We definately find out the decision on Monday

[Percy Tantrums]

I've heard that it will be a non committal announcement. No my source is not reliable.

 

[227 BHA]

I've heard that it will be a non committal announcement. No my source is not reliable.

Surely this is not possible - I thought it would only be a straight yes or no?

Lord B can you clarify?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

im sorry like i said earlier, no offence but i dont believe any of it

 

[Yorkie]

I've heard there will be a further rumour tomorrow

 

[BRIGHT ON Q]

Ive got the week off and i am meant to be going shopping with the mrs in Brighton,but if i here a yes come through i can down bags for a celebration drink.

 

[Braders]

I CANNOT WAIT

hopefully this isn't a rumour , this could and should be it

i make it the last day of week 10 tomorrow , can anyone confirm?


oooh i hope its true *jumps around room*

11am you say ?

 

[Easy 10]

If we get the decision tomorrow, I am taking a half day and going to get pissed up. Whatever the decision.

 

[Mustela Furo]

Re: Re: We definately find out the decision on Monday

What are these "obvious legal reasons" then?

presumably the equivalent of "sub judice".

 

[The Clown of Pevensey Bay]

There can be no "sub judice" in a matter like this. It's only relevant to anything we might post on here about legal proceedings. The Falmer decision is not a legal proceeding.

There are no "obvious legal reasons" I can think of for withholding the name of a source, either. It's just an obligation of people who belong to the NUJ, like me and Wozza.

The only legal action I can possibly envisage from naming a source on here is one in Malicious Falsehood. But that's bloody unlikely.

 

[Mustela Furo]

Are we sure it's not a legal proceeding?

any decision can be appealed to the high court for a judical review (by wither side!) - and the high court would then decide whether the proceedings were carried out correctly or not and whether an appeal would be granted (i.e. a new Inquiry)

 

[fatboy]

I've heard that it will be a non committal announcement. No my source is not reliable.

Also heard this.

 

[dougdeep]

AAAAAAAAAAAArrrrrrrrrrrrrrGGGGGGGGhhh! again.

 

[London Irish]

There can be no "sub judice" in a matter like this. It's only relevant to anything we might post on here about legal proceedings. The Falmer decision is not a legal proceeding.

There are no "obvious legal reasons" I can think of for withholding the name of a source, either. It's just an obligation of people who belong to the NUJ, like me and Wozza.

The only legal action I can possibly envisage from naming a source on here is one in Malicious Falsehood. But that's bloody unlikely.

There are some new laws on Confidentiality that have come out of nowhere in the past few years. If someone has obtained information on the understanding that it not be disclosed to third parties, the journalist is unaffected but the source could face some legal comebacks.

 

[London Irish]

I've heard that it will be a non committal announcement. No my source is not reliable.

Bizarre - they would surely only make such an announcement if they wanted more representations, surely they would have done that before now.

 

[Trigger]

It won't be yes and it won't be no, but they'll be announcing some 'cobblers' that will delay the decision til after the Labour party conference.

 

[dougdeep]

How do you spell definately(genuine question).

 

[Locky]

For what it's worth, and I'm not sure it's worth anything I heard today that its a Yes.............. but and there's always a but..................we can not proceed with the building of Falmer for 6 months in which time other viable sites should be looked for..............................If no other sites can be found then Falmer can proceed.

If the above is true.......what the hell does Prescott think the Albion have been doing since we lost the Goldstone.
Still a Yes is a Yes

 

[Yorkie]

Definitely

 

[dougdeep]

Thanks

 

[balloonboy]

For what it's worth, and I'm not sure it's worth anything I heard today that its a Yes.............. but and there's always a but..................we can not proceed with the building of Falmer for 6 months in which time other viable sites should be looked for..............................If no other sites can be found then Falmer can proceed.

If the above is true.......what the hell does Prescott think the Albion have been doing since we lost the Goldstone.
Still a Yes is a Yes

Curiouser and curiouser. Someone knows what's going on, and seems to be leaking it. If the answer is as you say, Locky, then surely it's as good as a yes. However, I would find it very strange if the decision effectively disregarded all the evidence concerning the unsuitability od other sites.