Ian Hart on SCR this morning

[Ex Shelton Seagull]

Listened to the tail-end of Harty's interview on the SCR Breakfast show this morning and have to say he didn't sound at all up-beat. Seemed very depressed about the whole thing. Thought it was all a big political stich-up by Prescott, the only reason for having another inquiry into alternative sites was to avoid trouble at the Labour Part conference. Very depressing listening to my ears, but then I had only woken up 20 minutes beforehand. At least they only gave the berk from the Sussex Downsmen about a minute of air-time.

Are we witnessing the start of a split in the supporters. Will those who think that it's all about avoiding trouble at the party conference bother joining in with any Falmer for All activities? I know my Dad was very cynical about the whole thing, despite my best efforts to explain the situation to him.

I can't believe that this Government, one that went to war against the wishes of MILLIONS of citizens and has made numerous highly un-popular decisions in its time, is so shit scared of a few football supporters threatening to throw eggs and boo at people that it would ignore 2 inspectors reports just to try and avoid them.

 

[balloonboy]

I can't believe that this Government, one that went to war against the wishes of MILLIONS of citizens and has made numerous highly un-popular decisions in its time, is so shit scared of a few football supporters threatening to throw eggs and boo at people that it would ignore 2 inspectors reports just to try and avoid them.

My thoughts too....JP isn't concerned about the reaction at the party conference - if he'd said no, and we'd thrown a few eggs and created a rumpus he could have just said "look, I only did what the two inspectors told me to", and no-one would listen to a word we said against him. In fact, we'd probably lose a lot of sympathy. What JP and the ODPM is afraid of is the backlash against an outright No, which would surely see Labour lose 3 seats in B&H. There is no way this can be stretched out to May, so in my humble opinion the decision yesterday was the only sensible route to a Yes, which can be secured well within the timeframe of a likely election, and thereby cause thousands of Albion fans to campaign vociferously for a Labour victory!

 

[ditchy]

Think they would ... remember its a localised thing where feelings are very high but for that one week its a national arena as media etc is concerned so the platform becomes that much bigger a banana skin for them

 

[attila]

They are not scared of the eggs - they are scared shitless of Seagulls Party candidates in Hove and 3 Brighton seats. And rightly so. Because if they do not give us the go ahead for our stadium that is exactly what will happen.

Don't despair, for god's sake. The inspectors' report defies belief, but we are still in there - it's like we've just got a 4-4 draw having been 4-0 down, and it's precisely the knowledge of the political fallout which has stopped JP turning us down flat.

 

[balloonboy]

Ah, but JP would have had the support of TWO planning inspectors' reports to point to if he'd said NO. The Labour party could pretty easily deflect criticism if it wanted to with that type of "proof" in it's armoury. At the end of the day they're far, far more worried about loing potential marginals like the 3 seats in B&H than they are about a few egg-throwers. Plus, we've amply demonstrated in the past that we're a decent bunch, and whatever we threatened at the conference would be unlikely to ruffle too many feathers.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Re: Re: Ian Hart on SCR this morning

My thoughts too....JP isn't concerned about the reaction at the party conference - if he'd said no, and we'd thrown a few eggs and created a rumpus he could have just said "look, I only did what the two inspectors told me to", and no-one would listen to a word we said against him. In fact, we'd probably lose a lot of sympathy. What JP and the ODPM is afraid of is the backlash against an outright No, which would surely see Labour lose 3 seats in B&H. There is no way this can be stretched out to May, so in my humble opinion the decision yesterday was the only sensible route to a Yes, which can be secured well within the timeframe of a likely election, and thereby cause thousands of Albion fans to campaign vociferously for a Labour victory!

balloonboy - you are one of life's optimists. I salute you. I hope there is indeed no way of stretching this out till May, but I thought we were supposed to be at this point in January.

 

[balloonboy]

I was responding to ditchy's point, not attila's (if there's any confusion)

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

What worries me is that JP's now turned down the recommendation of two planning officers. Can he just keep overturning their recommendations ad infinitum like some kind of Caesar or something? I'd have thought not. Sure, going back into the inquiry three ring circus is infinitely better than a straight 'NO' decision, but any outright celebrations seem to be somewhat premature to say the least.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

They are not scared of the eggs - they are scared shitless of Seagulls Party candidates in Hove and 3 Brighton seats. And rightly so. Because if they do not give us the go ahead for our stadium that is exactly what will happen.

............. but this gives the opportunity for there to be no decision this side of an election.


I am ready for some serious campaigning if needed, and I think there will be many, many others.

 

[balloonboy]

Re: Re: Re: Ian Hart on SCR this morning

balloonboy - you are one of life's optimists. I salute you. I hope there is indeed no way of stretching this out till May, but I thought we were supposed to be at this point in January.

I think it's taken so bloody long because someone in the ODPM's office (be it JP or whoever) has said "we have to find a way of saying Yes, despite the inspectors reports". That has been a legal minefield. I may be being vastly over-optimistic, but I'm keeping the faith!!

PS: Other delays caused by B&HA FC going back on a couple of points (can't remember detail - Ed will obviously know), and by a maternity leave cock-up in the civil service, if I remember rightly!

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ian Hart on SCR this morning

............. and by a maternity leave cock-up in the civil service,

shurely shome mishtake ..........

 

[ditchy]

Ah, but JP would have had the support of TWO planning inspectors' reports to point to if he'd said NO. The Labour party could pretty easily deflect criticism if it wanted to with that type of "proof" in it's armoury. At the end of the day they're far, far more worried about loing potential marginals like the 3 seats in B&H than they are about a few egg-throwers. Plus, we've amply demonstrated in the past that we're a decent bunch, and whatever we threatened at the conference would be unlikely to ruffle too many feathers.

fairpoint BB

 

[perseus]

Judicial Review is very much on Prescott's office mind at the moment.

They have just won a High Court Appeal hearing over the Bicester Asylum Centre when Cherwell Council took the Government to Court with an appeal they did not have a hope to win. The sole of object of this was delay, putting another year on the decision process.

This is all objectors can do, cause obstructions and delays and hope any developers go away, their bankers lose confidence etc. In this respect the objectors have scored a small victory.

However, it is possible that the reconvened Public Inquiry could result in support for the Albion. It really depends on how the Albion perform. They did not do outstandingly well with the last Public Inquiry (based on Collyer's decision they would have lost) so the Albion planning team had better pull their socks up.

(I expect the Albion think they did a good job, but it is results that count!)

 

[Barnet Seagull]

What worries me is that JP's now turned down the recommendation of two planning officers. Can he just keep overturning their recommendations ad infinitum like some kind of Caesar or something? I'd have thought not. Sure, going back into the inquiry three ring circus is infinitely better than a straight 'NO' decision, but any outright celebrations seem to be somewhat premature to say the least.

You've got to remember that on a pure planning basis, it's difficult to agree with any development of considerable size at Falmer.

The key issue is one of alternatives. Are there any?

The Council and Club say No, the NIMBY's say Yes.

Prescott doesn't have a bloody clue and in effect, neither did Hoyle and Colleyer, they only scratched the surface of locations which have historically been canned. The new enquiry is designed purely to delve deeper into suitable sites in the area, most of which we know are more unsuitable than Falmer.

 

[CHAPPERS]

I can't believe that this Government, one that went to war against the wishes of MILLIONS of citizens and has made numerous highly un-popular decisions in its time, is so shit scared of a few football supporters threatening to throw eggs and boo at people that it would ignore 2 inspectors reports just to try and avoid them.

Quite right my friend. I like the way that everyone is choosing to think this when Prescott has actually done us a favour.

 

[BensGrandad]

They are not scared of the eggs - they are scared shitless of Seagulls Party candidates in Hove and 3 Brighton seats. And rightly so. Because if they do not give us the go ahead for our stadium that is exactly what will happen.

Don't despair, for god's sake. The inspectors' report defies belief, but we are still in there - it's like we've just got a 4-4 draw having been 4-0 down, and it's precisely the knowledge of the political fallout which has stopped JP turning us down flat.

I would not agree that the Labour party are concerned about a Seagulls Party. Ivor Caplin will probably lose his seat anyhow because of the Iraq War and what is two more losses to them when they will still have a large majoirty because of the Tories inability to offer a realistic alternative and the LIb Dem not being sure about anything, I think!!

 

[Biscuit]

I would not agree that the Labour party are concerned about a Seagulls Party. Ivor Caplin will probably lose his seat anyhow because of the Iraq War and what is two more losses to them when they will still have a large majoirty because of the Tories inability to offer a realistic alternative and the LIb Dem not being sure about anything, I think!!

Disagree. I wouldn't say Caplin is out by a long shot. He is a vocal supporter of Brighton (when he needs the publicity) but the fact he is labour means any SEAGULLS PARTY that may arrise would scare him as to be honets the only thing he was left in his artillery is 'i want falmer, im a brighton fan'

I see the Seagulls Party as less of political party and more of a pressure group who can be voted for to scare who evers in power.

No one in their right mind would vote UKIP in the generals (would they?) but they're happy to vote for them to put the wind up labour/torys.

 

[Gwylan]

Judicial Review is very much on Prescott's office mind at the moment.

They have just won a High Court Appeal hearing over the Bicester Asylum Centre when Cherwell Council took the Government to Court with an appeal they did not have a hope to win. The sole of object of this was delay, putting another year on the decision process.

This is all objectors can do, cause obstructions and delays and hope any developers go away, their bankers lose confidence etc. In this respect the objectors have scored a small victory.

However, it is possible that the reconvened Public Inquiry could result in support for the Albion. It really depends on how the Albion perform. They did not do outstandingly well with the last Public Inquiry (based on Collyer's decision they would have lost) so the Albion planning team had better pull their socks up.

(I expect the Albion think they did a good job, but it is results that count!)

Not quite right. The judge in the Cherwell council case did not give the council leave to apply for judicial review, so it wasn't a long, drawn-out process - and it's not an 'appeal'.

I've mentioned this twice before but it's worth mentioning again: going for a judicial review is not an easy option - you have to persuade a judge that there's been a breach in the law and that's before the JR itself.

As Lord B and others have pointed out, Prescott's strategy has pretty much squashed any hope of a judicial review in the Falmer case.

 

[H block]

You've got to remember that on a pure planning basis, it's difficult to agree with any development of considerable size at Falmer.

The key issue is one of alternatives. Are there any?

The Council and Club say No, the NIMBY's say Yes.

Prescott doesn't have a bloody clue and in effect, neither did Hoyle and Colleyer, they only scratched the surface of locations which have historically been canned. The new enquiry is designed purely to delve deeper into suitable sites in the area, most of which we know are more unsuitable than Falmer.

If the procedure has been correctly adhered to by JP AND HIS OFFICE then there is no chance of judicial review.So the decision is the correct one.I hope that the club do there work correctly now (or have done before they chose Falmer) then we can look forward to a favourable decision.I think Barnets pretty close in the post above.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

We can't play at Barnet - it's not even on the list.