Ex Shelton Seagull
New member
I've noticed that the favourite conspiracy theory about the Falmer decision is the idea that John Prescott over-ruled the findings of two experienced planning officers simply to avoid the potential of trouble at the Labour Party Conference this September.
After Ian Hart's performance on SCR yesterday morning, I can only see this theory going from strength to strength. I can just hear people at Withdean before we take on Plymouth saying "of course it's all a stich-up, we're never going to get Falmer, it's all about the party conference you know".
Can the people who are spreading this rumour around please take a few moments to step back and think it through? Are you seriously suggesting that ruling government of this country are so scared of a football teams supporters, so scared of a team with an average crowd of around 7,000, that they would willingly over-turn the findings of two highly qualified planning inspectors just to get a couple of days of peace in September?
This government has a lot of enemies, and most of them are far more organised and prepared for direct action than ourselves. I'm sure the folks of Schnews are busy preparing some "festivities" for the Labour folks. Anti-globalisation protestors, animal-rights activists, union activists, they will all be in attendance in September, and that's before we consider the terrorist threats.
Before the Labour conference in 2001, protesters promised to put "10,000 people on the streets", could we do that? I know that NSC is the home of bullshit and bravado and as a result we tend to hype ourselves up. Does anyone truly believe that if Prescott had said "no" we could have raised upwards of 10,000 people to take part in direct action and clash with riot police. How many people turned up to celebrate our teams success earlier this month?
Somebody suggested in another post that there would have been "rioting in the streets" if Prescott had said no. Please, do me a quaver. We like to have images of bedlam on the streets of Brighton, over-turned police cars, baying mobs, but how many people would actually have turned up? Really? I'd suggest no more than a hundred, tops. People like to make out that they are interested, but when push comes to shove only a few are prepared to do anything.
For the Manchester conference, the police through up road blocks around the G-MEX centre and had huge amounts of riot police on patrol and on stand-by. SO-19 armed officers were on constant patrol and i'm sure there was a strong plain-clothes presence. Did anybody go the arms fair at EdExcel in London earlier this year? Now that was I call a police presence, all very keen to use anti-terrorist laws against those suspected of trying to cause a disturbance. This government is protected by a ring of steel that is designed to stop heavily-armed terrorists. I think they could have handled us.
Even if somebody had broken through and, say, thrown an egg at someone, what would it have done? We all remember the bloke throwing an egg at Prescott, but can anyone remember WHY he threw the egg? Did anybody really care?
If this idea isn't stopped in its tracks then it will grow and grow, causing a split in the supporters between those who are optimistic and those who are pessimistic. I can see those who believe this theory about the party conference not bothering with any more Falmer stuff, simply because they are so sure that it's a stitch up that they'll say "what's the point" meaning even less support for the club in this final battle.
After Ian Hart's performance on SCR yesterday morning, I can only see this theory going from strength to strength. I can just hear people at Withdean before we take on Plymouth saying "of course it's all a stich-up, we're never going to get Falmer, it's all about the party conference you know".
Can the people who are spreading this rumour around please take a few moments to step back and think it through? Are you seriously suggesting that ruling government of this country are so scared of a football teams supporters, so scared of a team with an average crowd of around 7,000, that they would willingly over-turn the findings of two highly qualified planning inspectors just to get a couple of days of peace in September?
This government has a lot of enemies, and most of them are far more organised and prepared for direct action than ourselves. I'm sure the folks of Schnews are busy preparing some "festivities" for the Labour folks. Anti-globalisation protestors, animal-rights activists, union activists, they will all be in attendance in September, and that's before we consider the terrorist threats.
Before the Labour conference in 2001, protesters promised to put "10,000 people on the streets", could we do that? I know that NSC is the home of bullshit and bravado and as a result we tend to hype ourselves up. Does anyone truly believe that if Prescott had said "no" we could have raised upwards of 10,000 people to take part in direct action and clash with riot police. How many people turned up to celebrate our teams success earlier this month?
Somebody suggested in another post that there would have been "rioting in the streets" if Prescott had said no. Please, do me a quaver. We like to have images of bedlam on the streets of Brighton, over-turned police cars, baying mobs, but how many people would actually have turned up? Really? I'd suggest no more than a hundred, tops. People like to make out that they are interested, but when push comes to shove only a few are prepared to do anything.
For the Manchester conference, the police through up road blocks around the G-MEX centre and had huge amounts of riot police on patrol and on stand-by. SO-19 armed officers were on constant patrol and i'm sure there was a strong plain-clothes presence. Did anybody go the arms fair at EdExcel in London earlier this year? Now that was I call a police presence, all very keen to use anti-terrorist laws against those suspected of trying to cause a disturbance. This government is protected by a ring of steel that is designed to stop heavily-armed terrorists. I think they could have handled us.
Even if somebody had broken through and, say, thrown an egg at someone, what would it have done? We all remember the bloke throwing an egg at Prescott, but can anyone remember WHY he threw the egg? Did anybody really care?
If this idea isn't stopped in its tracks then it will grow and grow, causing a split in the supporters between those who are optimistic and those who are pessimistic. I can see those who believe this theory about the party conference not bothering with any more Falmer stuff, simply because they are so sure that it's a stitch up that they'll say "what's the point" meaning even less support for the club in this final battle.
