BBC Stadium Appeal Story

[The Laughing Bluebird]

Probably fixtures, ringtones, Kanchelskis, etc, but.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4690240.stm

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

Repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it's a fact.

"The CPRE said allowing the development on the Sussex Downs cast a shadow over one of England's finest landscapes."

And of course, they're right. It would cast a shadow, if the site really was in unspoilt, virgin downland. Somewhere like Goodwood.

Just for a moment, imagine you were an ordinary lover of our countryside, unaware of the Falmer issue and reading this "official" CPRE statement. You'd be appalled, and bound to oppose the development, wouldn't you?

The problem here, as ever, is the BBC's lazy journalism and maliciously one-sided reporting. If this keeps up till the judicial review, it can only introduce bias into the adjudication.

Anyone disagree?

 

[Wardy]

Repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it's a fact.

"The CPRE said allowing the development on the Sussex Downs cast a shadow over one of England's finest landscapes."

And of course, they're right. It would cast a shadow, if the site really was in unspoilt, virgin downland. Somewhere like Goodwood.

Just for a moment, imagine you were an ordinary lover of our countryside, unaware of the Falmer issue and reading this "official" CPRE statement. You'd be appalled, and bound to oppose the development, wouldn't you?

The problem here, as ever, is the BBC's lazy journalism and maliciously one-sided reporting. If this keeps up till the judicial review, it can only introduce bias into the adjudication.

Anyone disagree?

Yes and no. The review is only looking at how the decision was made not why it was made.

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

You're right of course - in principle.
But I feel this frankly alarming drip-feed of hostile stories would build up an almost subliminal bias, even in the mind of a judge.

 

[Gwylan]

Repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it's a fact.

"The CPRE said allowing the development on the Sussex Downs cast a shadow over one of England's finest landscapes."

And of course, they're right. It would cast a shadow, if the site really was in unspoilt, virgin downland. Somewhere like Goodwood.

Just for a moment, imagine you were an ordinary lover of our countryside, unaware of the Falmer issue and reading this "official" CPRE statement. You'd be appalled, and bound to oppose the development, wouldn't you?

The problem here, as ever, is the BBC's lazy journalism and maliciously one-sided reporting. If this keeps up till the judicial review, it can only introduce bias into the adjudication.

Anyone disagree?

Yes, that's completly untrue. The BBC made it plain that it's the CPRE saying that. It's not biased or one-sided.

By all means have a go at the wankers on the CPRE but, like it or not, it is a reasonably well-known organisation and the BBC has a duty to report it - no matter how unpalatable it is to us.

 

[gripper stebson]

.

 

[Jello]

On the BBC site its misleading, Headline shows as "Campaigners back Brighton stadium" open the page and its actualy
"Campaigners back Brighton stadium appeal"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_div_1/default.stm

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

Yes, that's completly untrue. The BBC made it plain that it's the CPRE saying that. It's not biased or one-sided.

By all means have a go at the wankers on the CPRE but, like it or not, it is a reasonably well-known organisation and the BBC has a duty to report it - no matter how unpalatable it is to us.

Sorry, Gwylan, but to me this looks like a straightforward cut and paste job from a CPRE press release. Or the entire release, with one sentence added by the reporter.

The BBC doesn't have an obligation to reproduce every press release received.

Balanced reporting would have included a picture of the site and its surroundings. Plus a quote from the Albion.

 

[glasfryn]

Repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it's a fact.

"The CPRE said allowing the development on the Sussex Downs cast a shadow over one of England's finest landscapes."

And of course, they're right. It would cast a shadow, if the site really was in unspoilt, virgin downland. Somewhere like Goodwood.

Just for a moment, imagine you were an ordinary lover of our countryside, unaware of the Falmer issue and reading this "official" CPRE statement. You'd be appalled, and bound to oppose the development, wouldn't you?

The problem here, as ever, is the BBC's lazy journalism and maliciously one-sided reporting. If this keeps up till the judicial review, it can only introduce bias into the adjudication.

Anyone disagree?

pity this lot were not around when the university was built,not exactly a glowing image of architecture is it,in fact it looks a bit like enlarged matchboxes piled on top of one another.
sorry it's a case of another lot of nimbys who don't even live in the area jumping on the band wagon.

 

[Storer68]

look, the cpre would object if we were proposing to bild anything on the downs. and anyway, I thought the boundaries for the national park were moved to ensure that the stadium did not impinge on it.

 

[dougdeep]

The boundaries aren't decided yet as the whole thing hasn't been agreed. It could still take ages.

 

[The Large One]

The stadium won't - the coach park will.

Perhaps it should be called the South Downs National Coach Park.

 

[Brixtaan]

Did the Falmer residents cause this much fuss when the motorway/Uni abortion were built?

 

[bhaexpress]

Did the Falmer residents cause this much fuss when the motorway/Uni abortion were built?

I bet that few of them lived there at the time.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

Did the Falmer residents cause this much fuss when the motorway/Uni abortion were built?

There was a big campaign against the Brighton bypass I believe.

 

[Brixtaan]

I bet that few of them lived there at the time.

Probably because there was fvck-all there

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Interesting that - at this stage in the legal process - the Albion get slated by the opposition for giving Prescott a meat pie and a glass of water.

But the opposition feel able to give him an opinion about the merits of the case.

I know which of these "gifts" is the least palatable.

 

[Everest]

I know which of these "gifts" is the least palatable.

Has to be the pie.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

There was a big campaign against the Brighton bypass I believe.

Indeed there was. But, like the stadium, the Brighton bypass is some considerable distance from Falmer village.

 

[chip]

Repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it's a fact.

"The CPRE said allowing the development on the Sussex Downs cast a shadow over one of England's finest landscapes."

And of course, they're right. It would cast a shadow, if the site really was in unspoilt, virgin downland. Somewhere like Goodwood.

Just for a moment, imagine you were an ordinary lover of our countryside, unaware of the Falmer issue and reading this "official" CPRE statement. You'd be appalled, and bound to oppose the development, wouldn't you?

The problem here, as ever, is the BBC's lazy journalism and maliciously one-sided reporting. If this keeps up till the judicial review, it can only introduce bias into the adjudication.

Anyone disagree?

The CPREs view would be that the downs as a whole are one of Englands finest landscapes - whether that is Harting Down or Falmer. I.e. the downs are indivisible.

Indeed, in the Goodwood area they have helped some of the villages in successfuly opposing absurd developments. They have also helped us in my village to negotiate improved bridleway access, for example, and force a developer to adopt the local vernacular form.

You cannot expect an organization that is concerned with the PROTECTION of rural England not to oppose this or support LDC in their action. Most of the blame for the current impasse should be laid at the ODPM and their management of the application/enquiries. I would expect that LDC will argue before the European court, if they have to, that this has been irrational, inconsistent etc. I would not expect them to use human rights though as their is no precedent. A French village tried this with a nuclear power station and lost.