Say 'No' Awareness Signs

[tina]

Oh goodness me ! Let's not have another bun fight over a few posters !  Don't forget I am supposed to be Marple's working class hero  .  As someone kindly pointed out on this very forum lol  . 

Its not a bun fight MM. I was only pointing out that you can not blame the yes people for removing posters. There are MANY people who are fed up of seeing posters dotted around everywhere Yes and No ones and are removing them.

Any evidence for these "many people"?
Also, I know that the chances of it being anyone affiliated with the "Yes" campagian, however, it does seem convienent that A. only "no" posters were removed and B. they were removed around the time of the interview.

I also aggree with MM here, we shouldn't get in a "heated discussion" about these signs/posters. all its going to lead to is people going away with there tail between there legs.
I also don't find a problem with Martyn's post, hes not attacking anyone, infact, he's calling those people who do own there house "lucky"!

Read it again Daniel I said the yes and no posters have been removed!!! why would the yes people remove their own posters?

[Smithy166]

Oh goodness me ! Let's not have another bun fight over a few posters !  Don't forget I am supposed to be Marple's working class hero  .  As someone kindly pointed out on this very forum lol  . 

Its not a bun fight MM. I was only pointing out that you can not blame the yes people for removing posters. There are MANY people who are fed up of seeing posters dotted around everywhere Yes and No ones and are removing them.

Any evidence for these "many people"?
Also, I know that the chances of it being anyone affiliated with the "Yes" campagian, however, it does seem convienent that A. only "no" posters were removed and B. they were removed around the time of the interview.

I also aggree with MM here, we shouldn't get in a "heated discussion" about these signs/posters. all its going to lead to is people going away with there tail between there legs.
I also don't find a problem with Martyn's post, hes not attacking anyone, infact, he's calling those people who do own there house "lucky"!

[tina]

Oh goodness me ! Let's not have another bun fight over a few posters !  Don't forget I am supposed to be Marple's working class hero  .  As someone kindly pointed out on this very forum lol  . 

Its not a bun fight MM. I was only pointing out that you can not blame the yes people for removing posters. There are MANY people who are fed up of seeing posters dotted around everywhere Yes and No ones and are removing them. I witnessed a student removing one on Friday, I didn't have time to ask him why he removed it as I was on my way to work. But I did hear from someone else that the students are scared because they have been told they are going to loose their college. I know this is not true because they are only going to be moved down the road to Buxton lane, but they have been told the college will be closed.

This is why it is important to keep to the facts and give up the hearsay, scaremongering he said she said they said etc etc...
I did ask to be shown some facts, I'm still waiting!!!  You can't say I'll show you but then not

[Miss Marple]

Oh goodness me ! Let's not have another bun fight over a few posters !  Don't forget I am supposed to be Marple's working class hero  .  As someone kindly pointed out on this very forum lol  . 

[tina]

Convenient that 90% of 'NO' signs were removed from gardens on hibbert lane near the college last night ready for their photoshoot , just shows what immature scallys we are dealing with. Radio interview was comical also , scaremongering about house depreciation ....... Lets get one thing straight , if you are lucky enough to own your own house (as some don't and it wouldn't affect them) on Hibbert Lane very near to where the supermarket would be built , depreciation of house value is a certainty.

Very childish to blame the yes people...Yes posters have also been taken down, as quick as they are put up they are taken down, but I can't see any yes people throwing accusations about? I'm no scally for your information, I have 2 jobs and own my own house, why do you all presume the worst in people? A supermarket for some residents is appealing, and not so for others. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion and should not be slagged off . MIA keep saying its not a class war but alot of you are making it sound like that with disrespectful post's like this 1!

[JMC]

Convenient that 90% of 'NO' signs were removed from gardens on hibbert lane near the college last night ready for their photoshoot , just shows what immature scallys we are dealing with. Radio interview was comical also , scaremongering about house depreciation ....... Lets get one thing straight , if you are lucky enough to own your own house (as some don't and it wouldn't affect them) on Hibbert Lane very near to where the supermarket would be built , depreciation of house value is a certainty.

How do you know it was them? Why resort to name calling?

[Bulky]

Convenient that 90% of 'NO' signs were removed from gardens on hibbert lane near the college last night ready for their photoshoot , just shows what immature scallys we are dealing with. Radio interview was comical also , scaremongering about house depreciation ....... Lets get one thing straight , if you are lucky enough to own your own house (as some don't and it wouldn't affect them) on Hibbert Lane very near to where the supermarket would be built , depreciation of house value is a certainty.

[Dave]

The key issue is the governors' responsibility for 'the effective and efficient use of resources, the solvency of the institution and the Corporation and safeguarding their assets', which is the relevant clause from the standard Articles of Government of sixth form colleges.  I believe that the present legal interpretation of 'safeguarding assets' includes the expectation that if any assets are disposed of, it must be for the best available value.   Hence the Chairman's reference to the college being 'duty bound to accept the highest offer without fear or favour.'

[Howard]

Best offer does not always mean highest price. 

What else could it mean?

I suppose it could mean the difference between "cost" and "value". Cost could mean a lump sum all in one go whereas value might be a larger overall sum but paid over a few years or with additional payments once certain conditions have been met (gaining planing permission for a supermarket, for example).

No inside knowledge here, just some recognition that best offer isn't always the highest.

[Dave]

Best offer does not always mean highest price. 

What else could it mean?

[Maria]

They are allowed to sell to whom they choose in reality.

Not quite.  They would not be allowed to sell to anyone other than whoever makes the best offer, as the Chair of Governors has stated.

Best offer does not always mean highest price.  In this case to the college it does therefore I can never see them selling to say a housing development, the supermarket owners will simply keep applying for planning permission as they always do until they get it.  Greed, not need, is the driving factor here in my opinion!

[Dave]

They are allowed to sell to whom they choose in reality.

Not quite.  They would not be allowed to sell to anyone other than whoever makes the best offer, as the Chair of Governors has stated.

[Maria]

CAMSFC have recently registered the land to set it up for sale with a value confirmed in the land registry documents of £12 million.  I know it is not binding but seems unlikely they would sell for less than that-goes against their statement of intent to sell for, as confirmed by Andrew Hubert, the maximum value.  If it is 'worth' £12 million they will not sell for less.  Again my opinion and I await the backlash as a result!

Not just your opinion, maria - it's the inevitable outcome, because as the college's chair of governors has pointed out in his statement, 'The College, being a public body, must always act in the best interests of our students and is duty bound to accept the highest offer without fear or favour.'  MIA are wrong to assume that if a supermarket offered £12 million for the site, the college could still choose to sell it to a housing developer for less.  They would not be allowed to do that. 

The price has been set high for a purpose and has been registered for the same reason.  They are allowed to sell to whom they choose in reality. 

[Dave]

CAMSFC have recently registered the land to set it up for sale with a value confirmed in the land registry documents of £12 million.  I know it is not binding but seems unlikely they would sell for less than that-goes against their statement of intent to sell for, as confirmed by Andrew Hubert, the maximum value.  If it is 'worth' £12 million they will not sell for less.  Again my opinion and I await the backlash as a result!

Not just your opinion, maria - it's the inevitable outcome, because as the college's chair of governors has pointed out in his statement, 'The College, being a public body, must always act in the best interests of our students and is duty bound to accept the highest offer without fear or favour.'  MIA are wrong to assume that if a supermarket offered £12 million for the site, the college could still choose to sell it to a housing developer for less.  They would not be allowed to do that. 

[Maria]

I agree that the college has not handled this matter very cleverly so far - trying to hush it up from the outset was completely the wrong thing to do - after all, it was always going to become public at some stage.  So no wonder it has now backfired on them.   

That said, the college can't have the faintest idea what they are going to get for the Hibbert Lane site, if they go ahead with trying to sell it.  If a supermarket can get planning consent, then we are told it might sell for £12 million or more.  If they can't get that consent, and the land is sold for another use, it could be £4 million or less.  So we're not going to see anything 'concrete' for quite a while - in more senses than one 

CAMSFC have recently registered the land to set it up for sale with a value confirmed in the land registry documents of £12 million.  I know it is not binding but seems unlikely they would sell for less than that-goes against their statement of intent to sell for, as confirmed by Andrew Hubert, the maximum value.  If it is 'worth' £12 million they will not sell for less.  Again my opinion and I await the backlash as a result!