| Author |
Topic |
|
moon23
Calaspia
841 Posts |
 Posted - 25/07/2007 : 13:18:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
Miriam, with respect if I called something white, you'd say it was black. On both sides there have been rational and irrational arguments. IMHO the thing to do is look at why the stadium has been granted planning permission. Like it or not, it is solely about creating job opportunities for the less fortunate in East Brighton, a laudable aim, although as long as the stadium is built I'm sure no-one cares where the workers come from. (In fact no-one seems to be talking about the community aspect since the decision, strangely enough). If this is the case, and Ms Blears says it is, I do not understand why no effort has been made to look at the average job market in B&H and surrounding areas, and then compare it to the skills of the unemployed East Brighton residents, for whom I assume this scheme is intended. This is nothing other than a rational approach, if Miriam, that is what you are really interested in. If this were to be done, as it was by LDC using the Governments own figures and interviews with Job Centre managers, it would be soon discovered that there are plenty of jobs available of the type that will be offered by the stadium. So, please let us all know, why will the residents go and work in the stadium, when they permanently have the opportunity, like everyone else, of working in town? And why should the stadium be built on this basis? The real truth is that the stadium is for money making purposes - how could it be otherwise? Why do you have a problem with people trying to maintain their quality of life and ensuring that people stick to the rules? Is it just because you're contrary by nature?
I think you make some excellent points septicman, there are many people who feel the same way as you. However those who have supported the stadium will never listen to the environmental arguments as they simply value their football team too much. Football is a sport built around tribalism and the loyalty of the fans has always meant that the anti-campaign was up against dogmatist who wanted a stadium so bad they didn’t care what damage it would do.
I fear the problem is one that is fundamental to democracy. Plato's analogy of 'Pleasure Cruise' is a prime example.
When you have a vocal minority with media backing then they are often likely to get their way. Epically when there is also a chance for money to be made out of the situation. In the current political climate economic growth driven by the pleasure seekers will always win over long term sustainability/environmental concerns.
Any of us who have campaigned against environmentally damaging developments are used to such defeats and the Stadium was from the start obviously going to go through. I know many environmental campaigners who didn't even bother to do anything about it because it was a lost battle.
Far better now to move on and fight that battles that can be wrong. Hopefully some of the environmental concerns will be taken on board in the development which might be something, although I’m cynical.
Let's just hope that the reminding down land can get national park status to ensure this unique and bio-diverse habitat for future generations.
|
 |
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5993 Posts |
Posted - 25/07/2007 : 13:31:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
Miriam, with respect if I called something white, you'd say it was black. On both sides there have been rational and irrational arguments. IMHO the thing to do is look at why the stadium has been granted planning permission. Like it or not, it is solely about creating job opportunities for the less fortunate in East Brighton, a laudable aim, although as long as the stadium is built I'm sure no-one cares where the workers come from. (In fact no-one seems to be talking about the community aspect since the decision, strangely enough). If this is the case, and Ms Blears says it is, I do not understand why no effort has been made to look at the average job market in B&H and surrounding areas, and then compare it to the skills of the unemployed East Brighton residents, for whom I assume this scheme is intended. This is nothing other than a rational approach, if Miriam, that is what you are really interested in. If this were to be done, as it was by LDC using the Governments own figures and interviews with Job Centre managers, it would be soon discovered that there are plenty of jobs available of the type that will be offered by the stadium. So, please let us all know, why will the residents go and work in the stadium, when they permanently have the opportunity, like everyone else, of working in town? And why should the stadium be built on this basis? The real truth is that the stadium is for money making purposes - how could it be otherwise? Why do you have a problem with people trying to maintain their quality of life and ensuring that people stick to the rules? Is it just because you're contrary by nature?
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
I think you make some excellent points septicman, there are many people who feel the same way as you. However those who have supported the stadium will never listen to the environmental arguments as they simply value their football team too much. Football is a sport built around tribalism and the loyalty of the fans has always meant that the anti-campaign was up against dogmatist who wanted a stadium so bad they didn’t care what damage it would do.
I fear the problem is one that is fundamental to democracy. Plato's analogy of 'Pleasure Cruise' is a prime example.
When you have a vocal minority with media backing then they are often likely to get their way. Epically when there is also a chance for money to be made out of the situation. In the current political climate economic growth driven by the pleasure seekers will always win over long term sustainability/environmental concerns.
Any of us who have campaigned against environmentally damaging developments are used to such defeats and the Stadium was from the start obviously going to go through. I know many environmental campaigners who didn't even bother to do anything about it because it was a lost battle.
Far better now to move on and fight that battles that can be wrong. Hopefully some of the environmental concerns will be taken on board in the development which might be something, although I’m cynical.
Let's just hope that the reminding down land can get national park status to ensure this unique and bio-diverse habitat for future generations.
And I do believe that the last two posts by Septic and Moon have done more to strengthen my preceding post then anything else I might have said. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
Daveb
Earthsea
2338 Posts |
Posted - 25/07/2007 : 13:40:49
|
Lets face some facts...
The stadium was always likely to be built.
If not a stadium then some other bulding.
It is a muddy field that get ploughed up thus killing off any unique and bio-diverse habitat.
Local people will not benefit from many jobs if any.
If a retail park is built then it may save people travelling further afeild in their cars thus reducing emissions.
I found this approach quite refreshing, a city proud of its team.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/liverpool/6912346.stm |
We're all doomed!
Head for the hills before they start heading for you! |
|
|
|
The Martlet
Alagaësía
54 Posts |
Posted - 25/07/2007 : 15:12:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
When you have a vocal minority with media backing then they are often likely to get their way.
I think you will find the vocal minority have lost, Moon.
You did change your tune considering you weren't bothered about it being built...
http://www.northstandchat.biz/showthread.php?t=60420
|
Do not let your mind wander. It is too little to be let out on it's own. |
|
|
|
septicman
Alagaësía
77 Posts |
Posted - 25/07/2007 : 15:35:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by sully
Septic, your arguments are getting boring.
All the points you have stated above have been proved to be incorrect or half-truths so many times I've lost count.
Just accept you are wrong and get over it.
 |
|
|
|
septicman
Alagaësía
77 Posts |
Posted - 25/07/2007 : 15:37:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by No Expert
How will you spend your time now septic? Perhaps you could try to cultivate 'real life' friends?
I'm old enough to remember when you were funny. But it was a very long time ago. |
|
|
|
septicman
Alagaësía
77 Posts |
Posted - 25/07/2007 : 15:50:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
Miriam, with respect if I called something white, you'd say it was black. On both sides there have been rational and irrational arguments. IMHO the thing to do is look at why the stadium has been granted planning permission. Like it or not, it is solely about creating job opportunities for the less fortunate in East Brighton, a laudable aim, although as long as the stadium is built I'm sure no-one cares where the workers come from. (In fact no-one seems to be talking about the community aspect since the decision, strangely enough). If this is the case, and Ms Blears says it is, I do not understand why no effort has been made to look at the average job market in B&H and surrounding areas, and then compare it to the skills of the unemployed East Brighton residents, for whom I assume this scheme is intended. This is nothing other than a rational approach, if Miriam, that is what you are really interested in. If this were to be done, as it was by LDC using the Governments own figures and interviews with Job Centre managers, it would be soon discovered that there are plenty of jobs available of the type that will be offered by the stadium. So, please let us all know, why will the residents go and work in the stadium, when they permanently have the opportunity, like everyone else, of working in town? And why should the stadium be built on this basis? The real truth is that the stadium is for money making purposes - how could it be otherwise? Why do you have a problem with people trying to maintain their quality of life and ensuring that people stick to the rules? Is it just because you're contrary by nature?
quote:
Originally posted by moon23
I think you make some excellent points septicman, there are many people who feel the same way as you. However those who have supported the stadium will never listen to the environmental arguments as they simply value their football team too much. Football is a sport built around tribalism and the loyalty of the fans has always meant that the anti-campaign was up against dogmatist who wanted a stadium so bad they didn’t care what damage it would do.
I fear the problem is one that is fundamental to democracy. Plato's analogy of 'Pleasure Cruise' is a prime example.
When you have a vocal minority with media backing then they are often likely to get their way. Epically when there is also a chance for money to be made out of the situation. In the current political climate economic growth driven by the pleasure seekers will always win over long term sustainability/environmental concerns.
Any of us who have campaigned against environmentally damaging developments are used to such defeats and the Stadium was from the start obviously going to go through. I know many environmental campaigners who didn't even bother to do anything about it because it was a lost battle.
Far better now to move on and fight that battles that can be wrong. Hopefully some of the environmental concerns will be taken on board in the development which might be something, although I’m cynical.
Let's just hope that the reminding down land can get national park status to ensure this unique and bio-diverse habitat for future generations.
And I do believe that the last two posts by Septic and Moon have done more to strengthen my preceding post then anything else I might have said.
You are avoiding the question. Are there currently any jobs available in B&H for East Brighton residents comparable with the unskilled jobs to be generated by the stadium?
Do you really think it wasn't a political decision? |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5993 Posts |
Posted - 25/07/2007 : 16:01:51
|
What question out of the myriad of resubmitted questions would that be Septic. As far as I am aware, firstly there is the assumption that when questions are asked, responses are actually listened to - a habit you singularly appear to have failed to acquire with regards to this saga. Secondly, I would remind you that I have already stated that I agree with you in principle regarding the rotten apples in the barrel of local, regional and central planning.
None of which takes away from the fact that as far as I am concerned it has been the methods of debate employed by the anti-stadium mob that I have found to be the more disingenuous ones that have lead me to alter my stance. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
septicman
Alagaësía
77 Posts |
Posted - 25/07/2007 : 16:15:04
|
| *shakes head* |
|
|
|
long time no see
Earthsea
United Kingdom
6771 Posts |
Posted - 25/07/2007 : 16:29:13
|
| Have a Cup Of Tea. |
|
|
|
Tombstone Blues
Earthsea
2218 Posts |
Posted - 25/07/2007 : 18:42:11
|
Like Miriam, I was totally indifferent to the stadium - couldn't have cared less whether it was built or not. But having perused the anti-football snobbery put out by the antis, I've changed my mind.
So thanks, Moon & Septic, you turned me into a stadium supporter. |
|
|
|
Infinite Poppadum
Discworld
1305 Posts |
Posted - 25/07/2007 : 18:47:53
|
| Much better would have been by Brighton Station - even if that did mean LTNS had to go without Sainsbury's hot-food section... |
|
|
|
Martha Gunn
Barsoom
230 Posts |
Posted - 25/07/2007 : 21:46:37
|
While Brighton & Hove Albion have faced the flak for trying to develop an unloved muddy field next to the A27, the real would-be Downland Developers i.e the two Universities have got off lightly.
Look at the monstrosity new student halls of residence on the Southern Water site, see the out-of-site out-of-mind development at the rear of the Sussex Uni campus (shocking) and the demands by Sussex Uni to build a new road between the Ditchling road and the campus! Those two meglomanic institutions need to be taken to task on their environmental record. They've used the football club as a smokescreen for the past 10 years.
Am I correct in thinking that the coach park and new link road through the bottom of Stanmer park was put in at the insistence of Sussex Uni? I support the Falmer Stadium but find this part of the development slightly objectionable. |
|
|
|
The Martlet
Alagaësía
54 Posts |
Posted - 25/07/2007 : 22:10:49
|
Falmer Parish Council tried to reopen the inquiry two months ago...
9 May 2007
... we write to formally request the re-opening of the Inquiry. The information provided by the Applicants and the City Council is not accepted by the Parish Council, as is clear from our previous representations. Significant factual differences exist, particularly in respect of regeneration and transport issues which are crucial to the proper determination of this issue. It is highly likely that these differences will be increased following this latest round of representations. In these circumstances the only sensible and reasonable means of testing the evidence is by the appointment of an independent Inspector who can then report back to the Secretary of State.
Given that successive Government Ministers with responsibility for the determination of these applications have seen fit to inquire into this matter by way of a public inquiry to resolve factual and evidential disputes between the parties, given the continuing factual disputes, and the volume of evidence now newly submitted, it would be manifestly unreasonable for the Secretary of State to now depart from the inquiry process and simply determine these outstanding matters by way of written representations alone. In our view such a decision would fail to comply with the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and be susceptible to legal challenge...
12 June 2007
... With regard to the decision of the Secretary of State of 7 June 2007 to not reopen the Inquiry, we are taking instructions and will revert to you in due course...
Human rights... Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel... |
Do not let your mind wander. It is too little to be let out on it's own. |
|
|
|
septicman
Alagaësía
77 Posts |
Posted - 26/07/2007 : 09:05:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by Martha Gunn
While Brighton & Hove Albion have faced the flak for trying to develop an unloved muddy field next to the A27, the real would-be Downland Developers i.e the two Universities have got off lightly.
Look at the monstrosity new student halls of residence on the Southern Water site, see the out-of-site out-of-mind development at the rear of the Sussex Uni campus (shocking) and the demands by Sussex Uni to build a new road between the Ditchling road and the campus! Those two meglomanic institutions need to be taken to task on their environmental record. They've used the football club as a smokescreen for the past 10 years.
Am I correct in thinking that the coach park and new link road through the bottom of Stanmer park was put in at the insistence of Sussex Uni? I support the Falmer Stadium but find this part of the development slightly objectionable.
I agree with you.
I seem to remember reading somewhere on the internet that the building rules for the Uni were relaxed by the council in return for them not opposing the stadium development. |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5993 Posts |
Posted - 26/07/2007 : 09:11:37
|
| Yes, I remember that too ... it was posted on the old forums but never substantiated. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
septicman
Alagaësía
77 Posts |
Posted - 26/07/2007 : 09:31:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Martlet
Falmer Parish Council tried to reopen the inquiry two months ago...
9 May 2007
... we write to formally request the re-opening of the Inquiry. The information provided by the Applicants and the City Council is not accepted by the Parish Council, as is clear from our previous representations. Significant factual differences exist, particularly in respect of regeneration and transport issues which are crucial to the proper determination of this issue. It is highly likely that these differences will be increased following this latest round of representations. In these circumstances the only sensible and reasonable means of testing the evidence is by the appointment of an independent Inspector who can then report back to the Secretary of State.
Given that successive Government Ministers with responsibility for the determination of these applications have seen fit to inquire into this matter by way of a public inquiry to resolve factual and evidential disputes between the parties, given the continuing factual disputes, and the volume of evidence now newly submitted, it would be manifestly unreasonable for the Secretary of State to now depart from the inquiry process and simply determine these outstanding matters by way of written representations alone. In our view such a decision would fail to comply with the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and be susceptible to legal challenge...
12 June 2007
... With regard to the decision of the Secretary of State of 7 June 2007 to not reopen the Inquiry, we are taking instructions and will revert to you in due course...
Human rights... Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel...
I can totally understand why they are so hacked off. If you think about it, two senior govt. inspectors stated the plan failed "overwhelmingly". This is the only enquiry that has looked at the Falmer site itself. The other enquiry stated there was nowhere else in B&H that it could go. I am amazed that the pro-stadium people choose not to understand that people don't want to have a football stadium on their doorsteps. Residents in B&H were quick to point out why their areas were unsuitable when alternative sites were proposed. Face it, the facts are that no-one wants it on their doorstep, I suspect one of the reasons why Falmer was suggested in the first place - it is relatively remote.
The interesting thing for me is to understand the procedural process for when that Falmer report was submitted internally at the relevant govt. dept. Either off their own bat, or more likely as a result of lobbying, someone with no knowledge or experience of the enquiry has determined that far from being a failed application in every respect, it actually meets sufficient criteria for passing the hurdles set by the regulations. This is without having heard any of the evidence, nor visited the site in question. Naturally, this must call into question the validity of the process, and must appear apparent that the enquiry was a bit of a waste of time if people who had nothing to do with it were going to decide its outcome anyway. How can we escape the conclusion that the outcome was political?
When you consider the application was passed only because of the jobs created, yet those jobs are already available elsewhere, can you not see how the thing looks? |
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5993 Posts |
Posted - 26/07/2007 : 10:11:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
When you consider the application was passed only because of the jobs created, yet those jobs are already available elsewhere, can you not see how the thing looks?
Was it? Was the decision made solely on the fact that it would generate jobs. Can you substantiate this? |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
sully
Alagaësía
40 Posts |
Posted - 26/07/2007 : 10:33:22
|
Septic, you complain that people who "had nothing to do with it" made the final decision, so do you prefer the local planning committee's decision? (11-1 for the stadium, just to remind you). FPC want to take it to people even more remote from the actual issue.
The first inquiry made an assumption without the evidence to support it. Prescott sought that evidence, which proved the assumption to be WRONG.
And Moon, if the "environmentalist" objectors had been screaming about the Universities developments over the last 10 years, they made have been taken more seriously regarding the stadium, rather than just looking to be anti-football. |
Involved in Scouting?
Take part in the 40th Sussex Downsman Hike. 6 October 2007.
See www.downsman.com for details |
|
|
|
septicman
Alagaësía
77 Posts |
Posted - 26/07/2007 : 11:04:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by Miriam Binder
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
When you consider the application was passed only because of the jobs created, yet those jobs are already available elsewhere, can you not see how the thing looks?
Was it? Was the decision made solely on the fact that it would generate jobs. Can you substantiate this?
Let me know if I'm wrong here but:
Some cut and paste I'm afraid. As you can see, the decision letter is shockingly short on detail regarding the key issue: the jobs created. There is no detail about the numbers of unemployed in East Brighton, nor any form of discussion regarding the quality of jobs on offer either in the stadium or elsewhere in town, nor any consideration of why existing jobs aren't being taken. It also doesn't look at who is doing the employing in the stadium. For example for the catering, which will form many of the jobs no doubt, the catering is likely to be outsourced to a third party etc.
The letter can be found at:
http://www.lewes.gov.uk/Files/plan_FalmerStadium_letter_070724.doc
Here's the conclusion from the decision letter:
78. The Secretary of State concludes that, although the application site is allocated in the adopted local plan for a stadium, for the reasons given in paragraph 71 of this letter, little weight can be given to this policy support and therefore the proposed development cannot be said to be in accordance with the development plan taken as a whole. She concludes that there is considerable local need for the proposed development and that it would bring significant regeneration and socio-economic benefits to one of the most deprived areas in the country, which she finds to be in the national interest. She also concludes that there is no available, alternative site for the proposed development which is suitable for the proposed community stadium and acceptable in planning terms, and that there is no reasonable prospect of planning permission being granted for a community stadium at any of the alternative sites which have been considered. She considers that there would be harm caused to the AONB from a development of this scale in this location, but concludes that the mitigation measures proposed are sufficient to moderate that harmful impact to a degree that is acceptable. The Secretary of State concludes that the proposed development broadly complies with relevant provisions of PPG13, and that the excessive level of parking provision, the limited conflict with PPG15 and the lack of compliance with the noise level guidance in PPG17 are not such as to make the proposed development unacceptable. On balance, the Secretary of State has concluded that the overall weight of material considerations in this case is in favour of the proposed development and that, accordingly, she should grant planning permission.
Another few paras that demonstrates the development is not going ahead just because it's a football stadium:
20. The Secretary of State has had regard to the applicant's argument that it is in the national interest that a community stadium should be provided to serve the city of Brighton and Hove. They argue that it is in the national interest that all major centres of population are able to enjoy participation and representation at a professional level in major sporting activities which their communities support. For the reasons given in paragraphs IRa18.42 - 18.44, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is no compelling evidence that all major urban centres must be represented or that football would suffer nationally if BHAFC were to be lost to the League (IRa18.44). Furthermore, for the reasons given in paragraph IRa18.46, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that there is little in the way of tangible evidence to support the view that BHAFC's very existence depends on the development of a new stadium at Falmer. She considers the issue of potential alternative sites for the proposed stadium below.
21. However, the Secretary of State considers that the stadium proposal will bring with it a number of important socio-economic benefits. These were identified by the first Inspector at IRa 18.30-18.39. He found that, notwithstanding his view that some of the benefits had been overstated by the applicant, there would be important and valuable regenerative benefits flowing from the development (IRa18.39). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the provision of so many jobs suitable for the unskilled and/or part time in nature would be beneficial in an area which is so seriously deprived of employment opportunities (IRa 18.36). The Secretary of State considers that there is little evidence to suggest that these benefits would be gained in other ways if the proposed development did not go ahead and that the proposed development therefore provides a valuable opportunity for securing important regeneration benefits for this deprived area.
22. There is no dispute that the eastern part of Brighton, and the ward of Moulescoomb and Bevendean in particular within which the stadium site lies, suffer from serious levels of economic and social deprivation. Both at the time of the inquiry, and now, the area ranks near the top of national tables of deprivation and, through its inclusion in areas designated for funding and other assistance, it is recognised as being in urgent need of regeneration. Wider Government policy sees regeneration as a national priority, aiming to narrow the gap between the most deprived neighbourhoods and the rest of the country. One of the key aims of RPG9 is to create a more sustainable pattern of development with, amongst other aims, a particular focus on promoting regeneration and renewal. It identifies a number of areas of regional significance known as Priority Areas of Economic Regeneration (PAER) which need tailored regeneration strategies to address their problems and maximise their contribution to the social and economic well-being of the region. The Sussex Coastal Towns, including Brighton and Hove, are identified as a PAER.
23. The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector (IRa18.31) that the scheme would undoubtedly bring important and very welcome social benefits to this deprived area. She further agrees that (IRa18.41) the evidence demonstrates that the application proposals would have an appreciable beneficial effect on the economic and social well-being of the ward of Moulescoomb and Bevendean and the eastern part of Brighton. The Secretary of State considers that it is in the national interest that areas of marked deprivation, of which the ward of Moulescoomb and Bevendean is one, should be regenerated, and that this weighs significantly in favour of the development.
24. The Secretary of State considers that there is a clear public interest in securing the socio-economic and regenerative benefits which the proposed development offers. There is little evidence to suggest that the permitted B1 development would bring anything like the gains of the proposed stadium, or that it is even likely to go ahead. She accords considerable weight to this consideration.
25. The Secretary of State has had regard to the arguments raised by the applicant and the Council centred on national need which arises from community related issues. She agrees with the Inspector that these particular arguments are concerned with the needs of the local community in economic and social terms. She concludes that they represent a strong local need for the community facilities which the proposed stadium would provide. Overall, the Secretary of State concludes that the significant local need for a stadium, the national interest to regenerate some of the most deprived wards in the country, the significant contribution the proposal would make towards achieving regeneration, and the negative impact that refusing permission would have upon the local economy, amount to national considerations that weigh in favour of the proposed development. She concludes overall that a need for the proposals has been demonstrated.
|
|
|
|
Miriam Binder
Earthsea
United Kingdom
5993 Posts |
Posted - 26/07/2007 : 11:10:03
|
| A lot of hyperbole and political doublespeak however a long way of from stating that the sole reason permission was granted was because of the jobs created. |
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
sparkie
Alagaësía
13 Posts |
Posted - 26/07/2007 : 13:03:41
|
Fantastic decision so well done to the Secretary of State!
A great asset to the City for many generations to come.
|
|
|
|
Daveb
Earthsea
2338 Posts |
Posted - 26/07/2007 : 13:44:15
|
I would like to thank LDC for spending £140k on legal bills.
Forcing others to spend much the same, I would guess.
Not forgetting the time they have wasted.
I would like to shake them all warmly ............by the throat. |
We're all doomed!
Head for the hills before they start heading for you! |
|
|
|
sully
Alagaësía
40 Posts |
Posted - 26/07/2007 : 13:45:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
[As you can see, the decision letter is shockingly short on detail regarding the key issue: the jobs created.
Perhaps because it's not the key issue?
quote:
For example for the catering, which will form many of the jobs no doubt, the catering is likely to be outsourced to a third party etc.
So what if it is? Do you think that means they'll employ people from Aberdeen to work in the stadium? |
Involved in Scouting?
Take part in the 40th Sussex Downsman Hike. 6 October 2007.
See www.downsman.com for details |
|
|
|
septicman
Alagaësía
77 Posts |
Posted - 26/07/2007 : 13:53:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
I would like to thank LDC for spending £140k on legal bills.
Forcing others to spend much the same, I would guess.
Not forgetting the time they have wasted.
I would like to shake them all warmly ............by the throat.
Except that B&HCC spent more than double. And yes, the number is in the public domain. |
|
|
|
septicman
Alagaësía
77 Posts |
Posted - 26/07/2007 : 13:55:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by sully
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
[As you can see, the decision letter is shockingly short on detail regarding the key issue: the jobs created.
Perhaps because it's not the key issue?
quote:
For example for the catering, which will form many of the jobs no doubt, the catering is likely to be outsourced to a third party etc.
So what if it is? Do you think that means they'll employ people from Aberdeen to work in the stadium?
As always,you fail to understand the important points. What do you think the SoS means by socio-economic benefits? |
|
|
|
sully
Alagaësía
40 Posts |
Posted - 26/07/2007 : 14:01:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
I would like to thank LDC for spending £140k on legal bills.
Forcing others to spend much the same, I would guess.
Not forgetting the time they have wasted.
I would like to shake them all warmly ............by the throat.
Except that B&HCC spent more than double. And yes, the number is in the public domain.
So you keep telling us. But you still haven't said where...... |
Involved in Scouting?
Take part in the 40th Sussex Downsman Hike. 6 October 2007.
See www.downsman.com for details |
|
|
|
sully
Alagaësía
40 Posts |
Posted - 26/07/2007 : 14:04:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
quote:
Originally posted by sully
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
[As you can see, the decision letter is shockingly short on detail regarding the key issue: the jobs created.
Perhaps because it's not the key issue?
quote:
For example for the catering, which will form many of the jobs no doubt, the catering is likely to be outsourced to a third party etc.
So what if it is? Do you think that means they'll employ people from Aberdeen to work in the stadium?
As always,you fail to understand the important points. What do you think the SoS means by socio-economic benefits?
Why do you think I don't know what it means?
Where does it say it's "the key issue"? |
Involved in Scouting?
Take part in the 40th Sussex Downsman Hike. 6 October 2007.
See www.downsman.com for details |
|
|
|
septicman
Alagaësía
77 Posts |
Posted - 26/07/2007 : 14:07:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by sully
quote:
Originally posted by septicman
quote:
Originally posted by Daveb
I would like to thank LDC for spending £140k on legal bills.
Forcing others to spend much the same, I would guess.
Not forgetting the time they have wasted.
I would like to shake them all warmly ............by the throat.
Except that B&HCC spent more than double. And yes, the number is in the public domain.
So you keep telling us. But you still haven't said where......
Have a guess at where the info might be available. Then try and find out for yourself. I can promise you it's in the public domain. It's not hidden. |
|
|
Community Stadium