A profanity filter is employed. Please use a valid e-mail with your message and a valid name if at all possible. Please keep to the posters subject.
RICHMOND WATCHDOG OPEN FORUM
Go to Top  |  New Topic  |  Go to Topic  |  Search 
 Subject: The points of contention:
 
Author: R H
Date:   10/31/2001 11:20 am WEDT

Richard Meacock here presents a fair stab at clarifying the facts and the events but I fear that his moot allegations are not entirely clear to everybody. This is not just a complaint that it was wrong to take the money instead of a new Ice Rink.

The points of contention appear to be that:

1. There was never any seriously convincing intention to replace the Richmond Ice Rink.

2. The Beckwith's must have known that it would cost them too much to do so

3. The planning application pretending to do so was a hoax, submitted with the tactical purpose of allaying local concern until it was too late to stop the scam.

4. The the effective rejection of that application was deliberately engineered.

5. Significant officers and members of Richmond Council knew all this, understood it, and therefore colluded.

6. Their promises to those who campaigned to preserve the Rink were therefore knowingly false.

7. The developers ostensibly supported that campaign while running their real agenda covertly.

8. A secret Council meeting on 25th September 1989 that was the key to all this and was illegal in that it was convened without members of the opposition present.

9. Subsequent denials of the existence of this meeting were flagrantly dishonest.

10. In view of all this the death of the Council's counsel was suspicious.

11. Because Richard Meacock's application to appeal for Judicial Review was refused these points have never been adequately investigated or refuted.

Instead of putting this matter to bed, I would therefore call for the World to wake up. A Judicial Inquiry is deserved.

With best wishes,
Ron Harvey


Reply To This Message
 Previous Message  |  Next Message

 Topics Author  Date      
 QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 Richard Meacock 10/29/2001 6:13 am WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 10/29/2001 9:06 pm WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 Public Service Information 10/29/2001 9:50 pm WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 Richard Meacock 10/30/2001 5:03 am WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 Trevor Clarke 10/30/2001 6:45 am WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 Richard Meacock 10/30/2001 8:22 am WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 Knowledgeable 10/30/2001 9:59 am WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 Richard Meacock 10/30/2001 2:19 pm WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 Laurence Mann 10/30/2001 3:25 pm WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann     
 Richard Meacock 10/30/2001 9:19 pm WEDT
 The points of contention:    
 R H 10/31/2001 11:20 am WEDT
 RE: The points of contention:   new  
 Laurence Mann 10/31/2001 1:49 pm WEDT
 The Rub.   new  
 R H 10/31/2001 3:22 pm WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Mr Meacock   new  
 Helpful 10/31/2001 12:02 am WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Mr Meacock   new  
 Helped 10/31/2001 12:43 am WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Mr Meacock   new  
 Laurence Mann 10/31/2001 2:12 pm WEDT
 Provision.   new  
 R H 10/31/2001 3:12 pm WEDT
 RE: Provision.   new  
 Helpless 10/31/2001 4:12 pm WEDT
 RE: Provision.   new  
 R H 10/31/2001 5:02 pm WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 Laurence Mann 10/30/2001 3:07 pm WEDT
 Manor Road; what really happened:   new  
 R H 10/30/2001 12:35 am WEDT
 RE: Manor Road; what really happened:   new  
 Laurence Mann 10/30/2001 3:33 pm WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 perplexed voter 10/30/2001 2:31 pm WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 Laurence Mann 10/31/2001 11:55 am WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 Richard Meacock 10/31/2001 2:45 pm WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 Knowledgeable 10/31/2001 3:34 pm WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 Trevor Clarke 10/31/2001 4:00 pm WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 10/31/2001 11:05 pm WEDT
 RE: QUESTION TIME Cllr. Mann   new  
 Cllr Laurence Mann 10/31/2001 10:52 pm WEDT
 Previous Topic  |  Next Topic
 Reply To This Message
 Your Name:  
 Your Email:  
 Subject:  
  Submission Validation Question: What is 69 + 8? *  
* indicates required field
     

Sexist, Racist, Rude or unnecessary messages will be removed. Tolerance to anonymous messages will be at the discretion of the administration body. Anyone who insults the owner of this forum will be barred for life. No adverts permitted.