Argus Latest - They read it first on NSC... Now read what they've said

[Yorkie]

Mind your own bloody business.

Falmer for All and Seagulls party are my business.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The person who wrote said comment was asked not to give his opinion on the decision

That is absolutely WRONG WRONG WRONG.

The person concerned (the independent Inspector) was specifically appointed to consider all the representations received, and to hold a Public Inquiry (at which all the major parties were represented, many of them by expensive barristers) and then MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE as to what the boundary of the National Park should be.

The Inspector's opinions will carry huge weight with the Secretary of State, as will his reasons for making them.

Further comments are being invited, but the interested parties are not being invited to restate the evidence that has already been given.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

PS ...

Can Jonny Byrnes Ego PLEASE get his head around the fact that the word is spelt (and pronounced) M-O-O-T-E-D ?

"Muted" means "shut up".

 

[Mr Albion]

is it just me

or does anyone else have a depressing sense of forboding when you read stuff from Jonny Byrnes Ego? It all seems so stacked against us, I am in awe of the people who have kept going throughout this process when so much seems to be against us. (And well done Your Lordship for keeping the info going) I for one will not be able to celebrate anything (When/If we get a yes) til I know LDC has finally stopped their snobbish war on the "masses" of Brighton and Hove As for the legalese of the likes of Mr Ego it just adds to the air of despondency. Is there any real hope of us actually winning this thing? One more thing for the M'Learn'd poster, if I am not mistaken your personal feelings about a case or individual should be discounted from your deliberations and yet you seem to dislike Paul Samarah for some reason. I can only imagine you fear libel proceedings for refusing to tell us about that. And by the way whatever happened to 'Norman Baker will abide by the decision this time around and accept it'. when he has 'previous' on this as long as Bas savages arm?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

or does anyone else have a depressing sense of forboding when you read stuff from Jonny Byrnes Ego? It all seems so stacked against us

He does, indeed, stack his arguments as best he can to serve whatever purpose has brought him to NSC.

The fact that his is consistently WRONG (meaning INACCURATE, rather than MISGUIDED) should cheer us.

More to the point, perhaps, is the FACT that we will get a decision on the stadium application very soon. Jonny Byrnes Ego is only writing about the National Park boundary issue - and that's a matter where the final decision is months (possibly years) away.

There is no way that the National Park boundary decision can lead to the reversal of the planning permission that Hazel Blears will grant us. Once planning permission is given and the time for a legal challenge has passed, NO-ONE can stop the stadium being built.

 

[Dave the OAP]

.......... and the time for a legal challenge has passed, NO-ONE can stop the stadium being built.

What does that mean exactly? What legal challenge?

It was said that LDC appealed on 1 of the 16 points, having accepted the other 15 points, therefore if HB accepts the point and changed the decision to take that point into account, there can be NO BASIS OF APPEAL.

That is how I have read it from yourself, TLO etc etc

 

[Scoffers]

What does that mean exactly? What legal challenge?

It was said that LDC appealed on 1 of the 16 points, having accepted the other 15 points, therefore if HB accepts the point and changed the decision to take that point into account, there can be NO BASIS OF APPEAL.

That is how I have read it from yourself, TLO etc etc

That is correct, but my understanding is that legally, there has to be a period of time after the decision is given whereby any party can appeal, that doesn't mean that

a) Any party will appeal
b) There is any grounds for an appeal

This is just part of the process that has to be adhered to legally.

Unless anyone knows any better?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

What does that mean exactly? What legal challenge?

I'm talking about the statutory six weeks period of time after any planning decision is made - once that has passed, the decision can no longer be challenged in the courts.

Dave - If you submit a planning application to build an extension on your house and it is totally in order and it is approved by the planning authority, it is still the case that ANYONE has six weeks from the date of the decision to submit an appeal to the court on the grounds that there is some legal glitch in the way the decision has been made.

In this respect, the Falmer stadium application is no different from every other planning application made in England.

 

[Scoffers]

thanks Lord B

 

[Dave the OAP]

I'm talking about the statutory six weeks period of time after any planning decision is made - once that has passed, the decision can no longer be challenged in the courts.

Dave - If you submit a planning application to build an extension on your house and it is totally in order and it is approved by the planning authority, it is still the case that ANYONE has six weeks from the date of the decision to submit an appeal to the court on the grounds that there is some legal glitch in the way the decision has been made.

In this respect, the Falmer stadium application is no different from every other planning application made in England.

Gotcha....cheers LB

 

[B.W.]

Great... thank you, LB... feel better after your most recent posts...

 

[Storer68]

Posted by Johnny Byrne's Ego:

"DEFRA will also point to the counter arguement put forward by perry et al, that a vote was held in brighton and hove, showing a majority in favour of the stadium. But perry et al then claim it is a stadium for the broader community, pointing towards wider sussex. Unfortunately though the wider sussex weren't asked their opinion, as the downs don't just get used by residents of brighton and hove.
In an independent poll alledgedly carried out by LDC, 72% of the wider sussex population were against said stadium.

We shall see."

And tell me how much of the "wider sussex population" did the LDC consult? Not me who is born and bred in the county and still reident.

I think you're talking out of your arse.

 

[TSB]

Posted by Johnny Byrne's Ego:

"DEFRA will also point to the counter arguement put forward by perry et al, that a vote was held in brighton and hove, showing a majority in favour of the stadium. But perry et al then claim it is a stadium for the broader community, pointing towards wider sussex. Unfortunately though the wider sussex weren't asked their opinion, as the downs don't just get used by residents of brighton and hove.
In an independent poll alledgedly carried out by LDC, 72% of the wider sussex population were against said stadium.

We shall see."

And tell me how much of the "wider sussex population" did the LDC consult? Not me who is born and bred in the county and still reident.

I think you're talking out of your arse.

To be fair,read what he put again...

 

[The Large One]

'Allegedly'?

They either did carry out a poll or they didn't.

 

[TSB]

'Allegedly'?

They either did carry out a poll or they didn't.

Yeah, but whilst no-one can prove or disprove it then we are none the wiser. What's wrong with him writing 'Allegedly'?

Perhaps the 'Freedom of Information Act' could come into play?

 

[Jonny Byrnes Ego]

He does, indeed, stack his arguments as best he can to serve whatever purpose has brought him to NSC.

The fact that his is consistently WRONG (meaning INACCURATE, rather than MISGUIDED) should cheer us.

More to the point, perhaps, is the FACT that we will get a decision on the stadium application very soon. Jonny Byrnes Ego is only writing about the National Park boundary issue - and that's a matter where the final decision is months (possibly years) away.

There is no way that the National Park boundary decision can lead to the reversal of the planning permission that Hazel Blears will grant us. Once planning permission is given and the time for a legal challenge has passed, NO-ONE can stop the stadium being built.

No conspiracy theories please lb, I am albion through and through. I just put the facts as I see them and interpret them, without your spin. It could be said what agenda do you have, the way you interpret the facts, a club official by any chance.
It is out of our hands, just let the authorities come to their decision, rather than blinding fellow nsc members with spin.

 

[TSB]

It is out of our hands, just let the authorities come to their decision, rather than blinding fellow nsc members with spin.

Now THAT is absolute bollocks. Just shows how long you've been on NSC, doesn't it!

 

[Yorkie]

Something smells and it isn't of violets.

 

[B.W.]

No conspiracy theories please lb, I am albion through and through. I just put the facts as I see them and interpret them, without your spin. It could be said what agenda do you have, the way you interpret the facts, a club official by any chance.
It is out of our hands, just let the authorities come to their decision, rather than blinding fellow nsc members with spin.

Actually, your 'spin' seems rather negative, IMHO...

 

[Lord Bracknell]

No conspiracy theories please lb, I am albion through and through. I just put the facts as I see them and interpret them, without your spin. It could be said what agenda do you have, the way you interpret the facts, a club official by any chance.
It is out of our hands, just let the authorities come to their decision, rather than blinding fellow nsc members with spin.

The Albion may, from time to time, find themselves in some desperate situations. But they've never been desperate enough to offer me employment.

As for "letting the authorities come to their decision" ... since ALL of the decision making authorities are accountable to an electorate, I'm perfectly content with the notion that they should be on the receiving end of some effective campaigning. That's the way it's supposed to work.

I am accused of "spinning" this story.

The Inspector's report says "I recommend the boundary follows Village Way". If my claim that the Inspector is recommending that the boundary follows Village Way is "spin", I apologise.

Even Melanie Cutress, just half an hour ago on BBC South East, reckoned that this was bad news for her.

If Jonny Byrnes Ego can spin the story differently, he's welcome to try.