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

[Brixtaan]

The point is, are we within our rights to enjoy a glass of Champagne (followed by 5 pints of Stella) on friday night (it's the date i tells ya) if the decision is yes?

 

[ROSM]

got to make an admission here - I knew the answer to my (rhetorical) question as those who know me will know that I have been banging on for at least 5 years about the legal reasons as to how National park boundaries can be identified.

What this post has proved to me is that JBE actually knows very little on this matter

Would bha have the funds/stomach for another prolonged fight, would LDC? They have a financial benefactor who has put money into a Deed of Covenant that LDC could call upon if required, in furture times.

We shall see.

but this is the best point of the lot to prove the misunderstandings of JBE - the club are like any other business in terms of the NP - it is not a fight for them to have on this matter. Also just because a site is given NP status it doesn't mean any greater protection than AONB. So in essence this decision could not have made matters worse, but actually could make matters better.

Having the read the document for myself in full with regard to the Falmer site - it is my opinion that is does make matters better.


But I must thank JBE for the tip about Baker seeing DEFRA - like to see how that would play for a man who was very concerned about what John Prescott said when he met Derek Chapman prior to the planning application being called in. Who should ask the questions here??

 

[Easy 10]

In an independent poll alledgedly carried out by LDC, 72% of the wider sussex population were against said stadium.

What complete and utter CACK you come out with. Until or unless you can back this kind of SHITE up with something resembling fact or evidence then, unlike Lord B, you will have zero credibility. You might be able to come out with a load of important-sounding doom-mongering and legal jargon, but when you start making up and quoting fictional polls by LDC, your entire argument is fatally undermined cos I really cannot take a thing you say seriously now.

 

[Scoffers]

Um, folks, might I suggest that we stop pandering to JBE's attempts to wind us up and treat him with the contempt he deserves, ie, silence

 

[Easy 10]

Um, folks, might I suggest that we stop pandering to JBE's attempts to wind us up and treat him with the contempt he deserves, ie, silence

No.
I want to ABUSE him in some kind of unspeakable way.

 

[Scoffers]

No.
I want to ABUSE him in some kind of unspeakable way.

Fair enough, I take your point

 

[Jonny Byrnes Ego]

What complete and utter CACK you come out with. Until or unless you can back this kind of SHITE up with something resembling fact or evidence then, unlike Lord B, you will have zero credibility. You might be able to come out with a load of important-sounding doom-mongering and legal jargon, but when you start making up and quoting fictional polls by LDC, your entire argument is fatally undermined cos I really cannot take a thing you say seriously now.

For god sake man grow up, I say alledgedlly, as I cannot substanciate the source.

All I can post is my understanding, it makes no odds to me that some wish to be abbusive or childish. Typical of one section of our fans who turn to abuse if what they read is above and beyond their neandertal understanding.... to the lot of you.

 

[Yorkie]

Typical of one section of our fans who turn to abuse if what they read is above and beyond their neandertal understanding.... to the lot of you.

So you stick fingers up at the lot of us because one section of our fans turn to abuse.
Aren't sticking fingers up an abusive gesture? I was always taught that it was.

 

[Easy 10]

For god sake man grow up, I say alledgedlly, as I cannot substanciate the source.

Well how bloody CONVENIENT eh ?
Why don't you come back when you can start dealing in FACTS then, as we have been doing over the last 5 bloody years or however long this frigging Public Inquiry has been going on, instead of quoting "allegedlys", which are not worth the bandwidth they're typed on.

Allegedly you are a shit-stirring cockjuggling thundercunt, but I can't substanciate the source for that either, bucko.

 

[The Large One]

For god sake man grow up, I say alledgedlly, as I cannot substanciate the source.

All I can post is my understanding, it makes no odds to me that some wish to be abbusive or childish. Typical of one section of our fans who turn to abuse if what they read is above and beyond their neandertal understanding.... to the lot of you.

If you can't substantiate either the source, nor the facts, why post them? Ultimately, the statement ("allegedly, 72% of the people...") has no value on its own and is therefore rendered meaningless. You either know it for a fact or you don't. So, can you substantiate it or not?

What you fail to understand is Lord Bracknell's years of knowledge and experience of planning and local government matters stands him in good stead to make a valued judgement on this issue to inform us of his considered opinion. In other words - and I can't say it plainer than this - he knows what he's on about.

I would put this to you - what is the basis of the knowledge and experience you have on which you base your interpretation of the information being discussed? Are you, for instance, also an experienced local government officer? Or a planning consultant? Or a lawyer?

 

[Ex-Staffs Gull]

JBE seems one tracked on all of this.

Just two questions if he / she is reading this again.

1) If LDC had a poll that said 72% of Sussex didn't want the stadium, why haven't they published it, as it would surely add weight to their case.

2) Secondly, you came on here with an agenda to put down Paul Samrah and then you wonder why people take a dislike to you and mistrust all your comments designed to help put him down. You sound anti-Falmer stadium, if you want a debate then nail your colours to the mast and be honest. People on here are honest (maybe some RT Specs!) about their stand point, will you have the class to do the same, I doubt it.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Are you, for instance, also an experienced local government officer? Or a planning consultant? Or a lawyer?

Oi !

Don't you go accusing me of being a lawyer.

 

[Scoffers]

Are you, for instance, also an experienced local government officer? Or a planning consultant? Or a lawyer?

No, he (or She) is a wind-up merchant who is probably laughing his (or her) socks off with all the trouble he (or she) is causing.

 

[sparkie]

1) If LDC had a poll that said 72% of Sussex didn't want the stadium, why haven't they published it, as it would surely add weight to their case..

I imagine he's talking about that online-poll on the Sussex Express website which LDC quoted at some point.

You remember, the one which they stated had ~70% of voters opposed to Falmer, when they'd actually misread it and it was 70% in favour.... clowns the lot of them

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Exactly the key word LDC are clinging onto is "proposed". Quite a few parties will have their say linked to the park before a final decision is made.
It is only a proposed ammendment, that parties involved will possibly fight, as it leaves out an area of land, the falmer site, that is they wil argue still part of the Downs, and use the wildlife arguement, especially the downland society or whatever their official name is..

Just to round off this earlier piece of nonsense posted by JBE ...

With a further period of consultation on the National Park boundary now starting, Defra have published their "GUIDANCE ON MAKING OBJECTIONS OR REPRESENTATIONS ON FURTHER MATTERS"

This includes the following paragraphs:-

9. Objections and representations should relate only to the areas covered by the proposed additions and not to any other part of the boundary for, or area of, the proposed National Park.

10. The areas recommended for exclusion by the Inspector are shown on the maps for information only. Objections and representations on these are not invited as they fall within the Designation Order boundary that was the subject of the public inquiry.


http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/issues/landscap/natparks/sdowns/guid-object.pdf


In other words ... LDC and any other interested parties have NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY NOW BEING RECOMMENDED AT FALMER

 

[Marshy]

Lord B does get me mildly aroused at times with his words of wisdom