LDC's Website

[dougdeep]

... and I've been busy doing some research. What I said is certainly TRUE for the proposed boundary of the National Park, here is the proposal map,

Why do they have to use Adobe 6?

 

[Rangdo]

Right. I knew I had some photos somewhere.

Check out this fine, unspoilt Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

More, I say, more!

 

[The Large One]

Why do they have to use Adobe 6?

Don't tell me you're still on WordPerfect 4.2?

 

[Caveman]

Well those pictures tell the true story.

 

[Albaman]

Lib Dems, LDC

 

[sully]

Well, I've just got a response to my email from Sarah Nield, the
Assistant Freedom of Information Officer.

It reads:

Dear Mr Sullivan,

Thank you for your e-mail concerning photographs in the recent edition of District Link.

The two photographs in District Link were respectively a genuine photograph of the site of the proposed stadium and fair representation of the attractiveness of the South Downs. There was absolutely no intention to misrepresent the location of the proposed stadium as illustrated by the aerial photo that was inluded on page 8 of District Link.

I have, obviously, sent an immediate response asking that she actually read my letter, which had nothing to do with the District Link photographs, and get back to me.

 

[Woodchip]

Well, I've just got a response to my email from Sarah Nield, the
Assistant Freedom of Information Officer.

It reads:


I have, obviously, sent an immediate response asking that she actually read my letter, which had nothing to do with the District Link photographs, and get back to me.

Probably confused it with my letter. Dimwits!!!

 

[sully]

OK, I've got the correct reply now!

Dear Mr Sullivan,

I do apologise. In cutting and pasting I simply transferred the wrong information into my response to you. The response you received was meant to go elsewhere to someone who had asked about the District Link photographs.

In answer to your original e-mail about the photographs on LDC's website, I would offer you the following:

The photos on the website were taken with the purpose of illustrating the beauty of the South Downs countryside and to give a general indication of the buildings already sited within the area which includes the proposed football stadium site.

We described the photos in District Link as 'Downland around Falmer'. I have spoken to our Press Officer who takes your point about how the photos have been described on the website and she is willing to amend the description on the website to reflect what was said in District Link which was 'Downland around Falmer'. This may take one or two days to implement.

Thank you.

I've thanked her for agreeing to change the description of the pictures.

At least they can see our point sometimes. Let's hope this is the start of a movement back to reality.

 

[Jim in the West]

Well, I've just got a response to my email from Sarah Nield, the
Assistant Freedom of Information Officer.

It reads:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Sullivan,

Thank you for your e-mail concerning photographs in the recent edition of District Link.

The two photographs in District Link were respectively a genuine photograph of the site of the proposed stadium and fair representation of the attractiveness of the South Downs. There was absolutely no intention to misrepresent the location of the proposed stadium as illustrated by the aerial photo that was inluded on page 8 of District Link.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I have, obviously, sent an immediate response asking that she actually read my letter, which had nothing to do with the District Link photographs, and get back to me.



The quote used by Ms Nield was, word for word, what she sent to me about two months ago when I complained about the District Link photos.....

 

[Rangdo]

"The photos on the website were taken with the purpose of illustrating the beauty of the South Downs countryside and to give a general indication of the buildings already sited within the area which includes the proposed football stadium site."


Shame that the photos don't actually give any true indication whatsoever of the buildings already sited in the area around the site.

You can barely see any buildings whatsoever in the photos on their website yet there are 2 universities, the A27, the South Coast main railway line and Falmer Village itself all within 200 yards of the site.

Convenient eh?

 

[Publius Ovidius]

I think you lot are all heartless bastards

After seeing Ranglo's pictures above, it is quite obviously an area of immense beauty and calm and tranquility.

shame on you

 

[Rangdo]

I was just thinking. Why don't we have a decent pro-Falmer propoganda website to promote our cause?

There must be some people on here with a decent knowledge of building websites and access to some free webspace to do a good job in 10 minutes or so.

Between us with some proper maps, photos and articles we should be able to quite easily put up some competition for the enemy and tell the alternative story for those who don't know and come looking for information.

If you do a Google search for "Falmer" the top result is:

"Falmer against the Stadium" at http://www.falmer.org.uk/

With photos like this:

http://www.angelfire.com/space/falmer/pictures/Falmermp1.jpg

No wonder theres so many idiots around who don't have a clue.

 

[Springal]

I was just thinking. Why don't we have a decent pro-Falmer propoganda website to promote our cause?

There must be some people on here with a decent knowledge of building websites and access to some free webspace to do a good job in 10 minutes or so.

Between us with some proper maps, photos and articles we should be able to quite easily put up some competition for the enemy and tell the alternative story for those who don't know and come looking for information.

If you do a Google search for "Falmer" the top result is:

"Falmer against the Stadium" at http://www.falmer.org.uk/

With photos like this:

http://www.angelfire.com/space/falmer/pictures/Falmermp1.jpg

No wonder theres so many idiots around who don't have a clue.

agreed we need an official, proper looking pro-falmer site hi-lighting the facts and figures. proper domain, proper website, proper information!

 

[unnameable]

Today, on LDC's website, there is a self-congratulatory piece about the Sussex Youth Games...

 

[Woodchip]

Posted by sully
Well, I've just got a response to my email from Sarah Nield, the
Assistant Freedom of Information Officer.

It reads:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Sullivan,

Thank you for your e-mail concerning photographs in the recent edition of District Link.

The two photographs in District Link were respectively a genuine photograph of the site of the proposed stadium and fair representation of the attractiveness of the South Downs. There was absolutely no intention to misrepresent the location of the proposed stadium as illustrated by the aerial photo that was inluded on page 8 of District Link.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I have, obviously, sent an immediate response asking that she actually read my letter, which had nothing to do with the District Link photographs, and get back to me.

That was my response. Cheeky blighters. Even got the spelling wrong in mine as well.

 

[Caveman]

What was the outcome on this??

 

[vauxhallexile]

agreed we need an official, proper looking pro-falmer site hi-lighting the facts and figures. proper domain, proper website, proper information!

Included in that a full briefing should be included on why the other sites are not possible (and why they are worse for the environment)