Do we need to ask Ruth Kelly to get her finger out?

[Screaming J]

Its a month ago today that De Vecchi and her crew of NIMBY toe-rags pulled out of the High Court case. As I understand it Ruth Kelly was then supposed to write to the relevant parties seeking their veiws on the 14 points (or however many it was) that Lewes DC made when they sought a judicial review of the Falmer approval.

Unless I've been asleep or its all being done privately no such letter has been issued by her Department, the DCLG. How long does it take to write a letter fer fucks sake?

My only worry on all this is that if you read the papers Mrs Kelly is alleged by some to be a notorious ditherer; sitting on and delaying issues where she finds the decision 'difficult'. I only hope that's not the case on this one and that she doesn't bottle it and decide to reopen the inquiry!!

 

[Rangdo]

I only hope that's not the case on this one and that she doesn't bottle it and decide to reopen the inquiry!!

On what grounds? She can't just re-open the enquiry for no reason.

 

[Everest]

Come on. We've been waiting for 9 years now for a new ground. Another 12 isn't much to ask, is it?

 

[Screaming J]

Re: Re: Do we need to ask Ruth Kelly to get her finger out?

On what grounds? She can't just re-open the enquiry for no reason.

Legally, as I understand it, its one of the options she could take. Scary, unlikely (I hope) but true!!

 

[The Large One]

Apparently, of last week at any rate, she hasn't written the letter because she hasn't received the paperwork from the Courts. It's them who are holding proceedings up this time.

 

[Rangdo]

Re: Re: Re: Do we need to ask Ruth Kelly to get her finger out?

Legally, as I understand it, its one of the options she could take. Scary, unlikely (I hope) but true!!

Yes she can but she woud have to have a reason to re-open it. She would need to have further questions to be answered that haven't been addressed already.

 

[The Large One]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Do we need to ask Ruth Kelly to get her finger out?

Yes she can but she woud have to have a reason to re-open it. She would need to have further questions to be answered that haven't been addressed already.

This is what Norman Baker (not the sex offender) has been trying to do. By insinuating that the Albion lied at the Public Inquiry, he (a) wants to split the Albion from it fans and (b) wants everyone to reconvene and have another round of debate, delaying the whole process further. Of course, Ruth Kelly is not going to buy that steaming pile of old fanny for a second - for one, she's got no time for that chinless nutjob, and secondly, as everyone knows, Baker is full of shit.

 

[JJ McClure]

plus it would knacker the local labour MPs good and proper.

 

[TelscombeGull]

plus it would knacker the local labour MPs good and proper.

Do you think that is why 2 of them are stepping down at the next election?

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do we need to ask Ruth Kelly to get her finger out?

... she's got no time for that chinless nutjob ...

Out of interest TLO, is that statement based on something concrete or just a fairly obvious guess ?