• ā„¹ļø Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

[šŸŒŽ Universal GB] General Discussion

Just to further my assertion that the 'entrance on your driveway' conversation never happened. In the article the homeowner also mentions the 'Universal person' also threatened her with a CPO. Well unless it's hidden away in an obscure paragraph that has nothing to do with Manor Road, there is zero mention of CPO's in the planning docs. With Universal covering seemingly every possible detail, surely if they were going down the CPO route there would've been at least a couple of mentions but there is not.

Then we have the 'entrance on your driveway' threat - well if this conversation happened post April 2024, then one quick look at the 'Master plans' would've proved that threat entirely false.

So we have some guy representing Universal (the same Universal that has tried their hardest to get the locals on board), going around making false threats that a little bit of research would've proved false, and would for sure scupper any sort of good faith negotiation for their property. This just doesn't hold up, it doesn't fit with Universal's approach and would if anything make the homeowner even more stubborn to sell.
 
Some media outlets are desperate to push out NIMBY journal articles, disgusting to see this from the BBC when they are tax-payer funded and are meant to be impartial. For all means question and probe the statistics about support out out there by Comcast, but to blatantly push a NIMBY agenda that is minimal and to present it as ā€˜both sidesā€™ is downright misinformation, this not what the BBC is forā€¦
 
Last edited:
xtpower said:
Just to further my assertion that the 'entrance on your driveway' conversation never happened. In the article the homeowner also mentions the 'Universal person' also threatened her with a CPO. Well unless it's hidden away in an obscure paragraph that has nothing to do with Manor Road, there is zero mention of CPO's in the planning docs. With Universal covering seemingly every possible detail, surely if they were going down the CPO route there would've been at least a couple of mentions but there is not.

Then we have the 'entrance on your driveway' threat - well if this conversation happened post April 2024, then one quick look at the 'Master plans' would've proved that threat entirely false.

So we have some guy representing Universal (the same Universal that has tried their hardest to get the locals on board), going around making false threats that a little bit of research would've proved false, and would for sure scupper any sort of good faith negotiation for their property. This just doesn't hold up, it doesn't fit with Universal's approach and would if anything make the homeowner even more stubborn to sell.
Click to expand...
Can private entities even issue CPOs anyway? I canā€™t imagine that government or local authority would want to get involved in that reputational minefield even if they include a clause somewhere in the SDO
 
Two sisters who owned a house on Kemlyn Road in Liverpool refused to sell up and caused Liverpool FC to delay plans to expand the (now) Kenny Dalglish Stand by over a decade. Some mad photos from the later years were the entire street had been flattened except their house and the two either side (I assume to stop it from collapsing).
 
Last edited:
When someone is threatening you, or applying pressure, never presume that they're telling the truth. It is their prerogative to get you to do their bidding, not to supply you with the correct information. Whether Universal have the power to CPO or not is immaterial, as long as the person being threatened with it believes it's a possibility.

When an emotionally invested party is telling you their "side of the story", their narrative is often unsafe. They don't always understand, they get muddled, they paraphrase, they simplify, they dramatise.

I can imagine the comments happening along these lines:

Resident: "You can't force me to sell. You're not the council. You can't issue a CPO."

Universal: "We're exploring all available options to us."

Resident: "What are you going to do, build the entrance on my doorstep?"

Universal: "We haven't decided where the entrance will be, but your home will be impacted by the development regardless"

In both of these scenarios, to the resident, Universal has threatened him.

Whether or not the comments factually happened as he's reported them is immaterial to what he believes was said, or implied.
Bert2theSpark said:
Some media outlets are desperate to push out NIMBY journal articles, disgusting to see this from the BBC when they are tax-payer funded and are meant to be impartial, for all means question and probe the statistics about support out out there by Comcast. But to blatantly push a NIMBY agenda that is minimal and to present it as ā€˜both sidesā€™ is downright misinformation, this not what the BBC is forā€¦
Click to expand...
The BBC have interviewed the residents who have yet to sell and have reported on their reasons as to why they haven't sold, and the comments the residents believe have been made to them. It can be contrasted with their other articles interviewing other Bedfordshire residents, and local politicians, about what they think of the development and the positives it will bring.

It's not an article written for balance, or for NIMBYism, or for an agenda. It is merely a report of the reactions of the holdouts.
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
The BBC have interviewed the residents who have yet to sell and have reported on their reasons as to why they haven't sold, and the comments the residents believe have been made to them. It can be contrasted with their other articles interviewing other Bedfordshire residents, and local politicians, about what they think of the development and the positives it will bring.

It's not an article written for balance, or for NIMBYism, or for an agenda. It is merely a report of the reactions of the holdouts.
Click to expand...
I was actually contemplating this after the post, and weā€™re broadly on the same page. However, this isnā€™t a one-off from the BBC, and particularly extends to their political coverage but that isnā€™t an issue here.

Moreover, Iā€™m kind of disappointed that they didnā€™t take the angle of picking apart Comcastā€™s statistics around support for the project, I want the BBC to interrogate how they came to that conclusion as 92% support is very high for anything. I just think the BBC took the wrong approach with this article.

This is a massive national project at a time where the UK has historically been unable to build anything of significance, this could set the news agenda for other future national infrastructure projects.
 
The 92% came from results of the survey they had people fill-in for the public consultation. It was framed as 92% support the project which whilst high doesn't seem falsely inflated, or from certain numbers being spun to mislead. I suppose if you wanna pick apart at it, you could point to them including anyone that wasn't against the project in that 92% number but then you could still consider that 'supporting it'.

*edit* To bring it back to the 'Universal Rep' going around threatening people. The woman involved actually posted her story on the Project Universal facebook page for the BBC Article. https://www.facebook.com/ProjectUniversalUK/?locale=en_GB

I would quote her comments but she ended up sending abuse to Project Universal's inbox so she ended up getting blocked. Which brings into question the veracity of her claims.

Having said that, the actual reporter also chimed in and she genuinely believes someone was going to these houses and making threats.

Nicola Haseler
[redacted] please can you try and be less critical towards these residents and those who are telling their stories? Everything Claudia is saying I have heard from four households. Itā€™s not made up. We donā€™t know why either, but speaking as if you know more isnā€™t helpful. The residents - and now me - have had so much criticism on this and other groups. I am trying to find answers for you too.
Click to expand...

It seems even she is perplexed at the behaviour of this so-called 'Universal Rep' and is actively investigating why a Rep is pulling mafia threats.
 
Last edited:
Nobody is going to refuse to sell. They are going to have a 9m visitors a year tourist attraction right outside their home. Even as a TP enthusiast that sounds like a nightmare to me so to Joe Public that's a lot lot worse.

And they will be offered 20-25% above market value to move too. Most people would jump at that.
 
Benjsh said:
Nobody is going to refuse to sell. They are going to have a 9m visitors a year tourist attraction right outside their home. Even as a TP enthusiast that sounds like a nightmare to me so to Joe Public that's a lot lot worse.

And they will be offered 20-25% above market value to move too. Most people would jump at that.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they've seen/been reading all the tales about the HS2 compulsory purchase houses that are now standing empty and based their opinions on that - i.e. why sell if Universal will never build. Loads of them knocking around in South Yorkshire
 
Let them stay, good luck to them. If I were Universal I wouldn't put up much of a fight. As much as I love universal resorts, I wouldn't want to live in the middle of one! šŸ˜‚
 
Presumably, the longer you ride it out and stay, the more money you'll be offered. Personally I'd ride it out for quite a long time until they offered a lot more than the first couple of offers. Universal have got enough money to pay way over the odds and it's a drop in the ocean for them in the grand scheme of things. Worst case scenario is they call your bluff and you end up living right next to a theme park for a while until they probably come back with another offer eventually.
 
xtpower said:
*edit* To bring it back to the 'Universal Rep' going around threatening people. The woman involved actually posted her story on the Project Universal facebook page for the BBC Article. https://www.facebook.com/ProjectUniversalUK/?locale=en_GB

I would quote her comments but she ended up sending abuse to Project Universal's inbox so she ended up getting blocked. Which brings into question the veracity of her claims.
Click to expand...
Normally there are two sides to any story. You can find her side of the story on Facebook.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top