Lewes DC gagging councillors - the truth

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

PS. Of my favourite Lewes District councillor and events last December, I read the following utter bollocks masquerading as a letter to the editor, in the latest edition of my union magazine which arrived today:



With "friends" in the media like this, who needs enemies, eh?

For f***'s sake. I haven't had my copy yet. Letters to The Journalist ahoy, eh NSC Chapel members?

 

[chip]

Re: Re: Re: Lewes DC gagging councillors - the truth

Lewes DC are extremely zealous about imposing their own interpretation of this rule - even when it plainly isn't supposed to apply.
...
The outcome is a denial of councillors' rights - indeed duty - to represent their constituents in the democratic process.

Too true, but then all authorities do that when it suits them and its not exactly the only provision for undermining the democratic process on the statute books.

chip - the odd Councillor - not speaking about a particular development because of the possibility of prejudicial interest is surely very different from a whole Council being 'gagged'.

I'd say both were generally very undesirable, but seemingly becoming a more and more common occurence. I was just trying to offer a possible explanation of Jim in the Wests experience.

This is just the sort of thing that the Christopher Booker page in the Sunday Telegraph reports every single week and something I have come up against with the district council where I live. Jim should send Booker an email as it is just the sort of thing that the Sunday Telegraph would report - especially as it highlights the absurdity of laws introduced by the ODPM that are used in an attempt to undermine the ODPM and go in the face of public opinion.

 

[The Large One]

 

[bhaexpress]

Should the story need 'leaking' Dame Roz has the wherewithal to do all that's nessesary.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Roz, do you think they are trying to get you to back down rather than take it further, afterall it would make the LDC look extremely pathetic, particularly after the journalist camera incident.

Great letter Jim. Have you decided if you are going to do anything with it?

I have emailed the Lewes flood defences action group or something, to ask about funding and whether they have a shortfall.

 

[Pigsy]

I can confirm that in my local Town Council elections on 30th March, I will not be voting Lib Dem in protest. Sadly, my vote in Notts is not likely to count for much on the issue, but I am waiting with eager anticipation for the candidate to come door knocking........

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

PS. Of my favourite Lewes District councillor and events last December, I read the following utter bollocks masquerading as a letter to the editor, in the latest edition of my union magazine which arrived today:



With "friends" in the media like this, who needs enemies, eh?

More like with friends like these who needs enemas !

 

[Seagull73]

This letter really ought to be brought into the public domain. LDC have been able to peddle their lies for long enough, even if this letter turns out to be a hoax, which seems unlikely from the comments since, LDC's case will be seen as that eventually.

De Vecchi and her cronies really are a bag of wank....

 

[The Large One]

De Vecchi and her cronies really are a bag of wank....

THINKS... A new line of extreme perversion.

Calling Kinky, Calling Kinky...

 

[Seagull73]

Great expression isn't it....?

 

[Jim in the West]

This letter really ought to be brought into the public domain. LDC have been able to peddle their lies for long enough, even if this letter turns out to be a hoax, which seems unlikely from the comments since, LDC's case will be seen as that eventually.

De Vecchi and her cronies really are a bag of wank....

I'm in the middle of drafting a follow-up letter to all LDC councillors, covering a whole range of issues to do with the Judicial Review decision. This will go in the post over the weekend. It will include certain allusions to the letter I received from one councillor yesterday. When I've written it, I'll post it on here, if anyone's interested.

I'm debating how I "leak" the contents of the letter received yesterday, and who I do it to. Hopefully Lord B will give me a steer.

What's happening to Roz is further evidence of LDC's desperate attempts to stamp out debate on the Falmer issue, and probably a lot more media friendly than the leeter I got.....but who knows?!

 

[The Large One]

I'm in the middle of drafting a follow-up letter to all LDC councillors, covering a whole range of issues to do with the Judicial Review decision. This will go in the post over the weekend. It will include certain allusions to the letter I received from one councillor yesterday. When I've written it, I'll post it on here, if anyone's interested.

I'm debating how I "leak" the contents of the letter received yesterday, and who I do it to. Hopefully Lord B will give me a steer.

What's happening to Roz is further evidence of LDC's desperate attempts to stamp out debate on the Falmer issue, and probably a lot more media friendly than the leeter I got.....but who knows?!

Yes, damn straight we're interested.

 

[attila]

Hi. Back from Bush's Backyard. Wonderful time. They have to register to vote over there. 50% do. Slightly under 50% of those that did voted for Bush. 25% of the US voting public elected that arsehole. It was great to do gigs for the vast majority that didn't.

Gifton 'Young Gifton & Black' Noel Williams
on board. Well , penalties looking good at least..........

Time for some non violent direct action against LDC. They want to, erm, delay our stadium. How about we, erm, delay their next meeting? And maybe email them more than once? Yes, LDC, De Vecchi, I know you're monitoring this.

When's LDC's next full meeting?



J/A

 

[Jim in the West]

Yes, damn straight we're interested.

Well, as you asked, here's my follow-up letter to all the lib dem councillors on LDC. Another two or three hours out of my life writing this, but if I don't do something I feel completely powerless, and bloody angry.....Incidentally, the version I'm sending has some headings in bold, which I can't be bothered to
re-do in this version, so it may not be as easy to read as it (hopefully) is.



You will remember I wrote to you about 6 weeks ago – it was a slightly rambling letter, but tried to underline the sadness (and anger) that I felt over Lewes District Council’s plans to seek a Judicial Review of the ODPM’s Falmer decision.

Since writing that letter I have had an interesting time trying to get answers to some very straightforward questions – the interesting part is discovering how sensitive and defensive LDC is about the Judicial Review. It has also been mildly entertaining (but actually rather disturbing) learning about the tactics used by LDC in attempting to stifle debate on the issue. So – whilst sadness and anger are still my primary emotions, I rather suspect that you may well be experiencing similar feelings. As a result, I have a great deal of sympathy for the majority of Lewes District councillors, almost regardless of your stance on the Falmer decision. Unfortunately you have been consistently misled, and effectively gagged. I appreciate that this is strong language – and I therefore need to justify my position. I will do so in as logical, and factual way as I can.

My disquiet (and surely yours) stems chiefly from the following:

• Councillors are being seriously misled over the financial exposure LDC has taken on in seeking a Judicial Review;
• Opposition to the football stadium at Falmer is presented as an heroic attempt to save pristine countryside, when, even if the stadium is never built, much of the land will be developed anyway. And of course the land itself is far from being a jewel in the crown of our natural heritage;
• Many (if not all) councillors have been forbidden from corresponding on the Falmer issue, and have to refer all correspondence to the council;
• Councillors have been discouraged from even discussing the decision – whether they be for or against;
• The leadership of the council has apparently even resorted to involving the police in an attempt to suppress public opposition to their decision;
• Council leaders continue to claim that there are alternatives to Falmer, but their alternatives have already been discounted by the Public Enquiry;
• The majority of Lewes District residents are NOT in favour of the Judicial Review, but LDC tries to ignore this.



LDC’s estimates of their potential costs are too low, and deliberately ignore the risk of having to meet Brighton & Hove Albion’s costs.

Lewes District Council has estimated its maximum cost exposure at £25k. This figure relies on (a) contributions from other parties (most importantly £30k from Falmer Parish Council), and (b) ignoring the costs of Brighton & Hove Albion FC.

The football club has estimated its costs at £90,000. Crucially, Lewes District Council’s estimate of its costs was made BEFORE the club announced that it would be defending itself in the action, and BEFORE the club published its estimate of these costs. Hence, LDC’s potential maximum exposure is not £25k…it is at least four times this amount, and very probably more – the costs of other defendants (eg: Brighton & Hove City Council) are not taken into account in this calculation. In addition, I believe that Falmer PC has yet to raise the £30k it has promised, and may be unable to make good this contribution.

I have asked Mr Crawford to (a) confirm that the Council has considered the costs of ALL the defendants in the forthcoming Judicial Review? and (b), in the light of this response, indicate how the Council will ensure it’s exposure is limited to £25,000, regardless of the outcome of the Judicial Review? Unfortunately Mr Crawford has refused to answer these very straightforward questions.

LDC has claimed that Brighton & Hove Albion does not need to defend itself

Mr Crawford, has stated that Court rules “require the….applicant to be named in the claim that is submitted to the High Court. This does not mean that they have to appear as defendants.” As far as I am aware, this is correct. However, Lewes District Council has NOT simply named Brighton & Hove Albion as applicants – it has named them as defendants. This means that the club has no choice (given the criticality of Falmer to it’s future) but to defend itself. I am 100% sure that if the boot was on the other foot, LDC would feel it had no option but to defend itself. LDC is being disingenuous in claiming that the club does not need to appear as defendants. The truth is, LDC did not need to name the club as defendants, but chose to do so.

LDC has claimed that it is simply seeking to protect an AONB, because the ODPM’s decision may set a precedent.

The plain fact is that the majority of the Falmer site – ie, all of the site which is within Brighton & Hove - will be developed even if the football stadium is not built. The Brighton & Hove Local Plan has ear-marked the site for development, and it specifically states that

“In the event that the Community Stadium is not developed at Village Way North, the site will be allocated for High tech business or research related to the universities or for university related uses, except for student housing”

Thus, if the football stadium doesn’t get built, university buildings will almost certainly be built on the site. The residents of Falmer may well then decide that it would have been better to have an (iconic) football stadium, used very infrequently (especially in summer) – rather than potentially ugly university buildings, necessarily in very frequent use.

These facts are simply not publicized by LDC, and one has to ask – why?

LDC has discouraged discussion of the Judicial Review decision, and effectively gagged it’s councillors. More recently, the leadership has also apparently involved the police in an attempt to stop a member of the public from highlighting

I’m sure I don’t need to give any further details here. Several councillors have indicated to me their unhappiness with the way that debate has been suppressed, and the latest attempt to stop Ms Roz South from displaying a harmless poster on her web site has been widely covered in the local media. (It is clear to me that the word “Democrat” has surely never been less appropriate in the title of a political party. And I say this as a Lib Dem voter in my home constituency in Somerset). If LDC is so sure that it’s decision to seek a Judicial Review was correct, why was that decision made in such a secretive fashion? Why are councillors not permitted to correspond freely and openly with constituents and others on the subject? Why won’t LDC answer the questions which I (and others) are asking?

The LDC leadership continues to state that alternative sites to Falmer exist.

The most recent Public Enquiry examined all the possible alternatives, and came down very clearly in favour of Falmer. Is LDC therefore saying that other sites should have been examined? If so, it was LDC’s duty to identify these prior to the re-commencement of the Public Enquiry – the terms of reference of the Enquiry were set so as to allow almost any other potential site to be examined.

The majority of Lewes District residents are in favour of building a Community Stadium at Falmer.

Within a matter of days of LDC’s decision to seek a Judicial Review, the Falmer For All campaign team had collected over 5,000 signatures objecting to the decision. LDC dismissed the relevance of these signatures, apparently on the grounds that the petition over-estimated the potential costs of the Judicial Review. If you read the wording of the petitions you will see that they give a range of potential costs, with the lower end of those ranges being lower than LDC’s own estimates of the total costs. And as I have set out above, LDC’s estimates are very probably inadequate.



I realise this is a rather different letter to that which I wrote at the end of February. Then I was seeking to highlight some of the sadness I felt at the potential demise of a truly wonderful regional resource – Brighton & Hove Albion FC. A resource which contributes so much to the county of Sussex, and beyond….which will, if LDC has it’s way, be sacrificed for the sake of preserving a small piece of muddy land immediately adjacent to a four lane dual-carriageway.

Now I am much more concerned to voice my disquiet (and anger) at the way LDC is acting. It disturbs me as a supporter of the football club, as a former Liberal Democrat voter, but most of all as someone who values openness and honesty in public life.

As before….if you’ve made it to the end of this letter, many thanks. I hope you can do something, however small, to restore my faith in the fundamental principles of liberal democracy.

 

[bhaexpress]

Well, as you asked, here's my follow-up letter to all the lib dem councillors on LDC. Another two or three hours out of my life writing this, but if I don't do something I feel completely powerless, and bloody angry.....Incidentally, the version I'm sending has some headings in bold, which I can't be bothered to
re-do in this version, so it may not be as easy to read as it (hopefully) is.



You will remember I wrote to you about 6 weeks ago – it was a slightly rambling letter, but tried to underline the sadness (and anger) that I felt over Lewes District Council’s plans to seek a Judicial Review of the ODPM’s Falmer decision.

Since writing that letter I have had an interesting time trying to get answers to some very straightforward questions – the interesting part is discovering how sensitive and defensive LDC is about the Judicial Review. It has also been mildly entertaining (but actually rather disturbing) learning about the tactics used by LDC in attempting to stifle debate on the issue. So – whilst sadness and anger are still my primary emotions, I rather suspect that you may well be experiencing similar feelings. As a result, I have a great deal of sympathy for the majority of Lewes District councillors, almost regardless of your stance on the Falmer decision. Unfortunately you have been consistently misled, and effectively gagged. I appreciate that this is strong language – and I therefore need to justify my position. I will do so in as logical, and factual way as I can.

My disquiet (and surely yours) stems chiefly from the following:

• Councillors are being seriously misled over the financial exposure LDC has taken on in seeking a Judicial Review;
• Opposition to the football stadium at Falmer is presented as an heroic attempt to save pristine countryside, when, even if the stadium is never built, much of the land will be developed anyway. And of course the land itself is far from being a jewel in the crown of our natural heritage;
• Many (if not all) councillors have been forbidden from corresponding on the Falmer issue, and have to refer all correspondence to the council;
• Councillors have been discouraged from even discussing the decision – whether they be for or against;
• The leadership of the council has apparently even resorted to involving the police in an attempt to suppress public opposition to their decision;
• Council leaders continue to claim that there are alternatives to Falmer, but their alternatives have already been discounted by the Public Enquiry;
• The majority of Lewes District residents are NOT in favour of the Judicial Review, but LDC tries to ignore this.



LDC’s estimates of their potential costs are too low, and deliberately ignore the risk of having to meet Brighton & Hove Albion’s costs.

Lewes District Council has estimated its maximum cost exposure at £25k. This figure relies on (a) contributions from other parties (most importantly £30k from Falmer Parish Council), and (b) ignoring the costs of Brighton & Hove Albion FC.

The football club has estimated its costs at £90,000. Crucially, Lewes District Council’s estimate of its costs was made BEFORE the club announced that it would be defending itself in the action, and BEFORE the club published its estimate of these costs. Hence, LDC’s potential maximum exposure is not £25k…it is at least four times this amount, and very probably more – the costs of other defendants (eg: Brighton & Hove City Council) are not taken into account in this calculation. In addition, I believe that Falmer PC has yet to raise the £30k it has promised, and may be unable to make good this contribution.

I have asked Mr Crawford to (a) confirm that the Council has considered the costs of ALL the defendants in the forthcoming Judicial Review? and (b), in the light of this response, indicate how the Council will ensure it’s exposure is limited to £25,000, regardless of the outcome of the Judicial Review? Unfortunately Mr Crawford has refused to answer these very straightforward questions.

LDC has claimed that Brighton & Hove Albion does not need to defend itself

Mr Crawford, has stated that Court rules “require the….applicant to be named in the claim that is submitted to the High Court. This does not mean that they have to appear as defendants.” As far as I am aware, this is correct. However, Lewes District Council has NOT simply named Brighton & Hove Albion as applicants – it has named them as defendants. This means that the club has no choice (given the criticality of Falmer to it’s future) but to defend itself. I am 100% sure that if the boot was on the other foot, LDC would feel it had no option but to defend itself. LDC is being disingenuous in claiming that the club does not need to appear as defendants. The truth is, LDC did not need to name the club as defendants, but chose to do so.

LDC has claimed that it is simply seeking to protect an AONB, because the ODPM’s decision may set a precedent.

The plain fact is that the majority of the Falmer site – ie, all of the site which is within Brighton & Hove - will be developed even if the football stadium is not built. The Brighton & Hove Local Plan has ear-marked the site for development, and it specifically states that

“In the event that the Community Stadium is not developed at Village Way North, the site will be allocated for High tech business or research related to the universities or for university related uses, except for student housing”

Thus, if the football stadium doesn’t get built, university buildings will almost certainly be built on the site. The residents of Falmer may well then decide that it would have been better to have an (iconic) football stadium, used very infrequently (especially in summer) – rather than potentially ugly university buildings, necessarily in very frequent use.

These facts are simply not publicized by LDC, and one has to ask – why?

LDC has discouraged discussion of the Judicial Review decision, and effectively gagged it’s councillors. More recently, the leadership has also apparently involved the police in an attempt to stop a member of the public from highlighting

I’m sure I don’t need to give any further details here. Several councillors have indicated to me their unhappiness with the way that debate has been suppressed, and the latest attempt to stop Ms Roz South from displaying a harmless poster on her web site has been widely covered in the local media. (It is clear to me that the word “Democrat” has surely never been less appropriate in the title of a political party. And I say this as a Lib Dem voter in my home constituency in Somerset). If LDC is so sure that it’s decision to seek a Judicial Review was correct, why was that decision made in such a secretive fashion? Why are councillors not permitted to correspond freely and openly with constituents and others on the subject? Why won’t LDC answer the questions which I (and others) are asking?

The LDC leadership continues to state that alternative sites to Falmer exist.

The most recent Public Enquiry examined all the possible alternatives, and came down very clearly in favour of Falmer. Is LDC therefore saying that other sites should have been examined? If so, it was LDC’s duty to identify these prior to the re-commencement of the Public Enquiry – the terms of reference of the Enquiry were set so as to allow almost any other potential site to be examined.

The majority of Lewes District residents are in favour of building a Community Stadium at Falmer.

Within a matter of days of LDC’s decision to seek a Judicial Review, the Falmer For All campaign team had collected over 5,000 signatures objecting to the decision. LDC dismissed the relevance of these signatures, apparently on the grounds that the petition over-estimated the potential costs of the Judicial Review. If you read the wording of the petitions you will see that they give a range of potential costs, with the lower end of those ranges being lower than LDC’s own estimates of the total costs. And as I have set out above, LDC’s estimates are very probably inadequate.



I realise this is a rather different letter to that which I wrote at the end of February. Then I was seeking to highlight some of the sadness I felt at the potential demise of a truly wonderful regional resource – Brighton & Hove Albion FC. A resource which contributes so much to the county of Sussex, and beyond….which will, if LDC has it’s way, be sacrificed for the sake of preserving a small piece of muddy land immediately adjacent to a four lane dual-carriageway.

Now I am much more concerned to voice my disquiet (and anger) at the way LDC is acting. It disturbs me as a supporter of the football club, as a former Liberal Democrat voter, but most of all as someone who values openness and honesty in public life.

As before….if you’ve made it to the end of this letter, many thanks. I hope you can do something, however small, to restore my faith in the fundamental principles of liberal democracy.

Great work James, that is a serious 'kick ass' letter.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

So Jim, how do you intend to leak the original letter?

 

[Bwian]

Top work Jim

It will be interesting to see what, if any, responses you get.

Did you send one to DeVagi? I'd love to see that sour faced old hag's reaction when she reads it

You'll probably be accused of harrassment next....

You deserve a beer for your efforts-see you next home game

 

[Bwian]

So Jim, how do you intend to leak the original letter?

Has to be done Jim....this is war after all!

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Top work, Jim.

 

[London Irish]

For f***'s sake. I haven't had my copy yet. Letters to The Journalist ahoy, eh NSC Chapel members?

Yes, definitely.

Good work Jim