Stadium Expansion

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Also, I suspect that the club, the FA and the government are less concerned with civil action by fans involved in an incident and much more with the risks that they perceive from criminal activity (such as that which prevailed prior to the changes in stadiums). They may or may not be unjustified in that perception but that is the way it is.

The stadiums were made all seater for safety reasons, not to prevent "criminal activity". The goverment's response to criminal activity was the proposed ID card scheme. If it hadn't been for Hillsborough, then there wouldn't have been the change to all-seater grounds.

So football hooliganism wasn't criminal ?

On the Hillsborough bit we are agreed (to some extent) as it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

are you saying you think football hooliganism caused Hillsborough?

If not, then what "camel's back" was it exactly that the "straw" broke?

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

anyway, to drag things back on topic, if this is correct then the Jazz Cafe's days are numbered.

http://documents.reading.gov.uk/AnitePu ... 012666.pdf

see page 4.

It'll be replaced by a corporate hospitality area. Note the wording next to the area's Kitchen -"formerly Jazz club".

There doesn't even look to be any plans to extend the east stand's concourse, although a concourse extension is shown for the north stand.

[PieEater]

The doc has gone or the link is wrong. If you look back earlier in the thread you'll see details of 4 levels to the east stand expansion. There will be a new concourse to the upper east seating area and two other levels for hospitality and disabled. Rows X to DD, seats 120-190 are going to make room for it

[West Stand Man]

Also, I suspect that the club, the FA and the government are less concerned with civil action by fans involved in an incident and much more with the risks that they perceive from criminal activity (such as that which prevailed prior to the changes in stadiums). They may or may not be unjustified in that perception but that is the way it is.

The stadiums were made all seater for safety reasons, not to prevent "criminal activity". The goverment's response to criminal activity was the proposed ID card scheme. If it hadn't been for Hillsborough, then there wouldn't have been the change to all-seater grounds.

So football hooliganism wasn't criminal ?

On the Hillsborough bit we are agreed (to some extent) as it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

are you saying you think football hooliganism caused Hillsborough?

If not, then what "camel's back" was it exactly that the "straw" broke?

I haven't said anything of the sort. Join the queue of people who can'tread my simple emails. What I have said is that the GOVERNMENT and the FOOTBALL AUTHORITIES felt that was the case, and that they made their decisions based on that evidence. I don't know much much more simply I can put it.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Also, I suspect that the club, the FA and the government are less concerned with civil action by fans involved in an incident and much more with the risks that they perceive from criminal activity (such as that which prevailed prior to the changes in stadiums). They may or may not be unjustified in that perception but that is the way it is.

The stadiums were made all seater for safety reasons, not to prevent "criminal activity". The goverment's response to criminal activity was the proposed ID card scheme. If it hadn't been for Hillsborough, then there wouldn't have been the change to all-seater grounds.

So football hooliganism wasn't criminal ?

On the Hillsborough bit we are agreed (to some extent) as it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

are you saying you think football hooliganism caused Hillsborough?

If not, then what "camel's back" was it exactly that the "straw" broke?

I haven't said anything of the sort. Join the queue of people who can'tread my simple emails. What I have said is that the GOVERNMENT and the FOOTBALL AUTHORITIES felt that was the case, and that they made their decisions based on that evidence. I don't know much much more simply I can put it.

so you think the government thought football hooliganism caused hillsborough?

Strange, as that's the complete opposite of what the public inquiry thought, and the all-seater regulations were brought in based on that inquiry - and the government's ID card scheme was scrapped because of the inquiry.

The government did not decide to ban terracing - it was a high court judge, and he did not believe Hillsborough was caused by hooliganism.

[Forty]

The high court judge can only make recommendations, as can any public enquiry, and they can be full of **** too. What was the recent one about No lies in the build up to the Iraq war.? It's up to the gov't to act on the findings or not as they prefer.

[Behindu]

anyway, to drag things back on topic, if this is correct then the Jazz Cafe's days are numbered.

http://documents.reading.gov.uk/AnitePu ... 012666.pdf

see page 4.

It'll be replaced by a corporate hospitality area. Note the wording next to the area's Kitchen -"formerly Jazz club".

There doesn't even look to be any plans to extend the east stand's concourse, although a concourse extension is shown for the north stand.

I There were certainly statements that the Jazz Cafe would be doubled in size.
Whether it would still be called the Jazz Cafe wouldn;t be antything to do with planning of course.
IIRC there are also plans for bar / restaurant facilities in the new stands.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

The high court judge can only make recommendations, as can any public enquiry,.

There is no law banning terracing. It is not illegal.

The only law is the one that allows the FLA to decide what is and isn't allowed, and the FLA is not part of the the government.

[Forty]

Yes, but the FLA is bound by the Health and safety executive, which is in all but name a part of government. Wether they're called 'directives' or 'laws' is immaterial.

[West Stand Man]

Yes, but the FLA is bound by the Health and safety executive, which is in all but name a part of government. Wether they're called 'directives' or 'laws' is immaterial.

Another voice of common sense and understanding. Beware, you'll not be popular on here!

[Finchley Royal]

are you saying you think football hooliganism caused Hillsborough?

If not, then what "camel's back" was it exactly that the "straw" broke?[/quote]

I haven't said anything of the sort. Join the queue of people who can'tread my simple emails. What I have said is that the GOVERNMENT and the FOOTBALL AUTHORITIES felt that was the case, and that they made their decisions based on that evidence. I don't know much much more simply I can put it.[/quote]

The government and the football authorities did not think that hooliganism caused Hillsborough. The government's response to the violence and hooliganism in the 80s was the proposed ID card scheme. The 1989 Football Spectators Act legislated for the introduction of an ID card scheme. (The reason that the ID card scheme was not in fact introduced was because of Hillsborough, and more particularly Lord Justice Taylor's report which said that an ID card scheme would not have prevented Hillsborough - Hillsborough not having been caused by crowd violence - and in fact it might have made matters worse.)

If there had been no Hillsborough, all seater stadia would not have been introduced as an "answer" to hooliganism. The government would just have implemented the ID card scheme contained in the Football Spectators Act.

So, it is reasonable to conclude, all seater stadia only came into place because concerns that large blocks of standing spectators would lead to crushing, and NOT because of the violence of the 80s.

[Z-Head]

The Artist's Impressions on the OS are so Sh1t! Must have been done by a 3 year old...
Can anyone help provide better pics?

[Behindu]

Probably not !
IIRC the pics were just an early 'impressionistic' view given the detail of design hadn;t been decided.
Once planning perm is granted I suppose the definitive drawings will be available.

[Z-Head]

Probably not !
IIRC the pics were just an early 'impressionistic' view given the detail of design hadn;t been decided.
Once planning perm is granted I suppose the definitive drawings will be available.

Thanks Behind u. I am looking forward to seeing them!

[Coppelled Streets]

Probably not !
IIRC the pics were just an early 'impressionistic' view given the detail of design hadn;t been decided.
Once planning perm is granted I suppose the definitive drawings will be available.

If someone saved the pictures of the three stands after all the work, maybe they will post them up for you?
They were on the links provided much earlier in the topic - before it became a safe standing topic.
Far more detail than what those pictures available on the OS are.

[Whore Jackie]

Not the best resolution, but still looking impressive ...

[Y26]

The middle view is just a mirror image of the top view with some different trees drawn on!! If you look closely (or if you have the larger black and white copies of these plans), you can the see the badge is back to front.

[Rhys The Royal]

The middle view is just a mirror image of the top view with some different trees drawn on!! If you look closely (or if you have the larger black and white copies of these plans), you can the see the badge is back to front.

Can you post the bigger ones up then?

[Y26]

How do I post a picture on here? I have the plans as a pdf file. Will that be postable?

[Z-Head]

The middle view is just a mirror image of the top view with some different trees drawn on!! If you look closely (or if you have the larger black and white copies of these plans), you can the see the badge is back to front.

No fooling some! lol