Crying Foul - letters page in today Argus

[33057 Seagull]

It apperas that the Argus have not yet printed mine or other pro Falmer letters yet; maybe they are saving them for next week!!

Have a look at the two letters in today's; they're brilliant & particularly the one from Dave Beard in Peacehaven - it is laughable as to this guy's ignorance.

First he has a go at Ian Slater re the majority & why no one in Lewes District council area got to vote as this is where the statium is planned to be built.

He then asks why no one mentions the retail park necessary to fund the stadium. I am sure te Argus print these letters knowing full well the reactior/response they will get & this guy just makes him self look a prize prat.

 

[bhaexpress]

Erm ? Just what does it have to do with Lewes anyway ? If it was an issue it would have been raised at BOTH enquires. What retail park ?

A prize prat indeed ! keep 'em coming, can't do us any harm when these ignorant NIMBYs are so keen to make fools of themselves.

 

[33057 Seagull]

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Plus David Pritchard from Cross Road, Southwick has decided that "....there is a bit of a difference between a pleasant, neighbouring campus and a huge football stadium".

He has concluded this from personal experience has he?

Clutching at straws!

 

[Caveman]

No doubt an old coffin dodger.

 

[Yorkie]

I see these letters regularly but not the responses actually putting people right.

There are letters pro-Albion and pro-Falmer but not actual letters stating re: Dave Beard 08/10/05 etc etc

This is why the myths still hang around and perpetuate.

 

[bhaexpress]

I've just sent this to the Argus, somehow I don't think it'll be published !

Dear Sir or Madam,

I see that once again you have published two Anti Falmer letters. I know from talking to other Albion fans on the various message boards we have that whilst you publish Pro Falmer letters you don't seem to want to publish letters than our fans send in trying to point out the inaccuracies of the Anti Falmer monority.

You must be fully aware of the amount of incorrect information these people write about as your paper has covered this whole issue chapter and verse. What is your agenda ? To make these people look stupid ? I cannot see why you do it as by now the decision has no doubt be made by now. Why make those who do not want a stadium at Falmer feel worse by making them look foolish and thus hold them up to ridicule ?

Regards

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I've just sent this to the Argus, somehow I don't think it'll be published !

Dear Sir or Madam,

I see that once again you have published two Anti Falmer letters. I know from talking to other Albion fans on the various message boards we have that whilst you publish Pro Falmer letters you don't seem to want to publish letters than our fans send in trying to point out the inaccuracies of the Anti Falmer monority.

You must be fully aware of the amount of incorrect information these people write about as your paper has covered this whole issue chapter and verse. What is your agenda ? To make these people look stupid ? I cannot see why you do it as by now the decision has no doubt be made by now. Why make those who do not want a stadium at Falmer feel worse by making them look foolish and thus hold them up to ridicule ?

Regards

YOu would hope that they would take this into account, considering a large proportion of their sales are down to Albion fans, particularly their Sports Argus

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

How much would a half page advert in the Argus cost, once we get the decision, to really rub in the fact that we won and nimbys lost - and to lay the facts completely in the open rather than let the Argus decide how they present the story?

We must have a few journos on here who could craft something which would make us look gracious in victory, but also would let people see that we were right, and that the arguments that were put forward in opposition were flawed at best and malicious at worst..

"ner ner ner ner ner" would do, but I think it may lose something in impact....

 

[33057 Seagull]

Well done BHAExpress - I am off into Brighton now but will draft another letter this p.m. on this very subject.

 

[bhaexpress]

How much would a half page advert in the Argus cost, once we get the decision, to really rub in the fact that we won and nimbys lost - and to lay the facts completely in the open rather than let the Argus decide how they present the story?

We must have a few journos on here who could craft something which would make us look gracious in victory, but also would let people see that we were right, and that the arguments that were put forward in opposition were flawed at best and malicious at worst..

"ner ner ner ner ner" would do, but I think it may lose something in impact....

I can see your point of view but frankly, the thought of them fuming and having strokes as the stadium rises is good enough for me. At the end of the day enough money has been wasted on beating the NIMBYs as it is. To be honest, crowing over them would reduce us to their level. Thus far we've been very cool about the whole situation and our behaviour has been impecable, why change ?

 

[Yorkie]

I've just sent this to the Argus, somehow I don't think it'll be published !

Dear Sir or Madam,

I see that once again you have published two Anti Falmer letters. I know from talking to other Albion fans on the various message boards we have that whilst you publish Pro Falmer letters you don't seem to want to publish letters than our fans send in trying to point out the inaccuracies of the Anti Falmer monority.

You must be fully aware of the amount of incorrect information these people write about as your paper has covered this whole issue chapter and verse. What is your agenda ? To make these people look stupid ? I cannot see why you do it as by now the decision has no doubt be made by now. Why make those who do not want a stadium at Falmer feel worse by making them look foolish and thus hold them up to ridicule ?

Regards

As posted above, if you are replying to previous letters you have to quote the name and date of said letters (it says so on the letters page)

 

[bhaexpress]

Well no, I'm not replying to previous letters as I am asking the editor as to why they print these pointless and inaccurate letters.

If he doesn't publish what do I care, he's just making a fool of the NIMBYs, maybe that's what he wants to do.

 

[33057 Seagull]

Knocked this one out - hopefully they will publish this in full.

Dear Editor,

I understand it may now only be a matter of day for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to announce the decision on the site of Brighton & Hove Albion's new stadium.

It strikes me though that the anti-camp must clearly have prior knowledge of a YES decision otherwise they would not be seemingly be clutching at straws in their recent letters to the Argus, quoting either totally inaccurate information or misleading details.

Last week Rev Rob Esdalle (Letters, October 5), seemed to suggest that 22,000 fans and their vehicles would be too much for the existing infrastructure, conveniently ignoring the future park & ride and additional car parking available at the University. More fundamentally has he not looked across the road from his home at Station Approach. This may give him a clue as to how a majority of fans will travel to matches, using public transport.

On the same day Angela Rowland took the view that this site would be better served by building much needed housing. I understand that this site will be built upon in the future irrespective of the outcome of John Prescott's decision and if this option is pursued will have significantly more damaging impact of the environment & surrounding area.

Two letters appeared (Saturday 8 October); the first from David Pritchard advocating that the Basil Spence designed university buildings have stood the test of time and blend in with the area. I fail to see how a sprawling university campus is more pleasant than a state of the art football stadium which takes up an area or 5% of that of the existing university.

The last letter from Dave Beard beggars belief. I can answer his first question on the fact that no one in Lewes District Council (where the stadium is to be built, were asked to vote in a referendum). This is because the stadium is NOT in Falmer village and is within the boundaries of Brighton & Hove adjacent to existing university building.
On his second point the reason no one mentions the retail park necessary to fund this stadium is because there is NO retail park in any of the plans nor ever has been.

However immotive writers of your letters to you paper are, with pro or anti Falmer Statdium, I do wish that they would stick to facts rather than fantasy.

Yours faithfully,

John Hilditch

 

[eastlondonseagull]

The Argus online is still only publishing letters about those printed on the 4th October.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/the_argus/news_extra/

We were complaining about stuff in the paper on the 5th, so hopefully some of us will have our responses published on Monday.

 

[bhaexpress]

Knocked this one out - hopefully they will publish this in full.

Dear Editor,

I understand it may now only be a matter of day for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to announce the decision on the site of Brighton & Hove Albion's new stadium.

It strikes me though that the anti-camp must clearly have prior knowledge of a YES decision otherwise they would not be seemingly be clutching at straws in their recent letters to the Argus, quoting either totally inaccurate information or misleading details.

Last week Rev Rob Esdalle (Letters, October 5), seemed to suggest that 22,000 fans and their vehicles would be too much for the existing infrastructure, conveniently ignoring the future park & ride and additional car parking available at the University. More fundamentally has he not looked across the road from his home at Station Approach. This may give him a clue as to how a majority of fans will travel to matches, using public transport.

On the same day Angela Rowland took the view that this site would be better served by building much needed housing. I understand that this site will be built upon in the future irrespective of the outcome of John Prescott's decision and if this option is pursued will have significantly more damaging impact of the environment & surrounding area.

Two letters appeared (Saturday 8 October); the first from David Pritchard advocating that the Basil Spence designed university buildings have stood the test of time and blend in with the area. I fail to see how a sprawling university campus is more pleasant than a state of the art football stadium which takes up an area or 5% of that of the existing university.

The last letter from Dave Beard beggars belief. I can answer his first question on the fact that no one in Lewes District Council (where the stadium is to be built, were asked to vote in a referendum). This is because the stadium is NOT in Falmer village and is within the boundaries of Brighton & Hove adjacent to existing university building.
On his second point the reason no one mentions the retail park necessary to fund this stadium is because there is NO retail park in any of the plans nor ever has been.

However immotive writers of your letters to you paper are, with pro or anti Falmer Statdium, I do wish that they would stick to facts rather than fantasy.

Yours faithfully,

John Hilditch

Excellent letter, they really should publish that one.

 

[Ernest]

Excellent letter, they really should publish that one.

Why ? It's all over now so no letters anti or pro are going to influence things so why are people bothering ?

 

[London Irish]

Excellent letter, they really should publish that one.

Yes, excellent letter.

 

[bhaexpress]

Why ? It's all over now so no letters anti or pro are going to influence things so why are people bothering ?

To a degree you're right but judging by the content of some of the posts earlier this week a lot of people who were hither too disinterested are now taking these erroneous letters seriously and itis clearly causinng them concern. As such people are merely trying to point out that Albion are not as bad as the NIMBY fraternity are implying.

I can see no harm in that.

 

[Biscuit]

They didn't print any of mine.

Something about not accepting crayon.