“Mr Arnald.What a self important person you are, you threaten me by banning me with my ISP if I send you abusive emails! It would never cross my mind to send anybody abusive emails. Why would it cross yours? Are you the type of person to do that? I await your apology but don't think I will be given one.
I will not be emailing you but I am happy to continue this argument on this PUBLIC forum. How about sharing your "comprehensive advice" on how Mr Foord can successfully achieve what he wants with all of us or is it a secret?
You make very wide sweeping accusing comments as though they are facts such as:
1."When somebody engages in Soviet-era-type propaganda to stifle those who argue against that person's ambitions". What soviet type propaganda are you talking about????
2."When somebody acts so selfishly that it sets local against local and causes conflict". What conflict? Can't we have different points of view? Or do they have to be your point of view?
3."When ordinary people feel it necessary to condone antisocial/illegal behaviour to win an argument" Again what are you talking about give examples please.
Do you really think Mr Foord is doing it the wrong way or just not your way? Is that your real problem?
And yes I do think you are wrong.”

“Culmstock1 are you saying you dont want NIMBYs in your back yard ?

Can my friends and i come and have a BBQ in your garden next weekend (weather permitting)? or is it the old cry of oi what are you doing with that marrinade in my garden?”

“Mr Arnold gets out quite a lot actually, 'pluckingbell'. When a piece of countryside on his doorstep, of which he is fond, is destroyed by some chancer for no good reason, he gets a bit peeved. When somebody engages in Soviet-era-type propaganda to stifle those who argue against that person's ambitions, he also gets a bit peeved. When somebody acts so selfishly that it sets local against local and causes conflict in this friendly and idyllic part of the country, he also gets a bit peeved. When ordinary people feel it necessary to condone antisocial/illegal behaviour to win an argument, well, that really makes me sad. How far do you want to take it? Perhaps all dissenters should be shot?
WHAT IS EXTREME ABOUT MY VIEWS? DO YOU REALLY, DEEP DOWN, THINK I AM WRONG??
Happy to see Richard Foord get his track, but he needs to go about it the right way. I have corresponded with him and have sent him comprehensive advice on how he can successfully achieve what he wants. If you want to see it, you can contact me by adding @yahoo.co.uk to the name at the top of this post. Please don't send me malicious emails - I will get you banned by your ISP. Time will tell whether he takes that advice but his track record does not look good.
I have no intention of engaging further in facile arguments with people intent on defending the indefensible. It all gets very silly because they always have to have the last word. Its called intimidation and it doesn't work.”

“As one of the "land owners" who attended the meeting ...Just ...as i only found out about it the day before . Thanks for the info organisers!!!!
There was not overwhelming public support for the project as many local residents are happy to keep the existing track as a footpath and know that horses,cycles,dogs,electric wheel chairs and people dont mix.

I feel rather sad that the people who are essential to the project had to make their concerns in public and risk the moral blackmail of being responsible for putting the lives of\ school children at risk.

30k would buy good supply of cotton wool to rap all the kids in”

“What a good report Well Done This meeting was very good apart from those against becoming a bit aggressive and angry at having so many people disagreeing with them. Richard Foord did a great job trying to answer very difficult questions.
Does Mr Arnold really think cycling on a footpath is a total disregard for the law? I think he needs to get out more! Perhaps if he spent a night on the streets of Exeter or Bristol it would give his life a little more perspective.”

“What a good report Well Done. This meeting was very good apart from those against becoming a bit aggressive, angry and rude at having so many people disagreeing with them. Richard Foord did a great job trying to answer very difficult questions.
Does Mr Arnold really think cycling on a footpath is a total disregard for the law? I think he needs to get out more! Perhaps if he spent a night on the streets of Exeter or Bristol it would give his life a little more perspective.”

“The Culm valley trail is not a cycle path. That was made clear at the meeting. It is a trail that walkers, bikes wheelchairs and pushchairs can all use. I notice that people who are against the trail all ways forget about the last two and push the evils of bikes. They then carry on to say that the trail doesn't go anywhere and the land owners are against it. What have the land owners got against wheelchairs and pushchairs? Or is it the old farmer's cry of "oi get off my land" combined with good old fashioned Nimbyism? Those against use the same old fashioned arguments and personal attacks on the organisers of the project. A lot of the objections were just silly. One man said no one will use it, and another asked where all the cars are going to park when people come and use it. Come on you can't have both! It can't be busy and quite. Another comical comment was something about the organisers constitution. Apparently it says they will be lawful but nothing about morality in it. How can there be? Who decides what is and is not moral?
Good luck to the organisers I wish them all the best.”

“Yet again, what an apalling piece of biased drivel. Is the author part of the project or just plain gullible?? This meeting was at best rocky and ended up in a bit of a slanging match. Richard Foord admitted that he has no firm plan for the trail, doesn't know the cost and hasn't identified the benefits. Yet he's busy squandering taxpayers' money building a cycle track without any direct cycle access. There is clear evidence in the past few days that cyclists are already cycling on the footpath at the far end from Culmstock, so we all know what to expect in the future - a total disregard for the law and the safety of the many walkers around here. Mr Foord has alienated most of the affected landowners between Hemyock and Uffculme by not consulting them. He is busy turning things that might be possible into things that are impossible. And if he continues at full speed in reverse, he is going to run into the ditch.
Rob Arnold
Culmstock”

“A Packed meeting ?
why are there empty chairs ?
also why is the man on the far left behind the lady with the grey coat and grey wig asleep ?”

“As a resident of Culmstock I have seen wide spread support for the trail. Using the waste ground the old disused railway line runs over is a great idea. Describing it as a "important wildlife refuge is a bit of a joke. It is only full of brambles and stunted trees. The trees on the line can't grow properly because of all the stones left when the track was removed.
The line starts 45 meters from the road and has a public footpath anyone can use to get to it. Being a footpath cyclists can walk their bike as well and they would have to dismount anyway because of the gate at the road. At the other end of the railway line is another footpath people can also use
I attended the 4 feb meeting and there were people for and against the trail but most were for it and some of the ideas against it were very silly. I heard one person say he was against it as Devon County Council had reduced the amount of money they give to children in care from £200 to £50 for Christmas presents!
I can't understand why anyone would not be in favour of laying a footpath on an old railway line so that the whole community including those with pushchairs and wheelchairs can use it as well as a commuter route for our children to cycle to and from school.”