Search results

no, ive re-read the letter and cant see that its our problem. The letter say that the Secretary of State wants "further evidence concerning the availability or otherwise of alternative sites". So its up to us to methodically discount and dismiss each site, while its upto someone else to make...

since the letter went out to interested parties, the onus is on opponents of Falmer to provide evidence of the suitablility of alternatives. Meanwhile, supporters of Falmer need to discredit those sites. It'd be daft to expect BHAFC to produce independant, unbiased reviews of each of the other...

in retrospect this is a bit obvious, but we where all blind to this scenario although i do seem to recall someone suggesting this was going to be the case. The Public Inquiry would have had its scope limited to virtues of the case for Falmer. Hollie's report suggested other sites might be...