Originally Posted by MikeCol

Originally Posted by Fredbargate

I believe under Spanish law that a pool that is open to the public must have a lifeguard and especially if it is paying public which it is in this case. However I agree the parents should also take some or most of the responsibility.

Also Jag must display his licenses showing the terms and conditions of his opening which anyone can browse to check out the information in post 44.

Please note I have had one very enjoyable meal at Jag's I do not live in the area and I am not taking sides.

Originally Posted by mrtrumper

I have been reading this message board since I first bought on Costa Esuri back in 2006 and have enjoyed reading but never felt the need to post.

The Jag love fest has though always amused me but it seems now, to have reached epic proportions.

I have read what the many posters have written in other (non specific restaurant related threads) and can only conclude that you are a decent, fair and educated group who want the best for the development. The topic of Jags restaurant (both in its old and current form) comes up and it is love carnage. What makes this man such a demigod!?

I was very surprised when the restaurant opened in the centre of the villa development. Certainly I would have been very unhappy had I owned a plot nearby and to now ridicule whoever complains from the immediate vicinity, seems to me very unfair and unjust. I would not purchase a villa there now without a serious reduction and I'm sure many would feel the same; therefore as a direct result of Jag opening those people have lost substantial money. In their position I would look to see what sort of recourse was available as any sensible person would.

Now, lets look at this logically. There are commercial units scattered across the development that were earmarked as such on the original plans. I can only assume (and I may be wrong) that the restaurant has opened where it has because of financial benefit. Having shunned the empty units and opted for one clearly originally not designated as commercial I see no reason to get his knickers in a knot over a possible challenge.

Before the Jag Army of 'satisfied customers' respond with 'how he is helping the area and ' we need more people like Jag' and They are going to shut jags lets take action' can we just consider that Jags is not a charity, it is actually there making money and as a commercial concern is open to challenge.

If the restaurant has done nothing wrong in opening where it has then I wish him the best of luck (though I would really still consider it to be bad form) but I don't think the future of Costa Esuri, or of Ayamonte, or of the Universe hinges upon weather I can get a curry at ten o clock at night in an average restaurant.

Originally Posted by V.S

I agree with Bryony, of course some responsibility should lie with the parents, however it is no different than when you take your children to the public swimming pool. You may choose not to go in the pool yourself but spectate from a distance, knowing the pool will have a lifeguard in attendance monitoring the pool. As lynnxa states, a pool over 200m requires a lifeguard and as Jags is bigger, falls under this category.

Originally Posted by The Capitans Wench

I do not believe in any demi gods. I liked Jags food when in Ayamonte itself and was a little put out he moved so far out. The fact he was interested in taking on such big place so unconnected and appearing to be struggling to attract sales of houses I would commend someone who thought they could provide a service.

I do not think people are unaware nor un sympathetic to the fact that neighbours to his place may have issues. I think some are concerned at the loss of an amentity they value either solely for themselves or for the community.

The incident in the pool I can only comment on what I have hear, no sure fire info therefore hearsay... was a private party who booked the pool. The issue of lifeguard was thought to be their responsibility to have at least check on the legality.

Whatever the laws, whos responsibility it was does not detract from the fact the incident could have been avoided.

I will not post again on this subject, I have said my piece and have been told since I do not live there it is not my business.

Originally Posted by MikeJ

The building which is now Jags was always designated as a "clubhouse & restaurant" on the original developers plans - there has been no change of use. It was intended to service the villas and plots nearby (although not ME it is true).

Originally Posted by mrtrumper

In point of fact on the original plan that area was designated as villa plots. Where the clubhouse sits was a villa plot. There has been a clear change of use.

Subsequently a property company (German I believe) purchased a block of plots from Fadessa and intended to make that a clubhouse only for the use of the 40 or so villas. I'd say that was a big change of use anyway, but then I'm not blinded by "Jag love"

Originally Posted by mrtrumper

In point of fact on the original plan that area was designated as villa plots. Where the clubhouse sits was a villa plot. There has been a clear change of use.

Subsequently a property company (German I believe) purchased a block of plots from Fadessa and intended to make that a clubhouse only for the use of the 40 or so villas. I'd say that was a big change of use anyway, but then I'm not blinded by "Jag love"

Originally Posted by mrtrumper

I'm fairly confident that the 'Jag Gang' all know that you are wrong really.

The bottom line is that common sense tells us that people nearby have been badly affected.

I haven't but I don't like to see people being bullied and this thread has a strong element of that to me.

If people feel they have been wronged and have a possible avenue for recourse they should be allowed to follow that path without being villified. That is the basis of a fair society.

Jag Gang! It is only a restaurant!

Six years of reading and no posts - now all this.... it feels liberating!