Socialist protesting against the proposed production of jobs?
MY Beloved Council?

I do not live in either Southampton or Waterside.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Where the hell did you get the idea that a piece of river bed dredged & a bay filled in with it is part of the forest? If you can make that claim how about the reclamation that took part at Hythe to build a marina on what you say is the New Forest? what about all the new housing estates built in Marchwood,Dibden & Hythe etc;? was that okay to build on the New Forest? stop being a total hypocrite![/p][/quote]Which local authority does Dibden come under loosehead? In which political constituency is Dibden situated loosehead? Is Totton a district of Southampton loosehead? If you travel from Southampton to Dibden, do you pass through Totton loosehead? Does the River Test form the Western boundary of Southampton loosehead?[/p][/quote]I take it you never listened to the politics show today where your beloved PPC Rowenna said the Western side of the Itchen the Labour council would love to build on but can't because it's a flood plain & they need flood defences first yet YOUR beloved council IS building Flats on that flood plains so which one is right & how wrong are you a old Socialist protesting against the proposed production of jobs?[/p][/quote]MY Beloved Council? I do not live in either Southampton or Waterside. Linesman

7:26pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council?

By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own.

The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised.

If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership.

By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council.

I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them.

Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port?

I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard.

In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.
wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans?
Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it?
you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it?
under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge!
There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest.

Not all of the New Forest is a forest.

The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam.

Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest.

I think you need to get out a bit.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council? By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own. The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised. If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership. By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council. I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them. Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port? I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard. In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.[/p][/quote]wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans? Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it? you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it? under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge![/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest. Not all of the New Forest is a forest. The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam. Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest. I think you need to get out a bit. Linesman

7:31pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council?

By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own.

The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised.

If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership.

By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council.

I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them.

Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port?

I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard.

In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.
wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans?
Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it?
you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it?
under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge!
But Southampton City Council is the administrative authority and deals with planning. The elected councillor sits on the City Council.

There are Parish Councils within the New Forest, but the administrative authority is the New Forest District Council that has its HQ in Lyndhurst.

The MP for Waterside is the MP for the constituency known as New Forest East.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council? By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own. The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised. If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership. By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council. I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them. Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port? I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard. In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.[/p][/quote]wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans? Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it? you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it? under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge![/p][/quote]But Southampton City Council is the administrative authority and deals with planning. The elected councillor sits on the City Council. There are Parish Councils within the New Forest, but the administrative authority is the New Forest District Council that has its HQ in Lyndhurst. The MP for Waterside is the MP for the constituency known as New Forest East. Linesman

9:18pm Sun 12 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council?

By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own.

The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised.

If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership.

By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council.

I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them.

Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port?

I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard.

In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.
wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans?
Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it?
you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it?
under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge!
There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest.

Not all of the New Forest is a forest.

The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam.

Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest.

I think you need to get out a bit.
now your being a right t+t ! firstly posters are saying NO to building a dock in the New Forest I say it's not so you come at me because you are just a total tool.
Then I post about Marchwood Military PORT & again you seem to side with the Anti Southampton posters why? again it can only because your a total tool .
your sounding more & more like Southy every day!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council? By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own. The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised. If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership. By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council. I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them. Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port? I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard. In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.[/p][/quote]wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans? Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it? you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it? under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge![/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest. Not all of the New Forest is a forest. The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam. Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest. I think you need to get out a bit.[/p][/quote]now your being a right t+t ! firstly posters are saying NO to building a dock in the New Forest I say it's not so you come at me because you are just a total tool. Then I post about Marchwood Military PORT & again you seem to side with the Anti Southampton posters why? again it can only because your a total tool . your sounding more & more like Southy every day! loosehead

9:23pm Sun 12 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Where the hell did you get the idea that a piece of river bed dredged & a bay filled in with it is part of the forest?
If you can make that claim how about the reclamation that took part at Hythe to build a marina on what you say is the New Forest?
what about all the new housing estates built in Marchwood,Dibden & Hythe etc;?
was that okay to build on the New Forest? stop being a total hypocrite!
Which local authority does Dibden come under loosehead?

In which political constituency is Dibden situated loosehead?

Is Totton a district of Southampton loosehead?

If you travel from Southampton to Dibden, do you pass through Totton loosehead?

Does the River Test form the Western boundary of Southampton loosehead?
I take it you never listened to the politics show today where your beloved PPC Rowenna said the Western side of the Itchen the Labour council would love to build on but can't because it's a flood plain & they need flood defences first yet YOUR beloved council IS building Flats on that flood plains so which one is right & how wrong are you a old Socialist protesting against the proposed production of jobs?
MY Beloved Council?

I do not live in either Southampton or Waterside.
yet you come on here attacking any poster that dares speak out against Southamptons Labour council so what are you? an old man looking to have a verbal fight?
Linesman now your saying you are from neither area you've shown what type of a person you are & I no longer consider anything you have to say warrants my recognition you ought to try to sort out the area where you live as your talking rot on here
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Where the hell did you get the idea that a piece of river bed dredged & a bay filled in with it is part of the forest? If you can make that claim how about the reclamation that took part at Hythe to build a marina on what you say is the New Forest? what about all the new housing estates built in Marchwood,Dibden & Hythe etc;? was that okay to build on the New Forest? stop being a total hypocrite![/p][/quote]Which local authority does Dibden come under loosehead? In which political constituency is Dibden situated loosehead? Is Totton a district of Southampton loosehead? If you travel from Southampton to Dibden, do you pass through Totton loosehead? Does the River Test form the Western boundary of Southampton loosehead?[/p][/quote]I take it you never listened to the politics show today where your beloved PPC Rowenna said the Western side of the Itchen the Labour council would love to build on but can't because it's a flood plain & they need flood defences first yet YOUR beloved council IS building Flats on that flood plains so which one is right & how wrong are you a old Socialist protesting against the proposed production of jobs?[/p][/quote]MY Beloved Council? I do not live in either Southampton or Waterside.[/p][/quote]yet you come on here attacking any poster that dares speak out against Southamptons Labour council so what are you? an old man looking to have a verbal fight? Linesman now your saying you are from neither area you've shown what type of a person you are & I no longer consider anything you have to say warrants my recognition you ought to try to sort out the area where you live as your talking rot on here loosehead

7:25am Mon 13 Jan 14

ranger_bob says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council?

By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own.

The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised.

If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership.

By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council.

I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them.

Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port?

I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard.

In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.
wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans?
Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it?
you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it?
under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge!
There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest.

Not all of the New Forest is a forest.

The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam.

Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest.

I think you need to get out a bit.
The word forest as used in the title The New Forest has nothing to do with woodland. When William the Conqueror came down to the South and saw Ytene he decided he wanted it as his own Royal Game Preserve and called it Nova Foresta (New Forest). The word "forest" comes from Middle English forest, from Old French forest (also forès) "forest, vast expanse covered by trees"; first introduced in English as the word for wild land set aside for hunting without the necessity in definition for the existence of trees.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council? By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own. The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised. If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership. By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council. I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them. Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port? I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard. In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.[/p][/quote]wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans? Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it? you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it? under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge![/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest. Not all of the New Forest is a forest. The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam. Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest. I think you need to get out a bit.[/p][/quote]The word forest as used in the title The New Forest has nothing to do with woodland. When William the Conqueror came down to the South and saw Ytene he decided he wanted it as his own Royal Game Preserve and called it Nova Foresta (New Forest). The word "forest" comes from Middle English forest, from Old French forest (also forès) "forest, vast expanse covered by trees"; first introduced in English as the word for wild land set aside for hunting without the necessity in definition for the existence of trees. ranger_bob

11:05am Mon 13 Jan 14

Linesman says...

ranger_bob wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council?

By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own.

The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised.

If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership.

By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council.

I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them.

Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port?

I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard.

In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.
wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans?
Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it?
you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it?
under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge!
There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest.

Not all of the New Forest is a forest.

The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam.

Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest.

I think you need to get out a bit.
The word forest as used in the title The New Forest has nothing to do with woodland. When William the Conqueror came down to the South and saw Ytene he decided he wanted it as his own Royal Game Preserve and called it Nova Foresta (New Forest). The word "forest" comes from Middle English forest, from Old French forest (also forès) "forest, vast expanse covered by trees"; first introduced in English as the word for wild land set aside for hunting without the necessity in definition for the existence of trees.
Thanks for those words of wisdom ranger-bob.

Maybe, just maybe, loosehead will accept your explanation.

Who knows, he may even venture West, cross the Test, and check it out for himself.
[quote][p][bold]ranger_bob[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council? By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own. The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised. If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership. By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council. I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them. Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port? I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard. In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.[/p][/quote]wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans? Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it? you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it? under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge![/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest. Not all of the New Forest is a forest. The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam. Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest. I think you need to get out a bit.[/p][/quote]The word forest as used in the title The New Forest has nothing to do with woodland. When William the Conqueror came down to the South and saw Ytene he decided he wanted it as his own Royal Game Preserve and called it Nova Foresta (New Forest). The word "forest" comes from Middle English forest, from Old French forest (also forès) "forest, vast expanse covered by trees"; first introduced in English as the word for wild land set aside for hunting without the necessity in definition for the existence of trees.[/p][/quote]Thanks for those words of wisdom ranger-bob. Maybe, just maybe, loosehead will accept your explanation. Who knows, he may even venture West, cross the Test, and check it out for himself. Linesman

11:18am Mon 13 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Where the hell did you get the idea that a piece of river bed dredged & a bay filled in with it is part of the forest?
If you can make that claim how about the reclamation that took part at Hythe to build a marina on what you say is the New Forest?
what about all the new housing estates built in Marchwood,Dibden & Hythe etc;?
was that okay to build on the New Forest? stop being a total hypocrite!
Which local authority does Dibden come under loosehead?

In which political constituency is Dibden situated loosehead?

Is Totton a district of Southampton loosehead?

If you travel from Southampton to Dibden, do you pass through Totton loosehead?

Does the River Test form the Western boundary of Southampton loosehead?
I take it you never listened to the politics show today where your beloved PPC Rowenna said the Western side of the Itchen the Labour council would love to build on but can't because it's a flood plain & they need flood defences first yet YOUR beloved council IS building Flats on that flood plains so which one is right & how wrong are you a old Socialist protesting against the proposed production of jobs?
MY Beloved Council?

I do not live in either Southampton or Waterside.
yet you come on here attacking any poster that dares speak out against Southamptons Labour council so what are you? an old man looking to have a verbal fight?
Linesman now your saying you are from neither area you've shown what type of a person you are & I no longer consider anything you have to say warrants my recognition you ought to try to sort out the area where you live as your talking rot on here
You are not a Waterside resident, but you have plenty to say on the subject.

I am a Hampshire resident, and each district is inter-related, so I am not so introverted that I only take an interest in what is happening in the local area that I live.

To think that I have to suffer the ignominy of you no longer considering that anything I say warrants your recognition really upsets me, and brings me near to tears.

How could someone, who is a fount of knowledge on virtually all subjects, and has never found to have come to an incorrect conclusion, treat me in such a manner.

How utterly thoughtless of you.

I wonder whether the fact that having discovered that the New Forest is not one massive area covered trees, has caused another tantrum and you have 'thrown your toys out of your pram.'.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Where the hell did you get the idea that a piece of river bed dredged & a bay filled in with it is part of the forest? If you can make that claim how about the reclamation that took part at Hythe to build a marina on what you say is the New Forest? what about all the new housing estates built in Marchwood,Dibden & Hythe etc;? was that okay to build on the New Forest? stop being a total hypocrite![/p][/quote]Which local authority does Dibden come under loosehead? In which political constituency is Dibden situated loosehead? Is Totton a district of Southampton loosehead? If you travel from Southampton to Dibden, do you pass through Totton loosehead? Does the River Test form the Western boundary of Southampton loosehead?[/p][/quote]I take it you never listened to the politics show today where your beloved PPC Rowenna said the Western side of the Itchen the Labour council would love to build on but can't because it's a flood plain & they need flood defences first yet YOUR beloved council IS building Flats on that flood plains so which one is right & how wrong are you a old Socialist protesting against the proposed production of jobs?[/p][/quote]MY Beloved Council? I do not live in either Southampton or Waterside.[/p][/quote]yet you come on here attacking any poster that dares speak out against Southamptons Labour council so what are you? an old man looking to have a verbal fight? Linesman now your saying you are from neither area you've shown what type of a person you are & I no longer consider anything you have to say warrants my recognition you ought to try to sort out the area where you live as your talking rot on here[/p][/quote]You are not a Waterside resident, but you have plenty to say on the subject. I am a Hampshire resident, and each district is inter-related, so I am not so introverted that I only take an interest in what is happening in the local area that I live. To think that I have to suffer the ignominy of you no longer considering that anything I say warrants your recognition really upsets me, and brings me near to tears. How could someone, who is a fount of knowledge on virtually all subjects, and has never found to have come to an incorrect conclusion, treat me in such a manner. How utterly thoughtless of you. I wonder whether the fact that having discovered that the New Forest is not one massive area covered trees, has caused another tantrum and you have 'thrown your toys out of your pram.'. Linesman

11:21am Mon 13 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council?

By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own.

The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised.

If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership.

By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council.

I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them.

Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port?

I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard.

In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.
wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans?
Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it?
you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it?
under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge!
There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest.

Not all of the New Forest is a forest.

The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam.

Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest.

I think you need to get out a bit.
now your being a right t+t ! firstly posters are saying NO to building a dock in the New Forest I say it's not so you come at me because you are just a total tool.
Then I post about Marchwood Military PORT & again you seem to side with the Anti Southampton posters why? again it can only because your a total tool .
your sounding more & more like Southy every day!
Back to name-calling again?

It would appear that old habits die hard.

I will not respond in kind because, as I am an adult, I believe in behaving like an adult.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council? By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own. The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised. If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership. By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council. I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them. Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port? I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard. In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.[/p][/quote]wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans? Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it? you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it? under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge![/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest. Not all of the New Forest is a forest. The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam. Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest. I think you need to get out a bit.[/p][/quote]now your being a right t+t ! firstly posters are saying NO to building a dock in the New Forest I say it's not so you come at me because you are just a total tool. Then I post about Marchwood Military PORT & again you seem to side with the Anti Southampton posters why? again it can only because your a total tool . your sounding more & more like Southy every day![/p][/quote]Back to name-calling again? It would appear that old habits die hard. I will not respond in kind because, as I am an adult, I believe in behaving like an adult. Linesman

12:40pm Mon 13 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council?

By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own.

The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised.

If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership.

By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council.

I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them.

Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port?

I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard.

In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.
wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans?
Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it?
you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it?
under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge!
There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest.

Not all of the New Forest is a forest.

The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam.

Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest.

I think you need to get out a bit.
now your being a right t+t ! firstly posters are saying NO to building a dock in the New Forest I say it's not so you come at me because you are just a total tool.
Then I post about Marchwood Military PORT & again you seem to side with the Anti Southampton posters why? again it can only because your a total tool .
your sounding more & more like Southy every day!
Back to name-calling again?

It would appear that old habits die hard.

I will not respond in kind because, as I am an adult, I believe in behaving like an adult.
you infer that I'm a liar & make up people then you accuse me of name calling?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council? By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own. The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised. If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership. By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council. I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them. Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port? I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard. In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.[/p][/quote]wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans? Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it? you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it? under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge![/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest. Not all of the New Forest is a forest. The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam. Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest. I think you need to get out a bit.[/p][/quote]now your being a right t+t ! firstly posters are saying NO to building a dock in the New Forest I say it's not so you come at me because you are just a total tool. Then I post about Marchwood Military PORT & again you seem to side with the Anti Southampton posters why? again it can only because your a total tool . your sounding more & more like Southy every day![/p][/quote]Back to name-calling again? It would appear that old habits die hard. I will not respond in kind because, as I am an adult, I believe in behaving like an adult.[/p][/quote]you infer that I'm a liar & make up people then you accuse me of name calling? loosehead

4:15pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council?

By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own.

The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised.

If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership.

By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council.

I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them.

Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port?

I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard.

In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.
wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans?
Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it?
you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it?
under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge!
There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest.

Not all of the New Forest is a forest.

The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam.

Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest.

I think you need to get out a bit.
now your being a right t+t ! firstly posters are saying NO to building a dock in the New Forest I say it's not so you come at me because you are just a total tool.
Then I post about Marchwood Military PORT & again you seem to side with the Anti Southampton posters why? again it can only because your a total tool .
your sounding more & more like Southy every day!
Back to name-calling again?

It would appear that old habits die hard.

I will not respond in kind because, as I am an adult, I believe in behaving like an adult.
you infer that I'm a liar & make up people then you accuse me of name calling?
I have disagreed with you, and I have pointed out to you that you have not fully understood what I have written, but I have never called you a liar, and I leave the name-calling to you, as by doing so it devalues the strength of an argument.

If you think that calling me a t*t and a tool advances the strength of your argument, then I'm afraid that it is something else that we would agree to disagree about.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council? By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own. The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised. If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership. By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council. I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them. Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port? I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard. In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.[/p][/quote]wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans? Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it? you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it? under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge![/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest. Not all of the New Forest is a forest. The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam. Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest. I think you need to get out a bit.[/p][/quote]now your being a right t+t ! firstly posters are saying NO to building a dock in the New Forest I say it's not so you come at me because you are just a total tool. Then I post about Marchwood Military PORT & again you seem to side with the Anti Southampton posters why? again it can only because your a total tool . your sounding more & more like Southy every day![/p][/quote]Back to name-calling again? It would appear that old habits die hard. I will not respond in kind because, as I am an adult, I believe in behaving like an adult.[/p][/quote]you infer that I'm a liar & make up people then you accuse me of name calling?[/p][/quote]I have disagreed with you, and I have pointed out to you that you have not fully understood what I have written, but I have never called you a liar, and I leave the name-calling to you, as by doing so it devalues the strength of an argument. If you think that calling me a t*t and a tool advances the strength of your argument, then I'm afraid that it is something else that we would agree to disagree about. Linesman

6:17pm Mon 13 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council?

By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own.

The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised.

If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership.

By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council.

I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them.

Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port?

I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard.

In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.
wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans?
Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it?
you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it?
under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge!
There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest.

Not all of the New Forest is a forest.

The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam.

Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest.

I think you need to get out a bit.
now your being a right t+t ! firstly posters are saying NO to building a dock in the New Forest I say it's not so you come at me because you are just a total tool.
Then I post about Marchwood Military PORT & again you seem to side with the Anti Southampton posters why? again it can only because your a total tool .
your sounding more & more like Southy every day!
Back to name-calling again?

It would appear that old habits die hard.

I will not respond in kind because, as I am an adult, I believe in behaving like an adult.
you infer that I'm a liar & make up people then you accuse me of name calling?
I have disagreed with you, and I have pointed out to you that you have not fully understood what I have written, but I have never called you a liar, and I leave the name-calling to you, as by doing so it devalues the strength of an argument.

If you think that calling me a t*t and a tool advances the strength of your argument, then I'm afraid that it is something else that we would agree to disagree about.
have you not suggest I make up friends & family on one of your posts? do you believe I make up stories as you've suggested on other posts?
if it's yes to either question that makes me a liar in your books so stop playing the hurt party.
to try to let you understand where my information comes from I bring up points in my life & my friends & families but you have decided in many of your posts these are make believe yet you don't know me or what type of up bringing I've had so who's being insulting doubting what I say?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council? By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own. The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised. If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership. By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council. I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them. Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port? I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard. In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.[/p][/quote]wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans? Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it? you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it? under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge![/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest. Not all of the New Forest is a forest. The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam. Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest. I think you need to get out a bit.[/p][/quote]now your being a right t+t ! firstly posters are saying NO to building a dock in the New Forest I say it's not so you come at me because you are just a total tool. Then I post about Marchwood Military PORT & again you seem to side with the Anti Southampton posters why? again it can only because your a total tool . your sounding more & more like Southy every day![/p][/quote]Back to name-calling again? It would appear that old habits die hard. I will not respond in kind because, as I am an adult, I believe in behaving like an adult.[/p][/quote]you infer that I'm a liar & make up people then you accuse me of name calling?[/p][/quote]I have disagreed with you, and I have pointed out to you that you have not fully understood what I have written, but I have never called you a liar, and I leave the name-calling to you, as by doing so it devalues the strength of an argument. If you think that calling me a t*t and a tool advances the strength of your argument, then I'm afraid that it is something else that we would agree to disagree about.[/p][/quote]have you not suggest I make up friends & family on one of your posts? do you believe I make up stories as you've suggested on other posts? if it's yes to either question that makes me a liar in your books so stop playing the hurt party. to try to let you understand where my information comes from I bring up points in my life & my friends & families but you have decided in many of your posts these are make believe yet you don't know me or what type of up bringing I've had so who's being insulting doubting what I say? loosehead

8:04pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council?

By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own.

The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised.

If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership.

By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council.

I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them.

Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port?

I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard.

In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.
wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans?
Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it?
you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it?
under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge!
There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest.

Not all of the New Forest is a forest.

The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam.

Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest.

I think you need to get out a bit.
now your being a right t+t ! firstly posters are saying NO to building a dock in the New Forest I say it's not so you come at me because you are just a total tool.
Then I post about Marchwood Military PORT & again you seem to side with the Anti Southampton posters why? again it can only because your a total tool .
your sounding more & more like Southy every day!
Back to name-calling again?

It would appear that old habits die hard.

I will not respond in kind because, as I am an adult, I believe in behaving like an adult.
you infer that I'm a liar & make up people then you accuse me of name calling?
I have disagreed with you, and I have pointed out to you that you have not fully understood what I have written, but I have never called you a liar, and I leave the name-calling to you, as by doing so it devalues the strength of an argument.

If you think that calling me a t*t and a tool advances the strength of your argument, then I'm afraid that it is something else that we would agree to disagree about.
have you not suggest I make up friends & family on one of your posts? do you believe I make up stories as you've suggested on other posts?
if it's yes to either question that makes me a liar in your books so stop playing the hurt party.
to try to let you understand where my information comes from I bring up points in my life & my friends & families but you have decided in many of your posts these are make believe yet you don't know me or what type of up bringing I've had so who's being insulting doubting what I say?
No, I have never said such a thing, but I have said that I am surprised that you always seem to be able to claim that you have a friend or relative that can conveniently be called upon to substantiate any claim that you make.

I was just surprised that the people from Waterside that you met on the cruise down the Southampton Water were not friends or relatives.

I have Never said that I disbelieved you, but have expressed surprise.

There is a difference.

However, there can be no doubt whatsoever about name-calling.

As they were residents of Waterside, it is a pity that they had not informed you that by living in Waterside, they also lived in the New Forest East constituency.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council? By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own. The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised. If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership. By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council. I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them. Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port? I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard. In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.[/p][/quote]wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans? Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it? you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it? under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge![/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest. Not all of the New Forest is a forest. The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam. Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest. I think you need to get out a bit.[/p][/quote]now your being a right t+t ! firstly posters are saying NO to building a dock in the New Forest I say it's not so you come at me because you are just a total tool. Then I post about Marchwood Military PORT & again you seem to side with the Anti Southampton posters why? again it can only because your a total tool . your sounding more & more like Southy every day![/p][/quote]Back to name-calling again? It would appear that old habits die hard. I will not respond in kind because, as I am an adult, I believe in behaving like an adult.[/p][/quote]you infer that I'm a liar & make up people then you accuse me of name calling?[/p][/quote]I have disagreed with you, and I have pointed out to you that you have not fully understood what I have written, but I have never called you a liar, and I leave the name-calling to you, as by doing so it devalues the strength of an argument. If you think that calling me a t*t and a tool advances the strength of your argument, then I'm afraid that it is something else that we would agree to disagree about.[/p][/quote]have you not suggest I make up friends & family on one of your posts? do you believe I make up stories as you've suggested on other posts? if it's yes to either question that makes me a liar in your books so stop playing the hurt party. to try to let you understand where my information comes from I bring up points in my life & my friends & families but you have decided in many of your posts these are make believe yet you don't know me or what type of up bringing I've had so who's being insulting doubting what I say?[/p][/quote]No, I have never said such a thing, but I have said that I am surprised that you always seem to be able to claim that you have a friend or relative that can conveniently be called upon to substantiate any claim that you make. I was just surprised that the people from Waterside that you met on the cruise down the Southampton Water were not friends or relatives. I have Never said that I disbelieved you, but have expressed surprise. There is a difference. However, there can be no doubt whatsoever about name-calling. As they were residents of Waterside, it is a pity that they had not informed you that by living in Waterside, they also lived in the New Forest East constituency. Linesman

9:08pm Mon 13 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council?

By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own.

The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised.

If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership.

By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council.

I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them.

Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port?

I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard.

In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.
wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans?
Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it?
you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it?
under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge!
There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest.

Not all of the New Forest is a forest.

The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam.

Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest.

I think you need to get out a bit.
now your being a right t+t ! firstly posters are saying NO to building a dock in the New Forest I say it's not so you come at me because you are just a total tool.
Then I post about Marchwood Military PORT & again you seem to side with the Anti Southampton posters why? again it can only because your a total tool .
your sounding more & more like Southy every day!
Back to name-calling again?

It would appear that old habits die hard.

I will not respond in kind because, as I am an adult, I believe in behaving like an adult.
you infer that I'm a liar & make up people then you accuse me of name calling?
I have disagreed with you, and I have pointed out to you that you have not fully understood what I have written, but I have never called you a liar, and I leave the name-calling to you, as by doing so it devalues the strength of an argument.

If you think that calling me a t*t and a tool advances the strength of your argument, then I'm afraid that it is something else that we would agree to disagree about.
have you not suggest I make up friends & family on one of your posts? do you believe I make up stories as you've suggested on other posts?
if it's yes to either question that makes me a liar in your books so stop playing the hurt party.
to try to let you understand where my information comes from I bring up points in my life & my friends & families but you have decided in many of your posts these are make believe yet you don't know me or what type of up bringing I've had so who's being insulting doubting what I say?
No, I have never said such a thing, but I have said that I am surprised that you always seem to be able to claim that you have a friend or relative that can conveniently be called upon to substantiate any claim that you make.

I was just surprised that the people from Waterside that you met on the cruise down the Southampton Water were not friends or relatives.

I have Never said that I disbelieved you, but have expressed surprise.

There is a difference.

However, there can be no doubt whatsoever about name-calling.

As they were residents of Waterside, it is a pity that they had not informed you that by living in Waterside, they also lived in the New Forest East constituency.
so in your own words you don't believe me you know nothing about me yet you fond it in your own words
".but I have said that I am surprised that you always seem to be able to claim that you have a friend or relative that can conveniently be called upon to substantiate any claim that you make."
I come from a family with eleven children my mother came from a large family so I have countless cousins,uncles & Aunty's so it's not surprising at all so to question the validity of what I say is tantamount to calling me a liar.
also once being in the TA I had friends from the waterside & playing Rugby I talk to Fawley players so yes I find out about things before I comment on them
pity you know nothing about me yet you seem to doubt the validity of my posts?
if I'm wrong & it's proven I will apologise but you come on here & instead of coming out & calling me a liar you put it in a way that I know & other posters know that's exactly what your doing
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council? By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own. The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised. If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership. By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council. I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them. Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port? I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard. In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.[/p][/quote]wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans? Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it? you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it? under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge![/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest. Not all of the New Forest is a forest. The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam. Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest. I think you need to get out a bit.[/p][/quote]now your being a right t+t ! firstly posters are saying NO to building a dock in the New Forest I say it's not so you come at me because you are just a total tool. Then I post about Marchwood Military PORT & again you seem to side with the Anti Southampton posters why? again it can only because your a total tool . your sounding more & more like Southy every day![/p][/quote]Back to name-calling again? It would appear that old habits die hard. I will not respond in kind because, as I am an adult, I believe in behaving like an adult.[/p][/quote]you infer that I'm a liar & make up people then you accuse me of name calling?[/p][/quote]I have disagreed with you, and I have pointed out to you that you have not fully understood what I have written, but I have never called you a liar, and I leave the name-calling to you, as by doing so it devalues the strength of an argument. If you think that calling me a t*t and a tool advances the strength of your argument, then I'm afraid that it is something else that we would agree to disagree about.[/p][/quote]have you not suggest I make up friends & family on one of your posts? do you believe I make up stories as you've suggested on other posts? if it's yes to either question that makes me a liar in your books so stop playing the hurt party. to try to let you understand where my information comes from I bring up points in my life & my friends & families but you have decided in many of your posts these are make believe yet you don't know me or what type of up bringing I've had so who's being insulting doubting what I say?[/p][/quote]No, I have never said such a thing, but I have said that I am surprised that you always seem to be able to claim that you have a friend or relative that can conveniently be called upon to substantiate any claim that you make. I was just surprised that the people from Waterside that you met on the cruise down the Southampton Water were not friends or relatives. I have Never said that I disbelieved you, but have expressed surprise. There is a difference. However, there can be no doubt whatsoever about name-calling. As they were residents of Waterside, it is a pity that they had not informed you that by living in Waterside, they also lived in the New Forest East constituency.[/p][/quote]so in your own words you don't believe me you know nothing about me yet you fond it in your own words ".but I have said that I am surprised that you always seem to be able to claim that you have a friend or relative that can conveniently be called upon to substantiate any claim that you make." I come from a family with eleven children my mother came from a large family so I have countless cousins,uncles & Aunty's so it's not surprising at all so to question the validity of what I say is tantamount to calling me a liar. also once being in the TA I had friends from the waterside & playing Rugby I talk to Fawley players so yes I find out about things before I comment on them pity you know nothing about me yet you seem to doubt the validity of my posts? if I'm wrong & it's proven I will apologise but you come on here & instead of coming out & calling me a liar you put it in a way that I know & other posters know that's exactly what your doing loosehead

8:14am Tue 14 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council?

By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own.

The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised.

If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership.

By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council.

I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them.

Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port?

I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard.

In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.
wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans?
Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it?
you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it?
under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge!
There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest.

Not all of the New Forest is a forest.

The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam.

Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest.

I think you need to get out a bit.
now your being a right t+t ! firstly posters are saying NO to building a dock in the New Forest I say it's not so you come at me because you are just a total tool.
Then I post about Marchwood Military PORT & again you seem to side with the Anti Southampton posters why? again it can only because your a total tool .
your sounding more & more like Southy every day!
Back to name-calling again?

It would appear that old habits die hard.

I will not respond in kind because, as I am an adult, I believe in behaving like an adult.
you infer that I'm a liar & make up people then you accuse me of name calling?
I have disagreed with you, and I have pointed out to you that you have not fully understood what I have written, but I have never called you a liar, and I leave the name-calling to you, as by doing so it devalues the strength of an argument.

If you think that calling me a t*t and a tool advances the strength of your argument, then I'm afraid that it is something else that we would agree to disagree about.
have you not suggest I make up friends & family on one of your posts? do you believe I make up stories as you've suggested on other posts?
if it's yes to either question that makes me a liar in your books so stop playing the hurt party.
to try to let you understand where my information comes from I bring up points in my life & my friends & families but you have decided in many of your posts these are make believe yet you don't know me or what type of up bringing I've had so who's being insulting doubting what I say?
No, I have never said such a thing, but I have said that I am surprised that you always seem to be able to claim that you have a friend or relative that can conveniently be called upon to substantiate any claim that you make.

I was just surprised that the people from Waterside that you met on the cruise down the Southampton Water were not friends or relatives.

I have Never said that I disbelieved you, but have expressed surprise.

There is a difference.

However, there can be no doubt whatsoever about name-calling.

As they were residents of Waterside, it is a pity that they had not informed you that by living in Waterside, they also lived in the New Forest East constituency.
so in your own words you don't believe me you know nothing about me yet you fond it in your own words
".but I have said that I am surprised that you always seem to be able to claim that you have a friend or relative that can conveniently be called upon to substantiate any claim that you make."
I come from a family with eleven children my mother came from a large family so I have countless cousins,uncles & Aunty's so it's not surprising at all so to question the validity of what I say is tantamount to calling me a liar.
also once being in the TA I had friends from the waterside & playing Rugby I talk to Fawley players so yes I find out about things before I comment on them
pity you know nothing about me yet you seem to doubt the validity of my posts?
if I'm wrong & it's proven I will apologise but you come on here & instead of coming out & calling me a liar you put it in a way that I know & other posters know that's exactly what your doing
Once again you show your total lack of understanding of what I have written.

WHERE HAVE I SAID THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU?

I suggest you see you GP, because you appear to be showing signs of paranoia - a persecution complex.

I have said that I am surprised that you always seem have a friend or relative on hand who does or would confirm what you claim, but as you say, I know nothing about your family or your circle of friends.

I am NOT saying that other posters have the knowledge that you are claiming they have, but I must confess that I have not seen the evidence that you appear to have seen.

I have NEVER called you a liar, (and that is a word that I cannot recall ever using in any previous post, whether in response to you or any other poster) and think that you are making the accusation, and resorting to name-calling, in a desperate attempt to deflect attention from some of the comments that you have made that are so obviously incorrect.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: If ABP need to enlarge the container port, then why did they not step in to redevelop the VT site in Woolston, which IS in Southampton, as opposed to wanting to move into an area that comes under the auspices of the New Forest District Council? By doing so, they would be building on a Brown-field site, as opposed to a Green-field site, and they could also have redeveloped part of the dock area that they already own. The fact that Dibden Bay is no longer a Bay, because it was filled in by dredgings from Southampton Water is a red herring that keeps being raised. If I were to dump a load of top-soil on someone's front garden, that would not give me any entitlement to build on it or claim ownership. By the same token, marshland at Ashlett was reclaimed by pumping dredgings on there in the 50s, but it is still comes under the New Forest District Council. I do NOT live in the area, although I am familiar with it, but I see no reason why those who do live there should have this development inflicted on them. Can you imagine the out-cry if Western Shore were targeted by ABP, to be redeveloped and turned into a container port? I wonder how many of those in favour of the Dibden Bay redevelopment, who live in that area, citing 'job creation' as their reason, would suddenly find that job creation was not so important in their back yard. In my opinion, the local view has to be paramount.[/p][/quote]wasn't it a LABOUR COUNCIL that decided on Apartments for the Vospers site or in the least voted for the plans? Look at the areas you seem to be defending 1/Marchwood power station 2/ Incinerator.3/ Military Port.4/Oil refinery doesn't look anything like a forest to me does it? you say it comes under the New Forest Authority but that doesn't make it a part of the New Forest does it? under parliamentary seats boundaries & local authorities catchment areas loads of areas come under one name a bit like my area of Lordshill coming under the Redbridge council seat even though we're not Redbridge![/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the word FOREST, and the area that is know as the New Forest. Not all of the New Forest is a forest. The New Forest National Park is just part of the New Forest. Large areas of the New Forest is open common land, covered in heather and gorse, which is where New Forest ponies roam. Check out the New Forest round-up, and visit Beulieu Road where the ponies are checked and branded. It is in the New Forest, but certainly NOT in a forest. I think you need to get out a bit.[/p][/quote]now your being a right t+t ! firstly posters are saying NO to building a dock in the New Forest I say it's not so you come at me because you are just a total tool. Then I post about Marchwood Military PORT & again you seem to side with the Anti Southampton posters why? again it can only because your a total tool . your sounding more & more like Southy every day![/p][/quote]Back to name-calling again? It would appear that old habits die hard. I will not respond in kind because, as I am an adult, I believe in behaving like an adult.[/p][/quote]you infer that I'm a liar & make up people then you accuse me of name calling?[/p][/quote]I have disagreed with you, and I have pointed out to you that you have not fully understood what I have written, but I have never called you a liar, and I leave the name-calling to you, as by doing so it devalues the strength of an argument. If you think that calling me a t*t and a tool advances the strength of your argument, then I'm afraid that it is something else that we would agree to disagree about.[/p][/quote]have you not suggest I make up friends & family on one of your posts? do you believe I make up stories as you've suggested on other posts? if it's yes to either question that makes me a liar in your books so stop playing the hurt party. to try to let you understand where my information comes from I bring up points in my life & my friends & families but you have decided in many of your posts these are make believe yet you don't know me or what type of up bringing I've had so who's being insulting doubting what I say?[/p][/quote]No, I have never said such a thing, but I have said that I am surprised that you always seem to be able to claim that you have a friend or relative that can conveniently be called upon to substantiate any claim that you make. I was just surprised that the people from Waterside that you met on the cruise down the Southampton Water were not friends or relatives. I have Never said that I disbelieved you, but have expressed surprise. There is a difference. However, there can be no doubt whatsoever about name-calling. As they were residents of Waterside, it is a pity that they had not informed you that by living in Waterside, they also lived in the New Forest East constituency.[/p][/quote]so in your own words you don't believe me you know nothing about me yet you fond it in your own words ".but I have said that I am surprised that you always seem to be able to claim that you have a friend or relative that can conveniently be called upon to substantiate any claim that you make." I come from a family with eleven children my mother came from a large family so I have countless cousins,uncles & Aunty's so it's not surprising at all so to question the validity of what I say is tantamount to calling me a liar. also once being in the TA I had friends from the waterside & playing Rugby I talk to Fawley players so yes I find out about things before I comment on them pity you know nothing about me yet you seem to doubt the validity of my posts? if I'm wrong & it's proven I will apologise but you come on here & instead of coming out & calling me a liar you put it in a way that I know & other posters know that's exactly what your doing[/p][/quote]Once again you show your total lack of understanding of what I have written. WHERE HAVE I SAID THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU? I suggest you see you GP, because you appear to be showing signs of paranoia - a persecution complex. I have said that I am surprised that you always seem have a friend or relative on hand who does or would confirm what you claim, but as you say, I know nothing about your family or your circle of friends. I am NOT saying that other posters have the knowledge that you are claiming they have, but I must confess that I have not seen the evidence that you appear to have seen. I have NEVER called you a liar, (and that is a word that I cannot recall ever using in any previous post, whether in response to you or any other poster) and think that you are making the accusation, and resorting to name-calling, in a desperate attempt to deflect attention from some of the comments that you have made that are so obviously incorrect. Linesman

10:36am Thu 16 Jan 14

Linesman says...

I wonder what standard of English comprehension a person has, who does not know the difference between Surprise and Disbelief.

I expressed surprise.

loosehead has that more that 48 hours to admit that he was wrong, and to offer an apology for his accusation.

So much for his integrity.
I wonder what standard of English comprehension a person has, who does not know the difference between Surprise and Disbelief. I expressed surprise. loosehead has that more that 48 hours to admit that he was wrong, and to offer an apology for his accusation. So much for his integrity. Linesman

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree