Search results

Would it be possible for the council to designate the land as for sports stadia only and therefore make the land useless to him?

I remember thinking like that when we were at our low. You'll survive it. Just keep fighting. :clap:

Because it was a flippant post that deserved a flippant response :p

But you don't have to injure your neck to end up disabled. My point was that you were saying that wearing a helmet would end up in you paralysed as opposed to dead but it would probably be more likely that you would end up with permanent disability/illness as opposed to escaping with minor injuries.

I'm not in a huff at all. This is supposed to be a discussion isn't it. Sorry for disagreeing. How you can possibly tell what mood I'm in from some text on your monitor anyway. I think it should be personal choice too. I wear my helmet because I know that if I fall (or get knocked off which is...

Good point. You should join the anti-helmet lobby :glare:

Why does wearing a helmet mean that you would end up paralysed? It may be what saves you from not getting paralysed.

But if you get hit by a car you don't get a say in whether you invert or not. At the end of the day if you do hit your head on the tarmac, no matter what the likelyhood, you're better off wearing a helmet. Simple as that.

This concerns me as a sign that the inspector is on the nimby's side already. Why not just say they have to submit all sites by 'x' date and further submissions will not be accepted after that?

Perhaps if I try and force it round with my head.

I've eaten a cigarette when pissed, and snorted vodka.

You don't need evidence. Common sence says if you smash your noggin on the tarmac it will recieve more damage if you're not wearing a helmet. Numbnuts. I always wear one.

Thanks. Thats made me feel better. It was this: " He has allowed the possible sites to be added to when it opens in Feb. " that had me worried but looking at it now I think it's probably the wording of it. The more I think about it the more logic tells me we'll get it but then we've been shat on...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: New Falmer Inspector But what was implied in the first post is that they will be able to bring in credible alternatives after the inquiry has started without giving the club time to investigate themselves. Is that true?

38 actually. How old is Sheringham?

Re: Re: Re: New Falmer Inspector Ok, but thats hardly fair if the club is spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on investigating the alternatives that the nimby f***-weasels will be allowed to suddenly spring an alternative at the inquiry thereby denying the club the chance to research it...

Where did this news come from? I thought he originally said he wanted them as early as possible and there wouldn't be any rabbits pulled out of hats. If this is the case how can the club possibly put up their case if they don't get any time to research it. Lord B whats going on here?

What? So you haven't seen him then?

Oh you've been have you Kev? Whats it like? Why don't you do a journal type thing of your visit?

Thats because they don't want to be part of the community. They want to be cut off in their repressed, backwards, inbred, utopia.