Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

Rev Esdalle again in today's Argus



3

33057 Seagull

New member
May 22, 2004
1,035
Over the border in Southwick
I am unable to reproduce letter today as this has not yet appeeared on Argus web pages. He denies nibyism on basis that he is moving away from Falmer but seems to claim some knowledge of the local infrastructure & its inability to cope with 22,000 fans & their vehicles (sic).

I am at a loss with this guy. I know a lot of us do drive/will drive but if I do I will use the park & ride & have at least 3-5 in my car.

Living in Southwick I & I am sure many others will forget their cars & use the train, this is not least one of the major benefits of Falmer.

This guy claims to know the local infrastructure but fails to mention the railway at all. Most strange as his address is Station Approach!

As an asiside I know regular supporters in Coldean will clearly walk to Falmer. I remember as a kid walking from Portslade to the Goldstone & back again as no doubt did everybody else - look at the car parking there was there.
 




Everest

Everest

Me
Jul 5, 2003
20,741
Southwick
Letter: Not a nimby
I can offer a cast-iron defence against Adrian Newnham's charge of "nimbyism" in my opposition to the building of a stadium at Falmer (Letters, September 30).

I live in tied accommodation and shall have moved from Falmer long before any construction work starts. But after nearly a decade's residence here I can claim some knowledge of the local infrastructure and its inability to cope with 22,000 fans and their vehicles.

As to which site should be chosen, I think the planning inspectors are best-placed to decide and I for one am willing to abide by their recommendation. Let's hear what their final report says.

My fear was that John Prescott would announce his decision during the Labour conference in order to win cheap applause.

All of us, whatever our views, should be grateful that didn't happen. The issue, which will mark this city for generations to come, is simply too important and too difficult to be decided by populist politicians, by sloganising or by name-calling.

-Rev Rob Esdaile, Catholic Chaplain to the University of Sussex, Falmer (and local :tosser: )
 


B

bhaexpress

New member
Jul 7, 2003
27,627
Kent
To be honest, I think this guy should retire as he's rambling on, Pakinson's ?
 
Last edited:


Everest

Everest

Me
Jul 5, 2003
20,741
Southwick
Letter: Poor argument

Ian Slater (Letters, October 3) might do well to remember that the majority of people who voted "yes" for a stadium at Falmer in the ballot he quotes were a small proportion of the residents of Brighton and Hove.

Those who didn't want a stadium at all were not even given a chance to vote on this ludicrous plan to build a stadium for a tuppenny ha'penny team which struggles to stay where it is, let alone rise up the league.

If they had been given a chance to vote, I am sure a resounding "no" would have been delivered.

If anything should be built on this site, it should be housing, a commodity this city needs far more than a stadium which will be under-used (by Mr Slater's own admission) and which, ultimately, the residents, via Brighton and Hove City Council, will ultimately pay for because this team hasn't got two ha'pennies to rub together and never will.

-Angela Rowland, Hove (and local prossy)


Letter: Blind opposition

I beg to differ with J Hayward (Letters, September 29).

I would suggest it is mostly the people against the stadium who have never seen the site for the Falmer ground.

If they were to see it, I suspect many of them would change their minds.

-M Cheeseman, Peacehaven (and local good guy)
 


H

Hadlee

New member
Oct 27, 2003
620
Southwick
The Rev had a previous letter in the Argus last week saying the same thing about not having the infrastructure.

I replied to this and my letter printed on Friday pointed out the advantage of the Railway station, but it seems again he ignored my point about none of the other proposed sites having a Station.
 




C

CHAPPERS

DISCO SPENG
Jul 5, 2003
44,806
Everest said:
Letter: Poor argument

Ian Slater (Letters, October 3) might do well to remember that the majority of people who voted "yes" for a stadium at Falmer in the ballot he quotes were a small proportion of the residents of Brighton and Hove.

Those who didn't want a stadium at all were not even given a chance to vote on this ludicrous plan to build a stadium for a tuppenny ha'penny team which struggles to stay where it is, let alone rise up the league.

If they had been given a chance to vote, I am sure a resounding "no" would have been delivered.

If anything should be built on this site, it should be housing, a commodity this city needs far more than a stadium which will be under-used (by Mr Slater's own admission) and which, ultimately, the residents, via Brighton and Hove City Council, will ultimately pay for because this team hasn't got two ha'pennies to rub together and never will.

-Angela Rowland, Hove (and local prossy)
Click to expand...

I do try not to get angered by these letters but what does she mean when she says, 'Those who didn't want a stadium at all were not even given a chance to vote on this ludicrous plan'?

Not given a chance? Like the referendum was kept a secret from those who would have voted 'No'? f***ing idiot.
 


trueblue

trueblue

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
10,456
Hove
So the first loony reckons the decision will "mark this city" for decades. And yet, even if Falmer was an unsuitable site (which it's not), the decision would in fact only actually affect the interests of a handful of moaning minnies around a rat-infested pond. And even then, nowhere near as much as they think. Minimal disruption to their lives fortnightly.

Much better to build, as the second woman suggests, a load of housing there. This would presumably be low cost stock as that's what is so desperately needed. Then the Falmer NIMBYs can have chav scum breaking into their houses day and night. Maybe they'd have preferred a stadium then?

Seems to be some parallel with the Goldstone Lane whingers who wouldn't let the old ground be developed (even though it had been there long before them), and now look out on a beautiful retail park with all the associated noise, traffic, smells etc.
 


B

binky

Active member
Aug 9, 2005
632
Hove
trueblue said:
So the first loony reckons the decision will "mark this city" for decades. And yet, even if Falmer was an unsuitable site (which it's not), the decision would in fact only actually affect the interests of a handful of moaning minnies around a rat-infested pond. And even then, nowhere near as much as they think. Minimal disruption to their lives fortnightly.

Much better to build, as the second woman suggests, a load of housing there. This would presumably be low cost stock as that's what is so desperately needed. Then the Falmer NIMBYs can have chav scum breaking into their houses day and night. Maybe they'd have preferred a stadium then?

Seems to be some parallel with the Goldstone Lane whingers who wouldn't let the old ground be developed (even though it had been there long before them), and now look out on a beautiful retail park with all the associated noise, traffic, smells etc.
Click to expand...

I used to live in Goldstone Lane, 1985 to 1990. Most of my neighbors were Brighton supportors who would have welcomed a redevelopment of the ground.
What we didn't want was a tall stand erected on the east side, which being so close to the houses would have blocked out all the light.
Personally, I thought that the whole of Goldstone lane should have been compulsory purchased by the council/club, with a new stand erected where the houses are, and the pitch turned around.

As a matter of interest, I kept in touch with the people who bought my house. When the retail park was finished, the house prices jumped around 30% almost overnight.

I couldn't live next to it though.
 




The Large One

The Large One

Who's Next?
Jul 7, 2003
52,343
97.2FM
trueblue said:
Seems to be some parallel with the Goldstone Lane whingers who wouldn't let the old ground be developed (even though it had been there long before them), and now look out on a beautiful retail park with all the associated noise, traffic, smells etc.
Click to expand...

That parallel did make me smile. Inwardly.
 


B

bhaexpress

New member
Jul 7, 2003
27,627
Kent
If Falmer hasn't got the infratructure of a football stadium who in the hell thinks that it would be better as a housing estate ? Let's face it Falmer doesn't have much in the way of shops and what about schools ?

You're right Chappers, she is a f***ing idiot. Perhaps the old ha would prefer a sewage farm ? She talks shit so she'd be in her element.
 


R

rool

Well-known member
Jul 10, 2003
6,031
binky said:
What we didn't want was a tall stand erected on the east side, which being so close to the houses would have blocked out all the light.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with blocking out the free view then?

*tongueincheek*
 












E

Ex Shelton Seagull

New member
Jul 7, 2003
1,522
Block G, Row F, Seat 175
I think Angela Rowland may be getting a little confused. In her letter (5/10) she claimed that those who didn't want a stadium were not given the chance to vote in the referendum on the subject.

The referendum was held in May 1999 alongside elections for the local council, suggesting that those who voted in the referendum possessed some sort of link to Brighton & Hove. The results (in case Angela has forgotten) were 56,701 (83.5% of voters) in favour of a stadium for Brighton & Hove Albion, with 44,985 (67.6% of voters) then stating their support for a stadium located in the field opposite the A27.

Whilst it may have taken me a number of years to obtain an GCSE in mathematics, I do have sufficient knowledge of the subject to know that 84.5% and 67.6% of 100% cannot be accurately described as a "small proportion".

These results would also suggest that 32.4% of voters managed to locate and mark the box that was headed by the word "NO". The existence of this box would suggest that there was an option available to those residents who would rather not see a stadium constructed on a muddy field next to a railway line, two University sites and a dual carriageway to register their disapproval.

It would seem obvious to me that the existence of a box that enabled a person to vote NO to Falmer means that an outlet for disapproval was indeed present. As far as I can recall I do not remember any uniformed heavies present outside the polling booths intimidating voters into voting YES. Nor do I recall and Mugabe style vote rigging. I can only come to the conclusion that there are more residents of this city that would like a stadium to be built at Falmer than there are of those who do not.

I can only assume that you were unable to identify the word "NO" or that you didn't take part in the referendum.

Now why don't you stick your f***ing ugly dog face back up the U-bend you syphilitic old bitch.

Yours respectfully,
Mr Thomas Charles Edwards BA (Hons)
 


Hiney

Hiney

Super Moderator
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
19,396
Penrose, Cornwall
Ex Shelton Seagull said:
I think Angela Rowland may be getting a little confused. In her letter (5/10) she claimed that those who didn't want a stadium were not given the chance to vote in the referendum on the subject.

The referendum was held in May 1999 alongside elections for the local council, suggesting that those who voted in the referendum possessed some sort of link to Brighton & Hove. The results (in case Angela has forgotten) were 56,701 (83.5% of voters) in favour of a stadium for Brighton & Hove Albion, with 44,985 (67.6% of voters) then stating their support for a stadium located in the field opposite the A27.

Whilst it may have taken me a number of years to obtain an GCSE in mathematics, I do have sufficient knowledge of the subject to know that 84.5% and 67.6% of 100% cannot be accurately described as a "small proportion".

These results would also suggest that 32.4% of voters managed to locate and mark the box that was headed by the word "NO". The existence of this box would suggest that there was an option available to those residents who would rather not see a stadium constructed on a muddy field next to a railway line, two University sites and a dual carriageway to register their disapproval.

It would seem obvious to me that the existence of a box that enabled a person to vote NO to Falmer means that an outlet for disapproval was indeed present. As far as I can recall I do not remember any uniformed heavies present outside the polling booths intimidating voters into voting YES. Nor do I recall and Mugabe style vote rigging. I can only come to the conclusion that there are more residents of this city that would like a stadium to be built at Falmer than there are of those who do not.

I can only assume that you were unable to identify the word "NO" or that you didn't take part in the referendum.

Now why don't you stick your f***ing ugly dog face back up the U-bend you syphilitic old bitch.

Yours respectfully,
Mr Thomas Charles Edwards BA (Hons)
Click to expand...

Brilliant

:clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:
 




Barrel of Fun

Barrel of Fun

Abort, retry, fail
Aug 22, 2005
52,833
Sūþsēaxe: The Land of the South Saxons
Unfortunately these peoples viewpoints are blinded by the fact that this development is for a football team, and we all know how people view football fans in general.

If they cant come up with an educated alternative, having detailed various benchmarks that the site must reach to satisfy usage of a football stadium then so be it. The fact of the matter is that Nimbys' stand in the way of progression.

If they got their way they would be depriving Brighton of many millions of £s brought in by visiting supporters, depriving a buoyant football club of a true home, and destroying the hard work put in by many thousands of fans and the board to keep this club afloat.
 
Last edited:








You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here