Statement from Rich Hadley of LOTS Print
Supermarket Debate
Written by Rich Hadley   
Saturday, 24 September 2011 12:58

During the last few weeks I have been subject to a malicious and sustained attack by members of Ledbury Approves Tesco Superstore (LATS) through its Facebook Group. Though some of the comments about me have been grossly offensive and clearly defamatory, I have refrained from taking action as I did not want to distract attention from the LOTS campaign.

Yesterday however a more serious incident took place which has prompted this statement.

A bogus Facebook account was set up in my name and this was added to the LATS Group by Andrew Ellis who is the Group administrator. I can only assume that the intention in doing this was for the purpose of ridiculing and embarrassing me.



This move followed on from a post by Mr Ellis in which he said:

‘I am sick of hearing the name. Richard Hadley is an ignorant, disillusioned, fantasizing moron with fictional beliefs.’ He continued: ‘This statement can be backed up by evidence.’ And then: ‘He is just a drama queen’.

The impersonation of my identity was immediately reported to Facebook which took prompt action in removing it.

Throughout the last weeks I have experienced a concerted hate campaign by certain members of the LATS group, quite out of proportion to the circumstances of the anti-superstore movement of which I find myself a figurehead.

Fully available in the public domain via the internet, there have been malicious, factually untrue and extremely damaging allegations about me as an individual. My professional activities have been held up for derision and mockery. Not only have these have been calculated to damage my standing at work and in my home town of Ledbury but, due to their inflammatory nature, they have given some concern as to my own personal security. I am also dismayed that allegations that I have been involved in criminal acts, have been allowed to remain in the public domain by the Facebook site moderators.

On a personal note, I must say that I find it shocking that someone in my position, simply a Ledbury resident involved in a popular community-led movement, should be bullied and insulted in such a manner. I stand to gain nothing by being involved in this campaign other than I care about the future of Ledbury. I respect other people’s right to their opinions, and think the same consideration should be extended to me, and other supporters of LOTS without fear of harassment or intimidation.

I am now seeking advice on what action might be appropriate for me to take.


Last Updated on Thursday, 03 November 2011 13:58
Comments (27)
Deleted Comments
27 Tuesday, 27 September 2011 16:25

Comments from two contributors have been deleted from this thread as they are defamatory and potentially libelous. I would like to remind contributors that the Ledbury Community Portal has a published set of terms of use which states: "You must not use our website to copy, publish or send material which is illegal or unlawful, or material which could give rise to legal action under English and other applicable law. All material you copy, publish or send via our website must not be defamatory, obscene, indecent, hateful, discriminatory or inflammatory; such material must not infringe any person’s intellectual property rights or rights of confidence, impinge upon any person’s privacy, or constitute incitement to commit a crime; further, material must not be misleading, deceptive, sexually explicit, threatening, abusive, harassing or menacing." Please use the Ledbury Portal responsibly and debate issues without abuse.

26 Monday, 26 September 2011 19:00
After recieving some rather surprising news I am withdrawing from any further comments on this thread, just in case they are taken to mean more than they do.
To Valerie McLean
25 Monday, 26 September 2011 18:20
I totally agree with you about the time to distance myself from certain comments and I have posted as much on the LATS FB page .. however this doesn't excuse this thread from Mr. Hadley and I call on him again to post the said comments here.
to Colin Marschall
24 Monday, 26 September 2011 14:40
Hello Colin
Do you agree with me that the time for moving on and refusing to be involved in personal abuse has arrived ? I feel that on Facebook it is too easy for misunderstandings to occur and one cannot see the hurt that is being inflicted. Life is stressful enough without adding more. I still think that I would have been aware of any abusive personal comments from Mr Hadley. I have only heard rational debate from Mr Hadley and have not seen evidence of anything else. That has been my experience and that is what I felt I should post here.
I have had many discussions not on Facebook - but face to face with people who approve of the Tesco superstore plan and we have listened to each other and agreed to disagree. I have then gone away and thought about how if I were a busy young mother, I may feel differently. After consideration, I have however, come back to my original decision to oppose the plan as is my right. I respect your opinion. That is how we as adults should behave do you not think?
Valerie McLean
Tesco planning application
23 Monday, 26 September 2011 14:23
Michael Lever
To those of you intent upon defeating Tesco's application (as distinct from one another!), may I suggest you have a re-read of what Tesco have applied for - enter Tesco Planning Application in the search box on this site. According to my calculations, of the floor areas for the Rateable Value of the existing store in Orchard Lane the ground floor of the Orchard Lane store is about 20,000 sqft, suggesting that the application is for a store not that much bigger. The argument for reconfiguration of the Orchard Lane layout might be stronger if presented more factually?
Tesco v Sainsbury v Ledbury (2 falls, 2 submissions or a Knockout)
22 Monday, 26 September 2011 14:08
martin alastair cooke
Whilst we all try to debate the pros and cons of supermarkets it seems Councillor Watts is already deciding what is going to happen. He told the Ledbury Reporter:

Councillor Peter Watts warned residents at last week’s meeting that one of the retailers would win.

He said: “In my opinion it will come down to one or the other.

It’s up to you to put it forward and we need to be in control of that.”

In who's interests is Councillor Watts acting? I do not think the outcome is a forgone conclusion but it looks like the Councillor is hardly defending Ledbury. No doubt he will call it 'being real'!! And Ledbury will get an out-of-town supermarket possibly against the wishes of most of its residents.
Rich Hadley's letter to Mr Lever
21 Monday, 26 September 2011 14:00
Michael Lever
Mr Harrison is misrepresenting the facts and his attempt to discredit me does him/LOTS disservice.

On 14 September 2011, I emailed a letter to the editor of Ledbury Report and as a gesture of goodwill I also emailed the text to various other parties, including Ledbury Portal and LOTS. John Eager assumed it was for publication and put it on Ledbury Portal on 15 September 2011 under the heading "Tesco Proposal" per

The email also included my important notice and disclaimer as regards the contents of the email.

The response by Rich Hadley is published. I do not understand why he should take "great exception" to my comments, but that was his prerogative. What I found offensive was his concluding comments: "And I sincerely hope that the Ledbury Reporter does not print your entirely unhelpful, and ill considered letter.


Ledbury Reporter did not print my letter, at least not last week. However, a reporter contacted me to arrange a convenient time to interview me in connection with an article/feature being prepared by the newspaper about the application. I was told that the article would include comment by traders that were being asked for £100 contribution towards the fighting fund. The interview was conducted completely above board, I was quoted verbatim but otherwise had no input into the content of the article and it was not until I bought Ledbury Reporter on Saturday last that I read what had been put in the article.

The other misrepresentation is stating: "Bear in mind that this was in response to Mr Lever sending a letter as an "erstwhile 'supporter' of LOTS/Save Ledbury, (who) had attended meetings and been party from the start to everything we stood for".

The only meeting of LOTS that I have ever attended was on 8 September 2011 held at Burgage Hall, and the only reason I did was that I thought the meeting would be about application. As it happened, it was a call for volunteers' meeting so, after eavesdropping on a conversation near where I was sitting and chatting briefly with some people I knew, and after the introductory preliminaries I left within half and hour or so. I have never said or implied that I am a supporter of LOTS/Save Ledbury and anything anyone has chosen to tell me about what's going on has never, at least as far as I am concerned, been other than in my capacity as a local resident.

I look forward to reading Mr Harrison's apology on this thread so as to set the record straight.
Deleted comments
20 Monday, 26 September 2011 13:27
Andrew Harrison
exactly...any abusive comments made on LOTS page have been deleted. That is the point of having an administrator. Any pro-out of town superstore posts are also banned as I have pointed out below, the LOTS page is not a debating vehicle it is for supporters information.
Mrs McLean
19 Monday, 26 September 2011 13:14
You cannot view any of the comments made by Mr Hadley and other LOTS members because they have all been deleted.
Rich Hadley's Letter to Mr Lever
18 Monday, 26 September 2011 12:55
Andrew Harrison
It might help clarify the situation with regards to Mr Lever's idea of an offensive letter if I publish it.

Bear in mind that this was in response to Mr Lever sending a letter as an "erstwhile 'supporter' of LOTS/Save Ledbury, (who) had attended meetings and been party from the start to everything we stood for".
LOTS opposes all out of town superstores and therefore Mr Lever's terse letter was calculated to be both provocative and and inflict maximum damage to the campaign:

Dear Mr Leaver

You may or may not be right about Tesco getting wind of Sainsbury's plans - it hardly seems to matter now.

What I need to do is take great exception to your final statement: any out of town superstore will be catastrophic for Ledbury. Did you really think we would be solely opposed to a Tesco?

Out of town superstores rob local High Streets of shoppers. This causes small independent business - which rely on passing trade, driven by good footfall - to close. Several things then happen - you end up with boarded up premises, have an influx of chain-store multiples, or there is a proliferation of 'useless' businesses like estate agents, financial services offices or charity shops. Take a drive over the hill to Great Malvern to see exactly these consequences - a once beautiful and renowned shopping centre is now a dust-blown ghost town. Malvern businesses are clamouring to get into Ledbury because of its thriving High Street.

I simply don't follow your logic that a Tesco on the bypass would kill the Coop, but a Sainsbury wouldn't. It's not the brand name over the door that matters, but the vast size and the inappropriate location that is wrong.

If you are unsure how High Streets are killed by out of town retail developments, it would be good for your to have look at some evidence here: Far from 'doing wonders' for Ledbury, an out of town Sainsbury would wreck Ledbury forever.

Could I also remind you that Ledbury is a town of less than 10 thousand people. A superstore three times as big as the current Tesco would massively unbalance the delicate retail ecology which exists here (particularly at a time of extreme financial pressure). It would also represent a huge oversupply of retail provision for a town of this size.

These are our objections in short:
Objections to the Tesco plan – and the similar Sainsbury proposal – centre on its location outside the town centre and the fact that is too large for the needs of the local area. Based on research, LOTS points to evidence that shows that:

It will drain shoppers away from the High Street which will mean smaller independent shops will close down (Ref DETR 1998)

· Because of the distance from the town centre (0.8 mile), shoppers at the proposed store will not combine a shopping trip with a visit to the High Street

· Business closures will lead to vacant premises or an increase in low rental-yield charity shops and fast food takeaways. This will mean less investment in the maintenance of historic Ledbury – there are nearly 200 listed buildings in the main commercial centre. This will cause a degradation in the heritage fabric of the town, in turn damaging tourism – one of Ledbury’s key wealth generators

· The size of the proposed development far exceeds the stated retail requirements for Ledbury even taking account of projected population increases for the town over the next fourteen years. (Ref Herefordshire Council PPS4 2010[i]).

I do hope this clarifies things for you. And I sincerely hope that the Ledbury Reporter does not print your entirely unhelpful, and ill considered letter.

Yours sincerely

Rich Hadley
Chair LOTS
The abusive comments directed at Mr Rich Hadley
17 Monday, 26 September 2011 11:08
Putting the Superstore issue aside, I am deeply concerned at the extremely abusive language from some in our community being posted on the internet, an example of which is below....on this site by - grown up people !
I do not know MR Hadley, other than a few words exchanged over the Superstore campaign and want to state I have not seen any evidence of anything unpleasant posted by Mr Hadley on the LOTS closed site or other places on the internet or heard any negative references to opponents at meetings. I believe that everyone is a mixture of good and bad and wish that everyone could just debate in a reasonable manner.
I have one simple request... The LOTS FB is a closed site site and I believe that this has helped it to be very focussed on just sharing information without any references to personalities. Abusive comments are just not allowed. I have noticed members including traders posting on the LATS site who are members of the LOTS site. They must therefore realise that the contrast and differences in tone between the two sites is vast. Could these members please volunteer the support to Mr Hadley and confirm that he does not and has not ever posted any abusive comments on the LOTS site ?..We all have to get along in this world... Am I the only one who thinks that personal insults over whether or not we welcome a superstore on the by-pass should stop ? Surely we are mature enough to agree to disagree ?
Handley Organics and the art of alienating a customer
16 Monday, 26 September 2011 10:52
Michael Lever
Further to Handley Organics criticism of my views about it being good for Ledbury to have its own out-of-town supermarket, I have decided to take my custom elsewhere and have posted my comment on that thread, elsewhere on Ledbury Portal.
Tesco and employment
15 Monday, 26 September 2011 10:00
Michael Lever
Generally the retail industry, despite being one of the UK's largest employers, is not noted for its pay levels, and there is little effective trade union representation (USDAW, 406,000 members - At end December 2009, the retail industry employed over 2.9 million people, approximately 11% of the total UK workforce. A part/full time shop assistant job in a supermarket is I suspect not envisaged by the supermarket as other than supplementary or additional income for the employee's household. Two persons in the same household earning say £14,000 each would bring the income above the UK average wage. Another factor to bear in mind is that that included in the pay structure are various perks of working conditions, uniform, and staff discounts, etc, and opportunities for career advancement that are rarely to be had in a small shop. Of course, there is a trial period when perks/discounts are non-existent or marginal but that's to be expected: no business is going to hand out all the extras from day one. As for youngsters and university students, rather than the unemployed adult, that's to do with minimising operational costs and flexibility (employment laws in UK have become draconian). I have no doubt that if the supermarkets were to pay more in wages then food prices would have to go up (even more) for customers; it's only as a result of the supermarkets doing whatever they can to keep costs to a minimum that stops prices going through the roof.
Tesco and Employment
14 Monday, 26 September 2011 08:18
martin alastair cooke
1. I have no intention of joining Facebook

2. Martin, I think you provide some interesting issues. Apart from the 'hyperbole' comment, which was meant for everybody, I do not know of any slanging match as I am not affiliated with LOTS or LATS. Your personal jibe was , therefore, unnecessary. There seems to be lots of personal abuse around and little by way of considered debate.

3. There are issues about employment and particularly Tesco's claims. Ledbury is not the only town being 'assaulted' by Tesco . I say assualted because of the difference in wealth and power and status between a small town and the might of Tesco.

I have found a report undertaken by the Association of Convenience Stores which is worth considering.

Tesco and Employment in Small Towns a report produced by The Association of Convenience Stores

The aim of this report is to see if the types of jobs created by Tesco supermarkets can help reduce unemployment in small towns. The types of jobs in supermarkets are typically 72% part time and typically pay little above the minimum wage. Whilst on the surface the sound of this job creation could be welcomed, it has to be viewed in the context of the type of job and pay offered and if these can truly aid the labour force of a town.

With the retail trade there is always displacement of trade and jobs when a new supermarket opens. Many towns have lost an existing supermarket when Tesco has opened an edge of centre or out of centre store. These towns include Porthmadog, Ilkeston, Long Eaton, Castle Douglas and Stalham. The loss of these existing jobs must be also taken into account when considering the overall effect upon unemployment.

This report looks at 3 towns in different geographical areas (Ellesmere, Beverley and Ruthin ) and looks at the unemployment figures in the towns before and after Tesco opened a store.


1. The opening of supermarkets did not boost the labour market of any of the 3 towns sampled despite hundred of jobs being claimed to be created. In 2 cases the trend locally matched the local authority or regional trend and in 1 case unemployment increased

2. It is likely that the part time nature of the post which make up 72% of supermarket positions (‘Part time workers in food retailing’ Browell and Ivers, Managing Service Quality Journal1998), along with the low levels of enumeration on offer means the jobs do not offer a viable means of leaving benefit for those on benefit. Supermarket wages for many posts would typically pay circa £14,000 per annum for full time posts, this compares to the UK average wage of £25,400.

3. That the jobs lost via displacement when supermarkets open play a part in the lack of positive labour market impact

4. The large numbers of students hired by Tesco in an industry with very high staff turnover (Ivory Research 2005-2009) means that many jobs are taken by students not the unemployed.

and also

It's worth checking what has happened in other towns once Tesco has moved in and there's plenty of information on the internet.

I would also be interested to know what it is that Tesco alone can offer over and above what the current store provides
RE: Reply to Kellie and Colin and Martin
13 Sunday, 25 September 2011 21:59
Are you the same Mr Harrison who belittled Tesco employees right at the start of the LOTS campaign?
Who said what reply
12 Sunday, 25 September 2011 21:55
Mr. Warmington it would be almost impossible to state what has been said on the LOTS pages as anything that was posted that did not agree with thier stance was deleted .. I for one was insulted by Mr Hadley when he removed me from the group for simply asking a number of questions and asking when we would see some of the things he quotes about himself on other web pages, how this could be seen as a personal attack I have no idea .. of course you can't view the actual words because they have been deleted along with any other item that didn't adhere to the party line.

Your response doesn't seem to cover the personal attacks on people (including local traders you claim to represent) who do not support your campaign shown in print in the Ledbury Reporter this week, and your group had no problems with linking to a page that tried to descredit one of our members ( while I do understand you have no control over what this person wrote you do have control over what is put onto the LOTS pages adn as such you are as resposible as they are for trying to discredit another person. I suggest you look back over the LOTS posts (if they haven't all been deleted) and actually see where the personal insults actually started.
Who said what
11 Sunday, 25 September 2011 18:02
Andrew Warmington
Unless it has been removed recently, there is a huge mass of highly personal and inflammatory material on the LATS page against Rich Hadley, for no other reason than that he is the perceived figurehead of the LOTS campaign. Those who have posted this material know who they are. Yet no-one on this thread has actually cited anything said by him.

Re point 2: Rich did not post the comment about the poster in Janet's. Another member of LOTS did. He subsequently went on the LATS Facebook page to explain what his intentions were in posting this and that should have been an end of the matter.

Re point 7: Rich did not use the word 'trolls'. I did. I put it as an aside in a comment on the LOTS open page when mentioning that Sainsbury's had submitted their applications. There had been many jibes on LATS to the effect that LOTS wouldn't mind the application if it were Waitrose or Sainsbury's and I said something along the lines of 'before the trolls start on, LOTS is equally opposed to this application'. Not very diplomatic and in retrospect I wouldn't have said it but given that troll means someone who posts inflammatory and off-topic comments on a webpage, I don't think it was hugely inaccurate. In any case, the comment was removed almost immediately by Rich, who wanted to try and lower the temperature.

There are various other points but they have been dealt with already.
Reply to Kellie and Colin and Martin
10 Sunday, 25 September 2011 16:51
Andrew Harrison
Kellie: Mr Hadley did not say Andrew Ellis had created the bogus account.

Colin and Martin: I posted on the LOTS Facebook open page 3 weeks ago the following which might help you

Andrew Harrison "Simply: the LOTS Group is set up to allow our supporters to discuss and plan without fear of personal verbal attacks. The LOTS page was set up to allow non members follow the LOTS campaign on FaceBook. was set up as a non-FaceBook internet presence to provide information to supporters or interested parties. Non of these resources were intended as debating forums, this has led to some confusion for pro-superstore posters who are surprised when their posts are deleted. "
Hopefully you can see why we closed the Group and also that there is plenty of evidence on
In Response to Mr Cooke
9 Sunday, 25 September 2011 15:29
If Mr Cooke you would take the time and trouble to actually visit the LATS FB page you will find quite a large amount of factual information that supports everything we have been saying about the proposed new store(s) and I submit that LOTS have provided little or no evidence to support their campaign, all we see are post designed to specifically frigthen people, like saying Malvern is dead .. far from it as I'm sure you would find if you took the time to actually go to one or all of the three main high streets. Personally I feel that a lot of the LOTS campaign has been based around what certain people would perhaps lose if the store(s) were built and doesn't really have anything to do with what is best and right for the majority of Ledbury residents. Any business worth its salt knows that it has to adapt to changes.
As to the name calling I would suggest you think back to the numerous times that certain LOTS members have insulted not only those who dared to post questions on their FB page but also the traders who refused to "sign up", an example of which can be seen in my previous comment. You only have to read the Reporter this week to realise that the LOTS campaign is now seen for what it is.
As a added note if you want factual information then I suggest you re-read Mr Dudley's post, there is plenty there, facts that can be verified if you simply take the time to look, but i'll sumerise just one for you;

1. Fastest growing town in Herefordshire and migrant workers influx (download the pdf and look) -

and as far as adding the 'supposed' bogus account then how can Mr Ellis be blamed for hoping that Mr Hadley had decided it was time to discuss the many questions being asked about the LOTS campaign.
8 Sunday, 25 September 2011 15:09
martin dudley
Hmmm - dictionary definition - exaggerated statements that are not meant to be taken in the strict sense of the words

That's a bit ripe coming from somebody who would appear to be in support of LOTS........

The promise of more employment, and bearing in mind my support is more in favour of Sainsbury, who promise 220 full and part time jobs, something this community so desperately needs and having lived here for approaching 20 years something I can understand and appreciate. Lest we forget the announced plans for a further 800 homes to be devloped and bulit meaning more people and the need for more employment.

The recognised growth in population since Tesco first arrived in 1995/1996 - the demand from a much increased population has outstripped the ability to supply. Ledbury has almost doubled in size and despite claims from some LOTS members that the New Mills development at the turn of the last century has only added an estimated 600(??!!) to the towns population the HR8 postal code area now has a population in excess of 14,000 of which an approximate 10,000 live within the town boundaries. Based on available figures the population of the town has increased somewhere within the region of 3000 since Tescos first opening - Add to that the annual influx of migrant workers in and around the town and that figure increases by almost 1000 and as already mentioned there is a further populus of some 4000+ living within the postal code area but outside of the town itself. Lest we forget the announced plans to deveklop a further 800 houses over the next two decades that will add well in excess of 2000 to the population given that an average British family is deemed to be 3.8 persons in size - Where will they shop?

Choice and affordability - visit a larger store and witness the food stuffs and varying lines of that are available that due to the logistics of the current store cannot be supplied.

The younger generation as in families etc are increasingly choosing to shop outside of Ledbury in search of choice at affordable prices - the same younger generation that will be the future of the town itself in years to come - lose them now and struggle in years to come to regain their support as customers.

Many residents live in Ledbury but work elsewhere and shopping after recognised hours invariably means that the choice/stock is limited - because of that the working housewife etc is now becoming more dependant on shopping at a larger store in order to be able to have that luxury of choice.

I am not a man with a head full of facts and figures but I do recognise the difference between fact as opposed to propaganda and spin and I may not be able to answer questions with quotes from researched reports etc that you may be after but I do speak from the heart and I do speak as I find. I also ask questions in order to learn more and I speak to some of the recognised LOCAL traders directly concerned to gauge the feelings etc. My intelligence may not be on a par with some but my passion and support for this cause sometimes speaks louder than any of the statements I read in the local press etc from some of gthose in opposition.
Martin Dudley
7 Sunday, 25 September 2011 13:53
martin alastair cooke
In response to Mr Hadley......
7 Sunday, 25 September 2011 13:14
martin dudley

So, Martin

other than the person bashing exercise, in what way will a Tesco superstore provide all that Ledbury needs both now and in the future. Please provide evidence and not just personal hyperbole.

Here's your opportunity to outline in precise detail the benefits. You may also want to highlight some of the downsides too. Over to you .....
In response to Mr Hadley......
6 Sunday, 25 September 2011 13:14
martin dudley
This is the same Mr Hadley who presents himself as a major spokesperson within the LOTS group - the very same LOTS group that when in its original open to all status allowed its very own supporters to lambast all those who opposed their beliefs and in particcular the staff of Tesco and to be more precise the checkout operators with cheap shot jibes and personal name calling - name calling which their contributors then tried to whitewash over by attempting to define their words as non derogatory etc, the use of the word trolls springs to mind on several occasions and each time it was apparent that it was meant in any way other than what we now know as internet trolls - see the recent news article where an internet troll was given a custodial sentence.

This is the same man who leads a group, LOTS, who set up a community page which is open to all but when a point of debate is commented on by a supporter of any proposed plans then those same pro Tesco views from the contributor have either been deleted or in my case a personal message sent reminding me that it is NOT a page/community for debate.

This is the same man who leads a group,LOTS, who have now set up a closed group that oppose Tesco etc and carry on with their schemimng etc behind closed doors tghus proving if proof were needed that they as a group are simply not making themselves available to debate any opinion or thougfht.

This is the same man who leads a group,LOTS, who in their belief continue to produce assumption after assumption, supposition after supposition and surmise after surmise regarding reasons as to why Tescio should not be allowed and why Lerdbury dooes not need to have a larger store in situ. There have been endless quotes and, in my opinion, cherry picked headlines from Google searches relating to like minded anti Tesco websites that simply do not offer 1 concrete, stonewall, certified piece of substantiated evidence that proves beyond doubt that any new store will have a detrimental effect on the high street of Ledbury - infact the only factual statement to date that I have read is regarding the matter that Tesco staff will have to reapply for their positions..............but even that is not unique to Ledbury or indeed unique to most national companies, I had to reaplly when a company I worked for just a couplke of years ago.

This is the same Mr Hadley who to date with LOTS quotes and statements has failed to mention the growth of Ledbury since the opening of Tesco some 16years ago, fails to mention what we now know to be another 800 houses being built within Ledbury over the next two decades which will add a possible further 2500 to the already growing population within the HR8 postal code area, fails to acknowledge that Ledbury, by Herefordshire County Councils own admission is the only county town that is growing, fails to acknowledge and mention that Ledbury is home to 1 of the major 4 employers within the county of migrant workerswho add to the population each year to the tune of approaching a 4 figure seasonal increase in population.............

The same Mr Hadley who along with LOTS sent out a flyer over the last few days with 5 points of detail with which they were asking Ledbury residents to oppose any Tesco plans and with each of those 5 points none were/are actually factual but merely assumption and supposition - for instance can Mr Hadley answer when the last accident on the Top Cross involving cars, not HGV, caused damage to any ancient historical building?

As for comments made by others regarding LATS, and in response to Mr Lever in particular - We have as a group and individuals sent correspondence to our local press and as I am sure you will agree, the lack of published articles in support is conspicuous by its absence - the editor refuses to provide evidence to the contrary and will not submit anything as proof that LATS nd its opinions are being given a fair hearing. When we try and debate through the open pages of the 1 LOTS community page we are, as mentioned either deleted amnd removed from the community page/group or reminded that it is n ot a group open to debate - quite the opposite to the LATS page/group which is open for and sundry to comment on/

Witness the comments published within the local press this week when 1 independant local trader actually went public with her comments and I quote.....

"I fear that a minority of people against the superstores are dictating to the majority in favour" - (Lindsay Jackson, Ledbury Books and Maps.)

Ask around a few more of the recognised LOCAL traders and you'll find out that her feelings are mirrored and indeed magnified.

Contributions of some £600 from the 73 independant traders within the town, or as 1 LOTS supporter reckions 180 points of trade within the town centre equates to the following......

6 contributors of the 73 independant shops = 8.2%
Or alternatively
6 contributors of the 180 that LOTS supporters reckon on = 3.3%

On either figure it really is clear that the support is far from overwhelming..................if I was in a local traders shoes I would be doing my utmost to ensure that Tesco remains at its current site thus allowing the continued and much valued and highhly important free use of the 130+ car parking spaces that are kindly made available by Tesco whilst encouraging Sainsbury to open at their proposed site ensuring that the infrastructure allows for a shuttle bus etc to transport custom between Lower Rd and the High St etc, in doing so making sure that my business advertised and marketed in such a way that new custom was invited and made to feel welcome - marketing my company/shop in a positive manner would be a much better way of spending £100.

Come on now Mr Hadley - two wrongs do not make a right, there is right and wrong from both groups and naturally feelings run a little high at times but if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Rich Hadley Statement
5 Sunday, 25 September 2011 12:14
martin alastair cooke
1. If Facebook have removed an account then surely that is sufficient evidence that one existed irrespective of who set it up. It doesn't look like Rich Hadley is saying Andrew Ellis set up a bogus account, merely added it to the LATS group (whatever that is). Andrew Ellis does not deny that part only the setting up of the account.

"The impersonation of my identity was immediately reported to Facebook which took prompt action in removing it."

2.One very noticable factor in the pro/anti-Tesco and soon to be Sainsbury debate it that there is very little evidence being publically provided by LATS to substantiate their claims for having a large superstore out-of-town in Ledbury.

Historically Tesco have a reputation of making false claims about employment and the affect of their presence on local communities. There are plenty of studies and details from towns in a similar predicament all over the country. All it would take is a Google search to find what has happened/ is happening in the different areas.

It may be that there are 'special' reasons why Tesco would want to develop in Ledbury but I am not aware of any - perhaps LATS can illuminate everybody.

3. In any one major debate, like this, those with the most power/ money seek to divide the opposition by all means possible. Family will fall out with family, friend with friend. The context for whether Tesco comes to Ledbury has to be based on whether that will enhance the current standing and well-being of the town, both short and long term, or whether it will signal the end of the high street as we know it. I would suggest Tesco are only interested in their own welfare (profit) and don't actually care what happens to the town. Go and see what has happened elsewhere in this country and make your mind up based on what the evidence is telling you ... not on just some emotional vibe.
Response to Mr Lever
4 Sunday, 25 September 2011 11:01
Mr. Lever, we at LATS are in the process of trying to set up a seperate web site so hopefully you and others without FB accounts can follow our campaign.
Statement from Rich Hadley
3 Sunday, 25 September 2011 09:43
Michael Lever
I wonder, in the interests of balance, whether the LATS group on Facebook could please make their views and comments publicly available. I do not have a Facebook account and although I have searched on Google I cannot a link. Is there one that could be published so that others, me included, could read what is actually being said.

On it says "We are non-political, non militant, committed to debate politely." For my part, I received received an offensive and patronising email from Mr Hadley and should be please to forward a copy to interested persons. Also, and I may be wrong in thinking some censorship, but I question whether it is possible to expect a valid comment to be published on the LOTS website unless the comment is supportive or in agreement with the views expressed there.
2 Sunday, 25 September 2011 09:42
To state that another named persons has created an account in your name malicously is ridiculous , this is backed up with no eveidence ...

These comments were made on the lATS groups after your awful comments against another trader in the town . This seems to be a case of you can slander other peoples characters but are not prepared to have the same done to yourself .

Lots have made a habit from the beginning of thier campaign in attacking individuals (myself included ) for thier views as they are different to thier own , its ridiclous we all have an opinion (which despite what people may like to believe or dicate )we are all entitled to , this is what makes us individuals .

I highly doubt that when tesco decided to submit this application that they intended to segrigate a whole town and cause so much upset ! This whole debate has been very underhand , not to mention the reporting on the matter has been extremly biased and unfair !

Face it some people want a larger supermarket and some people dont , what will be will be , and i feel that this decision will be made and what will happen , will happen no matter how many e mails sent to the council the newspapers etc that dont reply .

A few people can not dictate to a town how they should feel , especially when you then see these people in malvern morrisions doing thier weekly shop as they to fail to get what they need in ledbury , but cant admit it !!!
Statement From Rich Hadley of LOTS
1 Saturday, 24 September 2011 21:05
Mr. Hadley I for one would like to see the prove of these malicious and sustained attacks on you personally, as far as I can see all we at LATS have done is debunk the so called facts spouted by you and other members of the LOTS group. You have been given ample chances to respond to the questions raised but have declined to do so and as a fact other members of the LOTS group have launched personal attacks on shop owners who do not agree with the LATS ideas and I quote;

Posted 1st September

"Couldn't believe the irony as I walked past Janet's Hair Salon in new street where they have a pro-Tesco poster in the window.

What's worse (or, you could say, more idiotic, or hypocritical) is that it was right next to a "Keep Trade Local" poster!"

It comes as no surprise that the LOCAL people of Ledbury are starting to see through the LOTS campaign as can be seen from the comments published in the Ledbury Reporter.

If as you say you respect other peoples opinions then why have your group deleted all the relevant comments asking questions about the "facts" displayed on the LOTS group page?

I, and many others, await your response detailing these so called attacks on you.
yvComment v.1.22.0