Private Eye caught by the Nimbys - again!

[Simster]

It's a smug, self-serving rag written by people who congratulate themselves on how clever and incisive they are, before trying to persuade their parents that they "have a real job". Pointless trying to argue or correct their writing, you stand more chance of recovering used toilet paper once you have pressed the handle to flush....

I've always thought this ever since the late '80s when I used to read it regularly. Bring back Punch.

 

[ShorehamGull]

I am trying not to get myself all angry about the Nimbys comments, I just laugh at them now because we all know their facts are incorrect and we will have our stadium at Falmer in 2008. The only thing that does annoy me is magazines like Private eye doing these articles with all the wrong information and of course people read it and jump on the bandwagon to support the Nimbys.

"Private Eye you are SCUM"

 

[Pavilionaire]

Very disappointing.

I read Private Eye occasionally and think it does a generally good and important job in exposing botched legislation, bungling politicians, bureaucrats and directors.

Clearly, this article is a very distorted view of events and, worrying, extremely patronising to anyone who is a football fan.

Somebody with the time needs to write in and set the record straight.

 

[Rougvie]

I buy it, and i'm not going to stop.

 

[Rangdo]

I buy it, and i'm not going to stop.

Good on you. I think Andrex is cheaper per sheet though. Doesn't leave ink marks on your arse either.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Very disappointing.

I read Private Eye occasionally and think it does a generally good and important job in exposing botched legislation, bungling politicians, bureaucrats and directors.

Clearly, this article is a very distorted view of events and, worrying, extremely patronising to anyone who is a football fan.

Somebody with the time needs to write in and set the record straight.

The problem is, when a rag produces something as biased and factually incorrect as this article, how much credence can you put on the other articles? Perhaps this is why PE lurches from court case to court case. Is it really "exposing botched legislation, bungling politicians, bureaucrats and directors" - or is it misreporting on all these people as well, but because we don't know as much about the facts, we take the PE view as the correct one?

 

[London Calling]

True, just a shame that Hislop's rag didn't mention that the club were the losers which is why they ended up in Skidrow and why they need a new ground.

The debts may have been paid off but who benefited from the additional £16 million that the land was sold on for a year later?

Didn't I see somewhere on here that one of the contributors to PE is a Falmer nimby?

Hardly worth trying to get them to give a balanced opinion in that case is it?

I have observed that this article includes identical words to a piece written by the RTPI BRIGHTON Chair to the Planning magazine. So that could be the source.

 

[vauxhallexile]

Here's this week's Rotten Boroughs entry. A fine example of objective reporting and clear-eyed, unbiased comment...

All our old favourites unquestioningly repeated: Building on an AONB, plans rejected by two inspectors, Prescott: "stadium not in the national interest, dangerous precedent, etc, etc.... Caught by the Nimbys indeed!

Read on, O moronic fans, read on and wish you'd had all the benefits of a first-class education.

From Private Eye, 9-22 Dec, page 15

SEAGULL DROPPINGS
NEWS that Lewes District Council in Sussex was to mount a legal challenge to John Prescott's decision to allow Brighton and Hove Albion to build a 22,000-seat football stadium on downland in a designated area of outstanding natural beauty provoked a hysterical reaction in Skidrow-on-Sea, where "the Seagulls" have been effectively homeless since the club flogged its previous ground to a property developer in 1997.

The Brighton Argus expressed the "outrage" of football fans, who of course don't give a damn where the stadium is built, as long as they get one somewhere. Skidrow's beleaguered Labour politicians, clinging to their seats on the council and in parliament, joined the populist clamour against neighbouring Lewes. The Argus's front page pictured the nine members of Lewes DC's cabinet, under the headline "These Councillors Could Wreck Albion's Plans For Stadium" as if democracy and justice had been overturned by a bunch of football-hating nimbys. Lewes DC leader Anne De Vecchi has sought police advice after receiving threatening letters and emails from Albion's moronic fans.

In fact it was Two Jags' politically-motivated decision in October to allow the stadium on the site, on the boundary between Skidrow and Lewes (see Eye 1146) that was an affront to justice. Albion's plans, approved by Skidrow council, were rejected as unsuitable for the site by two planning inspectors after long and costly inquiries. To get around this Prescott said that although a football stadium in itself is not in the national interest, the "regeneration" of an area of deprivation such as Moulsecoomb, a nearby run-down estate at the edge of Brighton, is. Prescott has now set a dangerous precedent: any developer could in the future use this specious argument to build on any area of outstanding natural beauty, or even National Park, as long as there was a handy "area of deprivation" somewhere near.

Not only can a developer use the "deprivation" excuse to build on protected land, but the government will pay him to do so. Thus Skidrow United hopes to get £10m in grants to drive its bulldozers across the government's own countryside policy.

The bit trying to label fans as moronic must have been written by someone who has never been to a football match in their lives.

BUT - if there is any truth in De Veechi getting threats (and I realise this may not be true) then that is clearly stupid and counter-productive. I also understand that the Argus have been doorstepping her house and, from a car parked across the road, taking secretive "paparazzi style" photos of another family member who cannot be held to blame for Lewes DCs decision.

That kind of stuff will only build up sympathy for the NIMBYs and should stop - now.

It is worth getting a letter into Private Eye - leading on the environmental case (near a train station, easy access for buses, part of the development on brownfied sites etc; all the other options have been deemed to be unsuitable etc).

To be fair to the Eye, they do love a good argument and normally give space in the next edition's letters page to anyone wanting to make a counter -blast.

 

[sleepynick]

Very disappointing.

I read Private Eye occasionally and think it does a generally good and important job in exposing botched legislation, bungling politicians, bureaucrats and directors.

Clearly, this article is a very distorted view of events and, worrying, extremely patronising to anyone who is a football fan.

Somebody with the time needs to write in and set the record straight.

I just recently starting reading PE regularly again and I think publications, even biased ones which focus on corruption and greed are healthy for the democracy of our country.

At a time when the oppostition parties and Labour back benches are providing no obstacles to Blair's right wing policies, PE at least exposes the true scale of issues such as massive coproate profits through PFI and widespread press hypocrisy.

It is also very funny!

 

[Man of Harveys]

PE at least exposes the true scale of issues such as...widespread press hypocrisy.

With the small but maybe important exception of their own raging hypocrisy over Falmer perhaps.

Personally, I wouldn't trust them again.

 

[Tooting Gull]

I've read Private Eye for about 25 years, and I quite enjoy the one-sided and unfair demolition of humbug and pomposity in there - usually the targets deserve it.

In this instance, they don't. I have sent an email to them after this latest episode saying that they should at least declare their interest. Someone there either lives in Falmer, is involoved in the anti campaign, or knows someone who is.

They are in the business of exposing humbug - just not their own.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

I've read Private Eye for about 25 years, and I quite enjoy the one-sided and unfair demolition of humbug and pomposity in there - usually the targets deserve it.

In this instance, they don't. I have sent an email to them after this latest episode saying that they should at least declare their interest. Someone there either lives in Falmer, is involoved in the anti campaign, or knows someone who is.

They are in the business of exposing humbug - just not their own.

Maybe, in their logic, we are deserving of this textual attack. Perhaps they have taken exception to the way in which we have arranged our demonstrations, perhaps they have been on this board and seen how people plan to bombard LDC with FOI requests, how we have manipulated the Arsegas with letters, etc. Maybe the journo is part of the anti-Falmer campaign, and is using their insight, their point of view, to lampoon us. Why should they declare an interest because it involves us? Should they declare an interest on every story they print? We have to either accept that this drawn out planning permission saga has two distinct camps, which may include journos on each side, and appreciate their argument and point of view, or just stop buying PE and admit that perhaps, now you have seen their bias, that not all of their stories are "scambusters" - but may be fabrications or loose approximations of the truth.

The Anti-Falmers may just be using the resources that are available to them - which we have done. A "disgusted of Brighton" may do nothing more than feed them ammunition, proving that they are hitting their target.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Not sure that's quite right, Hampshire. In my case, I'm not jumping up and down saying I'll never buy it again as some have - I will, it's not a one-issue magazine and I'm big enough to realise that.

But if the whole point of your magazine (and it is for the Eye) is exposing hypocrisy, it doesn't sit very well if it's being perpetrated by the magazine itself. I've pointed that out to them, and they'll probably ignore it.

But it's a fair fight - we can have our say which they can try and shoot down, and vice versa. It's very important, and people will do what they can.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Maybe in your case, but if we can see the hypocrisy in this matter, who's to say that PE are not equally as journalistically "loose" with their facts on other issues? Whilst it is nice to see organisations and people brought to book, if the PE is willing to do this without any recourse to actual facts, how many other people have they done it to? We accept the "facts" on other issues, we are not willing to accept these particular "facts" because they are so personal and close to our situation.

If one story is little more than scurrilous lies, does that mean that the rest of the magazine is actually any more than pretty toilet paper?

 

[Pavilionaire]

For me the unforgivable quote is "Albion's moronic fans", written not as an attack on the alleged agitators of LDC but on the clubs fans in general - as if you can generalise about ten of thousands of people from a whole county.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

SEAGULL DROPPINGS
Albion's plans, approved by Skidrow council, were rejected as unsuitable for the site by two planning inspectors after long and costly inquiries. .

Sorry, I could have sworn that inspector No2, said that No1 was a cock, rather than agreeing with him.

 

[Icy Gull]

Icy Gull

The Falmer NIMBY you're talking about writes this very column - though without declaring an interest, naturally...

So we can expect more drivel, hardly worth getting riled if what u say is true. I guess there's no chance of PE putting a footnote to that effect on his/her articles clarifying the one sided view

 

[Rougvie]

I'm not jumping up and down saying I'll never buy it again as some have - I will, it's not a one-issue magazine and I'm big enough to realise that.

Oh dear, thats a bit NSC off message.

(But probably the most SENSIBLE statement in this thread )

 

[eastlondonseagull]

The Falmer NIMBY you're talking about writes this very column - though without declaring an interest, naturally...

Are you sure of this?

Because it stinks if so. And I will become one of these 'moronic' fans he talks about and throw a brick through the PE's Soho window.

 

[Storer68]

My favourite quote

the "outrage" of football fans, who of course don't give a damn where the stadium is built, as long as they get one somewhere


As we "don't give a dam, where the stadium is bult, as long as they get one" why have we invested over £2million in three public planning enquires, won an overwhelming majority from the voters of Brighton & Hove for Falmer as the location, deposited petitions of support with the Prime Minister, won the overwhelming support of nearly half the nations' elected representatives for the site.

if we didn't give a dam we could have just slung one up anywhere by now,