Perry puts the boot into Neighbour

[Lokki 7]

But people chose to believe their own agenda items.

There are people on here who do not believe MP, why should a NIMBY in Lewes believe our " propoganda" we certainly do not believe LDC's do we?

You can prove anything with facts David.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

You can prove anything with facts David.

....only if people believe those facts Jim.


I think that is the problem in a nutshell

 

[Easy 10]

When the "Sussex wun't be druv" slogan was under discussion at the pre-rally Falmer For All meeting, no less a person than Liz Costa referred to the peculiarities of this quaint old Sussex dialect phrase with a helpful explanation ...

" 'Wun't'... Rhymes with 'Baker' "

Far be it for me to criticise as so far the campaign has been brilliant, but I wasn't particularly impressed with that leaflet to be honest. When we're trying to get a clear message across, having the phrase "WE WUN'T BE DRUV" as the main title just had me wondering "well what the f does THAT mean then ?".

Archaic sussex dialect is all well and good, but when only a handful of people in the county have ever heard of it (and there was no explanation as to its meaning - you had to buy a match programme to find a definition of it tucked away somewhere), I can't help feeling it was a bit too smarty-pants for its own good.

 

[Lokki 7]

....only if people believe those facts Jim.


I think that is the problem in a nutshell

At the very least we could produce pictures showing the site for what it is. Most people have no idea where the proposed site is and so are easily sucked into the lie that it is pristine downland. The demonstartion on Sunday was the first time I heard that the Greens are on our side, this is something we should be shouting about as the average man in the street would be very impressed with this.

 

[Nemesis]

I think we should produce a leaflet that very simply outlines the facts and shows the Falmer site for what it is.

I sort of suggested this on another thread a couple of days ago but it drew zero response so I didn't bother mentioning it again....

 

[Lord Bracknell]

What offended me about how Ian Hart dealt with the issue of the doctored photographs was that he threw in the word "allegedly" - implying that the images might NOT have been doctored.

Even LDC accept that they have manipulated the images. Their position is that their actions were reasonable.

The position that Ian Hart and Dave are adopting just doesn't stack up. This is not about there being "two sides to the argument", it's about provable FACT. The pictures were doctored.

Similarly with the Perry v Neighbour dispute. It is a FACT that the government's lawyers wrote to LDC's lawyers in May, with an offer that "the Secretary of State will take account of all the issues raised by your clients". It is a FACT that, two weeks ago, Neighbour was still claiming in a letter to the Sussex Express that no such offer had been made.

Neighbour is lying. Perry is not.

 

[H block]

I disagree with you Lord B in the strongest possible terms

 

[Nemesis]

Neighbour was still claiming in a letter to the Sussex Express that no such offer had been made.

Neighbour is lying. Perry is not.

That shit rag Sussex Express also know he's a liar but still printed his crap...

 

[The Oldman]

What offended me about how Ian Hart dealt with the issue of the doctored photographs was that he threw in the word "allegedly" - implying that the images might NOT have been doctored.

Even LDC accept that they have manipulated the images. Their position is that their actions were reasonable.

The position that Ian Hart and Dave are adopting just doesn't stack up. This is not about there being "two sides to the argument", it's about provable FACT. The pictures were doctored.

Similarly with the Perry v Neighbour dispute. It is a FACT that the government's lawyers wrote to LDC's lawyers in May, with an offer that "the Secretary of State will take account of all the issues raised by your clients". It is a FACT that, two weeks ago, Neighbour was still claiming in a letter to the Sussex Express that no such offer had been made.

Neighbour is lying. Perry is not.

Well said Ed.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

The position that Ian Hart and Dave are adopting just doesn't stack up. This is not about there being "two sides to the argument", it's about provable FACT. The pictures were doctored.

I am not adopting any position, and resent the fact that you assume i am adopting one. I said above that its all a matter of wether you belive people or not.

I know people in Lewes who do not believe the Albions case. they believe the views of the residents of falmer were not taken into account when the stadium plans were announced and it is another case of big brother ( ie Brighton Council) riding roughshod over the good people of a pretty little village. they see LDC sticking up for the little people.

Now you and I know that as total bollocks, but they think it is not and see our statements as much lies to get our stadium through as we see LDC's to block it.

the difference being LDC have been caught out with the photographs, but people do not see that as a major point.

As I keep banging on about.,..it is perception.

To suggest I have somesort of hidden agenda is frankly nonsence

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

What offended me about how Ian Hart dealt with the issue of the doctored photographs was that he threw in the word "allegedly" - implying that the images might NOT have been doctored.

It's the BBC shit-yourself post-Hutton culture, I'm afraid.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

The pros will never agree or believe tha antis
The antis will never agree or believe the pros

Thats why it needs to be sorted so we can all move on with our lives. I am sick to the back teeth of it all and it took a super human effort to go to the protest Sunday as I am suffering with a severe case of

Falmeritis.

 

[Gwylan]

Far be it for me to criticise as so far the campaign has been brilliant, but I wasn't particularly impressed with that leaflet to be honest. When we're trying to get a clear message across, having the phrase "WE WUN'T BE DRUV" as the main title just had me wondering "well what the f does THAT mean then ?".

Archaic sussex dialect is all well and good, but when only a handful of people in the county have ever heard of it (and there was no explanation as to its meaning - you had to buy a match programme to find a definition of it tucked away somewhere), I can't help feeling it was a bit too smarty-pants for its own good.

That's pure nonsense. pretty much everyone from Sussex will know the phrase "We wun't be druv" - I first learned it when I was a little child.

It's scarcely obscure: I remember Julie Burchill using it in a column a few years back - if it were known to only a few people, who did a newcomer from London pick it up?

I thought it was a great phrase for the campaign: typically Sussex and described our feelings perfectly.

 

[Lokki 7]

That's pure nonsense. pretty much everyone from Sussex will know the phrase "We wun't be druv" -

I can feel a poll coming on... I think you are wrong.

 

[H block]

That's pure nonsense. pretty much everyone from Sussex will know the phrase "We wun't be druv" - I first learned it when I was a little child.

It's scarcely obscure: I remember Julie Burchill using it in a column a few years back - if it were known to only a few people, who did a newcomer from London pick it up?

I thought it was a great phrase for the campaign: typically Sussex and described our feelings perfectly.

I prefer the old Sussex saying of '' You dont arf talk shit mate''

 

[Easy 10]

That's pure nonsense. pretty much everyone from Sussex will know the phrase "We wun't be druv" - I first learned it when I was a little child.

It's scarcely obscure: I remember Julie Burchill using it in a column a few years back - if it were known to only a few people, who did a newcomer from London pick it up?

I thought it was a great phrase for the campaign: typically Sussex and described our feelings perfectly.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree then - NOBODY I know had ever heard of it, and I doubt very much that "pretty much everyone in Sussex" knows the phrase. Some people will, some people won't, but I think of paramount importance is to get a clear message across to as many people as possible, and that particular leaflet, in my opinion, wouldn't have succeeded in that.

No biggee though, as I say, the campaign overall has been superbly managed.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I have lived in Sussex for 35 years and I have never in my life heard the phrase " we won't be Druv ". I thought what the feck is that

 

[Publius Ovidius]

That's pure nonsense. pretty much everyone from Sussex will know the phrase "We wun't be druv" - I first learned it when I was a little child.

It's scarcely obscure: I remember Julie Burchill using it in a column a few years back - if it were known to only a few people, who did a newcomer from London pick it up?

I thought it was a great phrase for the campaign: typically Sussex and described our feelings perfectly.

as someone who has lived in Sussex over 30 years, I have never heard of it

 

[Rangdo]

Never heard it either in 28 years.

 

[sully]

That's pure nonsense. pretty much everyone from Sussex will know the phrase "We wun't be druv" - I first learned it when I was a little child.

It's scarcely obscure: I remember Julie Burchill using it in a column a few years back - if it were known to only a few people, who did a newcomer from London pick it up?

I thought it was a great phrase for the campaign: typically Sussex and described our feelings perfectly.

It's you talking pure nonsense, I'm afraid.

Sussex born and bred, I've never lived further North or East than Haywards Heath, nor further West than Hove and I'd never heard that phrase in all my 44 years until a few weeks ago.