Statutory laws on allotment sites are to protect the site as a whole and the legislation clearly states ANY change of use of the land which includes changing the area into a nature reserve. I say again that the erection of bat boxes in this area is controvening this legislation as if bats do move into them then the trees will become protected and the area will have changed classification without the correct procedures being followed. This is my interpretation of the statutory laws and it has been backed up by a great deal of other people. From this respect I now support the felling of the whole area as keeping plot 16 would still controvene this legislation. I wasn’t aware of the statutory laws at the meeting in January as I believe no one as was either.

As for the bullying I didn’t say that you personally lamby had accused me of bullying, although you have stated that the secretary bullied another person and as I was there at the time I have said that I do not believe this to be the case. Bullying can be very quickly blown out of proportion. I also stated that accusations of bullying had come from outside the forum as well as inside. It just seems to me that at every opportunity if someone (including council members) doesn’t like what is being said (and all the committee comments above were refering to things said off this forum) then the people saying them and asking questions are accused of bullying and intimidating behaviour. I even received an e-mail from a council member saying that another person was being taken to a meeting as they had heard they might be bullied – they had never met each other and these accusation are very hurtful.

As a formal complaint has been submitted to the Council, I take it that the letter from the Committee fell well short of what was requested. I have no further comment to make on this apart from repeating for the third time the Chairman did indeed put his hand up and vote at the meeting (for the felling of trees) and this was accepted and counted at the time without question. Am I alone in finding your continued recounts of the vote, (and inconsistent analysis of the Chairman’s intentions) rather bizarre?

Regarding your quote

I have not tried to bully or intimidate anyone and I am very unhappy that this accusation comes out everytime I, someone from the committee or anyone else on this forum asks a question or expresses an opinion that disagrees with others.

I have already replied to this in part, but I am not aware of any plot holders apart from yourself and Mark who have contributed to this forum in favour of the trees coming down. Has, as you suggest ‘someone from the Committee’ expressed an opinion on this forum?

I really do think this debate is now drawing to a close. There seems to be little / no common ground and it seems you now want to take the Council’s decision over two plots of land to ‘national’ level.

Quoting statutory laws (designed amongst other things to protect whole allotment sites from developers) to prevent two plots becoming a nature area / public bird hide, is, I believe showing the allotment movement in a very poor and selfish light.
By further refusing to accept the Council’s final decision on these two plots, the Committee have now alienated the most ‘pro allotment’ Council we have had in decades. This is truly a sad state of affairs.

‘It doesn’t state that the time and date of the meeting has to be sent – just notification of the meeting and the reason for it. This was done and therefore I do not agree that it was unconstitutional for that reason.’

I hope this sets the record straight.

I certainly have never accused you of bullying anyone, and I don’t believe anyone else has made such an accusation on this forum. I hope this also sets the record straight.

Its just my opinion – I’d have the same opinon about any document that lacked authourship. I regret given the reaction it has elicited ever mentioning this matter. As for insinuations – your site make specific claims about the actions of others in the form of a narrative – this is what I refer to as insinuations. If you choose to call this something else its your perogative, and I respect that.

I’ll for the second time decline your invitation to comment on the specifics you refer to because I don’t know anything about them.

As for your judgement over the credibility of my posts your entitled to make those judgements. Go ahead and critique my interpretation of the policy and legal context for this matter. I have repetedly invited people to post regarding what I have only received in response nothing (cos people don’t know or don’t want to say), rudeness or personal attacks.

As for others interpretation of my credibility I’m content that my conduct and postings will stand up to any objective credibility test.

ot wrong and aside from insults and rudeness

said that I wasn’t saying the site was innaccuratemore than happy for people to read my posts and make their own judgements about partiality or otherwise Lamby

‘failure to ‘own’ the site and your authorship, state who the ‘we’ are detracts from its credibility …… and leads the reader to summise that you are being selective with the details and throwing out insinuations about others in the full knowledge that it won’t come back to you.’

Please explain, which of the points 1-8 outlined previously are ‘throwing out insinuations’ (dictionary definition … covert suggestion or hint of a derogatory nature)?
For someone who is ‘not the least bit interested’ in and ‘knows nothing of the internal politics within your society’ this is quite an emotive statement. Calmly expressed I’ll give you, and hidden in the third person, but an emotive statement all the same about allegations against our committee.

I ask you once again, please tell me how allegations 1 to 8 outline previously are both ‘insinuations’ and ‘inaccuracies’ (mentioned previously), they are all now ‘owned’ by people well known on the Harthill Site and quite easy for the impartial outsider to comment on.

For this reason, I ask you once again, in the spirit of fairness and reasonableness to reply to my question, otherwise your argument (also not owned) will lose creditability (please note that this is exactly the same as being inaccurate).

I also have a slight correction to make – there were 13 votes for partial clearance not 15 as I stated earlier – I got my numbers wrong. There was also a letter voting for the clearance of the trees which was not counted as the person was not present.

My previous post confirmed that the Chairman did not vote due to being in the same position as the lady who was informed that she couldn’t vote just prior to the vote taking place. It was an unfortunate situation but I am told that the committee wrote to the lady in question and apologised for the mistake that was made regarding this. As you will see above – it was clear which way she would have voted and I included her vote in my numbers – 4 for no clearance. I will also repeat that I do not know which way the chairman would have voted. I suspect that he would have voted for no clearance at the time.

I am sick and tired of people linking the written word of the committee and anyone else who disagrees with the decision not to fell the trees (which we must understand is still being addressed within the council and therefore isn’t a definitive decision whatever anyone might say) with bullying. I have expressed my opinion and asked for answers to my personal questions and have been told “I will not be bullied or intimidated” (not on this forum I have to add). I have not tried to bully or intimidate anyone and I am very unhappy that this accusation comes out everytime I, someone from the committee or anyone else on this forum asks a question or expresses an opinion that disagrees with others.

Could the missing piece of information be that the council have decided not to clear the plots at this stage and that they may consider clearance at a later date? If the have not explained their reasons the maybe this is why. Only thing that counfounds me about that is their collusion with the erection of bat boxes spoken of above.