Has any news come from the meeting that was ment to have gone ahead this afternoon?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Ldc Meeting
- Thread starter Kinky Gerbil
- Start date
dcseagull
New member
Someone must know something..
blockhseagull
Well-known member
Dunno, maybe still a bit early.
Meeting wasn't till 2.30pm
Meeting wasn't till 2.30pm
sullyupthewing
New member
I think we all know the outcome already, but we live in hope.
Superseagull
Well-known member
- Jul 8, 2003
- 2,122
Think of the worst outcome possible, then think a little bit more worse, add some more time wasting tactics, a few "important" people who don't turn up / on holiday / ill so no decisions can be made on the day, add a few cups of tea and biscuits, and you will have the answer. 
BBC SCR say Lewes will fight on and take their case to the High Court
Basil Fawlty
Don't Mention The War
Absolutely no point off the meeting then.
The Large One
Who's Next?
I am not saying that this is not what is going to happen, but BBC SCR does not have a history for reporting this particular story all that accurately.
However, if this is the case, I am not overly surprised. They are complete bastards with no redeeming features.
However, if this is the case, I am not overly surprised. They are complete bastards with no redeeming features.
The Large One said:
BBC SCR still saying the legal challenge by LDC continues. Have interviewed Paul Samrah and the leader of Brighton & Hove Council who have both expressed their surprise, shock and bewilderment
Fragmented Badger said:Surprise, surprise......
Quite agree. It was a cast iron certainty.
The Large One
Who's Next?
This was purely a delaying tactic all along. They never had any intention of agreeing to the consent letter. They have just dragged out the process by an extra couple of months - very cheaply.
Although (or more likely, because) they know they are going to lose, they are dragging this out. What will happen, however, is that when they do get to the High Court and lose, the judge - whose judgement on who pays the legal fees is entirely discretionary - will be far more likely to award the costs against Lewes District Council.
In other words, the Government offered them a way of not going to court, and Lewes arrogantly told them to stuff it, largely in the same way that the Albion initially offered an olive branch to LDC after Prescott's original 'YES' decision, and they threw it straight back in the Albion's face.
Wankers.
Although (or more likely, because) they know they are going to lose, they are dragging this out. What will happen, however, is that when they do get to the High Court and lose, the judge - whose judgement on who pays the legal fees is entirely discretionary - will be far more likely to award the costs against Lewes District Council.
In other words, the Government offered them a way of not going to court, and Lewes arrogantly told them to stuff it, largely in the same way that the Albion initially offered an olive branch to LDC after Prescott's original 'YES' decision, and they threw it straight back in the Albion's face.
Wankers.
Last edited:
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
Hang on a sec, if LDC haven't agreed the consent then the original decision can't have been quashed?
So they are going to court to argue about a decision that is going to be referred back anyway. That is daft.
So they are going to court to argue about a decision that is going to be referred back anyway. That is daft.
The Large One
Who's Next?
Doesn't sound like it, FB.
Prescott's decision was quashed on the back of the one challenge that the Treasury Solicitor agreed with (the one about the built-up area).
It sounds more like they are challenging Prescott's original letter still on those 16 points, and they want to take THAT to court. The don't agree with the Treasurry Solicitor when he says that the other 15 points have no basis in law. Of course, Lewes District Council believe their solicitors to be bigger and better than the government's, so their win should be a gimme. Not.
What they are doing serves little purpose other than delaying the process. Which is what they are past masters at.
Prescott's decision was quashed on the back of the one challenge that the Treasury Solicitor agreed with (the one about the built-up area).
It sounds more like they are challenging Prescott's original letter still on those 16 points, and they want to take THAT to court. The don't agree with the Treasurry Solicitor when he says that the other 15 points have no basis in law. Of course, Lewes District Council believe their solicitors to be bigger and better than the government's, so their win should be a gimme. Not.
What they are doing serves little purpose other than delaying the process. Which is what they are past masters at.
Last edited:
dcseagull
New member
What a disgrace.
The Large One
Who's Next?
The whole point is, because the process allows for delays and consultations and considerations and meetings, Lewes are taking full advantage. At no point are they co-operating with the spirit of this process, merely utilising its technicalities to spoil, delay and obstruct.
If they ran their own town this way (instead of trying to run someone else's - don't forget, the vast majority of this project doesn't even come under their own jurisdiction), the place would be flooded every time it rained hard. Know wot I mean?
If they ran their own town this way (instead of trying to run someone else's - don't forget, the vast majority of this project doesn't even come under their own jurisdiction), the place would be flooded every time it rained hard. Know wot I mean?
Last edited:
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
So the original decision has been quashed even though not all the parties agreed to it?
I don't quite get it. Is the ODPM (as was) withdrawing the decision enough? Or was the consent only with regard to the court case about the now non-existent decision being dropped. Surely you can't go to court about something that doesn't exist?
I don't quite get it. Is the ODPM (as was) withdrawing the decision enough? Or was the consent only with regard to the court case about the now non-existent decision being dropped. Surely you can't go to court about something that doesn't exist?