11th of jan! i thought it was ment to be open asap. I feel a tory vote coming on
public inquiry dates...
- Thread starter saafend_seagull
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
This is unbelievable... this delay is TOTALLY unacceptable... the enquiry should have been re-opened by now... how can anyone reasonably justify taking until next year to start this process up again... a complet shambles...
The civil sevice and Labour party should be ashamed...
Absolute fcuking disgrace...
The March should not only emphasise that there is only one viable site... there should be a loud request to restart the enquiry immediately...
The civil sevice and Labour party should be ashamed...
Absolute fcuking disgrace...
The March should not only emphasise that there is only one viable site... there should be a loud request to restart the enquiry immediately...
i just cant believe it i really cant, they must realise that some of the red seats are under threat in the area. Votes are so disvauled now that i have got all my family to vote tory if the ground is a no, i would think some other people have done the same
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
Ho-hum, nice to see that the civil service definition of as-soon-as-possible is "sometime this decade". It's annoying that they can't just get on with it any earlier, but I don't think this'll change the date we play our first game at Falmer - start of the 2008-2009 season.
Curious Orange said:Ho-hum, nice to see that the civil service definition of as-soon-as-possible is "sometime this decade". It's annoying that they can't just get on with it any earlier, but I don't think this'll change the date we play our first game at Falmer - start of the 2008-2009 season.
Just in time for me to get the OAP concession
London Irish
Well-known member
Oval Gull said:
So you are swallowing this ridiculous conspiracy theory put forward by Baker and the Falmer Nimbys despite all the evidence to the contrary?
Hunting 784561
New member
- Jul 8, 2003
- 3,651
Yup.
balloonboy
aka Jim in the West
Why does MP end his statement with "Importantly
it means we should have a decision before the next General Election...."? Presumably because we should have a decision before the next General Election
My thoughts are that if there was any chance of it being a "no", then starting the enquiry in Jan would be the worse possible timing, as it concentrates all the attention on the March/April period which is very likely to be when electioneering is at it's height, and the whole Falmer issue really does become a political hot potato. Sorry for that long sentence, but if some politician is trying to string this out so as to ensure minimal political fallout in the case of a "no", then I think they've made a very poor start!
it means we should have a decision before the next General Election...."? Presumably because we should have a decision before the next General Election
My thoughts are that if there was any chance of it being a "no", then starting the enquiry in Jan would be the worse possible timing, as it concentrates all the attention on the March/April period which is very likely to be when electioneering is at it's height, and the whole Falmer issue really does become a political hot potato. Sorry for that long sentence, but if some politician is trying to string this out so as to ensure minimal political fallout in the case of a "no", then I think they've made a very poor start!
Kev the Ape
New member
11th january!!!
is this some kind of joke, 11th january i will be 18 i can drink .
but y cnt it be this year!! y do milton keynes dons get a 30,000 seater stadium when they r not going to feel the bloody thing and we have to wait for ours. if prescott says no to falmer then i am going to kill him i want to be in falmer before i am 20!!!!
is this some kind of joke, 11th january i will be 18 i can drink
.but y cnt it be this year!! y do milton keynes dons get a 30,000 seater stadium when they r not going to feel the bloody thing and we have to wait for ours. if prescott says no to falmer then i am going to kill him i want to be in falmer before i am 20!!!!
Re: 11th january!!!
i was 13 when this thing started and im almost 21 nowKev the Ape said:is this some kind of joke, 11th january i will be 18 i can drink
but y cnt it be this year!! y do milton keynes dons get a 30,000 seater stadium when they r not going to feel the bloody thing and we have to wait for ours. if prescott says no to falmer then i am going to kill him i want to be in falmer before i am 20!!!!
London Irish
Well-known member
Yes, balloonboy, I agree, a fine argument. The process looks like it has been accidentally pushed into the path of a General Election campaign, rather than away from it.
But you don't even have to come up with arguments like that to answer the conspiracy theory fantasists like Baker. There are much more obvious ones.
The Planning Inspectorate are a totally independent branch of the civil service and it is their normal modes of operating and workload that are driving this reopened process. As Martin Perry states, today's timing were expected because that is the usual pace with which inquiries progress.
There is no scope whatsoever for any politician to influence the planning office, who are filled with people with the usual diverse range of political opinions and would hugely resent such crass interference from outside.
Any politician that attempted to do so (how? The mechanics are impossible) would soon be exposed. Even if the ODPM were to start exerting some kind of abnormal influence on these Bristol civil servants, this would soon find its way into the press and the politicians (Prescott, whoever) would suffer the humilation of being found out and exposed for breaking civil service rules.
Baker is putting forward no credible explanation of how non-political civil servants are being influenced to "delay" the Falmer inquiry process. That's because he's an ill-informed bullshitter making it up as he goes along.
Of course, once the inquiry report reaches the ODPM, there is scope for political influence. I've argued all along that this influence FAVOURS Albion, and is down to the impact the lobbying campaign has had on both the non-political civil service advisers to Prescott and the key group of political advisers brought into the ODPM by Labour.
But the idea that today's news about the timing of the inquiry opening is influenced by politics is utterly ludicrous.
But you don't even have to come up with arguments like that to answer the conspiracy theory fantasists like Baker. There are much more obvious ones.
The Planning Inspectorate are a totally independent branch of the civil service and it is their normal modes of operating and workload that are driving this reopened process. As Martin Perry states, today's timing were expected because that is the usual pace with which inquiries progress.
There is no scope whatsoever for any politician to influence the planning office, who are filled with people with the usual diverse range of political opinions and would hugely resent such crass interference from outside.
Any politician that attempted to do so (how? The mechanics are impossible) would soon be exposed. Even if the ODPM were to start exerting some kind of abnormal influence on these Bristol civil servants, this would soon find its way into the press and the politicians (Prescott, whoever) would suffer the humilation of being found out and exposed for breaking civil service rules.
Baker is putting forward no credible explanation of how non-political civil servants are being influenced to "delay" the Falmer inquiry process. That's because he's an ill-informed bullshitter making it up as he goes along.
Of course, once the inquiry report reaches the ODPM, there is scope for political influence. I've argued all along that this influence FAVOURS Albion, and is down to the impact the lobbying campaign has had on both the non-political civil service advisers to Prescott and the key group of political advisers brought into the ODPM by Labour.
But the idea that today's news about the timing of the inquiry opening is influenced by politics is utterly ludicrous.
It's hard to know what he's thinking....
Agree with Smart Mart. I'm starting to think that the conspiracy theorists have a point, yes. And London Irish - despite WHAT evidence to the contrary exactly? The evidence at the moment points in the direction of the conspiracy theorists - that this is being stiched up.Smart Mart said:
London Irish
Well-known member
Read 3 posts back, Oval Gull.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 74,091
That conspiracy theory was floated on NSC long before it permeated into Baker's thick skull anyway.
Bwian
Kiss my (_!_)
- Jul 14, 2003
- 15,898
b.w.2. said:
I don't think the Labour Party should be ashamed at all. Without them we'd still be in bloody Gillingham-or extinct!
Tories have done F**K ALL for the Albion cause. EVER! Try and remember that when thinking of switching votes on Albion issues. They are anti-Albion and anti-football, until they come sniffing for votes. At least a Labour led council helped us return to Brighton and have been supportive in our bid for a new stadium in East Brighton, near Falmer Station.
The people who should be ashamed are the 200 NIMBYs who have displayed a selfishness beyond belief. Them and their chinless, inbred sympathisers. Sadly they are exploiting the rules that the Albion and Labour have to follow.
We WILL beat them though and victory will be even sweeter now!
Lord Bracknell
On fire
I'm with London Irish on this.
Why assume that there's a conspiracy against us? How about a conspiracy to swing the Inquiry in our favour?
Maybe there's an Inspector out there who may be more sympathetic to the cause than either Hoile or Collyer? Maybe he's tied up with another Inquiry until Christmas? Maybe we're better off waiting until our man is available?
Or maybe there's no conspiracy at all.
As several people have pointed out, an early decision (last January) could only have been NO.
A YES decision in July would have meant a long, drawn out Judicial Review.
Of all the options, we've got the one that keeps us on course.
Why assume that there's a conspiracy against us? How about a conspiracy to swing the Inquiry in our favour?
Maybe there's an Inspector out there who may be more sympathetic to the cause than either Hoile or Collyer? Maybe he's tied up with another Inquiry until Christmas? Maybe we're better off waiting until our man is available?
Or maybe there's no conspiracy at all.
As several people have pointed out, an early decision (last January) could only have been NO.
A YES decision in July would have meant a long, drawn out Judicial Review.
Of all the options, we've got the one that keeps us on course.
Rangdo
Registered Cider Drinker
Bwian said:
Well said
I don't really care if it's politics or not. I'm just so tired of it all now and frustrated beyond belief. I just can't believe it's going to be another 8 months at least before we are put out of our misery
.