Another typically biased article from the Argus.

Obviously there is more than just one issue involved for the voters in Lewes.

Maybe we can have a city-wide referendum for the location of the stadium and then hopefully the noisy minority who want to build in an unsuitable place will go away...preferably to Sheepcote Valley!

Yes, tru Argus biased reporting... "Bloody noses".. I know bullying tactics are involved to try and get the stadium built, but we're not in the playground now are we? Why not some sensible reporting for a change, and asking why Brighton lost a central stadium in the first place - The Goldstone Ground!

Yes, true Argus biased reporting... "Bloody noses".. I know bullying tactics are involved to try and get the stadium built, but we're not in the playground now are we? Why not some sensible reporting for a change, and asking why Brighton lost a central stadium in the first place - The Goldstone Ground!

We've already had a city wide referendum, CM.
And a thumping majority voted FALMER yes. So why do you think we need another referendum. Get on and get that stadium before my kids are too old to enjoy it!

S. Matson wrote:
Yes, tru Argus biased reporting... "Bloody noses".. I know bullying tactics are involved to try and get the stadium built, but we're not in the playground now are we? Why not some sensible reporting for a change, and asking why Brighton lost a central stadium in the first place - The Goldstone Ground!

How dare you display such ignorance about how Brighton 'lost' the Goldstone Ground? How DARE you? Perhaps if you actually WANTED to discover the reasons why, you might have read the thousands of articles that have appeared in the Argus over the last 12 years.

G. Mason wrote:
Yes, true Argus biased reporting... \\\"Bloody noses\\\".. I know bullying tactics are involved to try and get the stadium built, but we\\\'re not in the playground now are we? Why not some sensible reporting for a change, and asking why Brighton lost a central stadium in the first place - The Goldstone Ground!

And you sir...How dare YOU also display such ignorance about how Brighton 'lost' the Goldstone Ground? How DARE you? Perhaps if you actually WANTED to discover the reasons why, you might have read the thousands of articles that have appeared in the Argus over the last 12 years.

CM wrote:
Another typically biased article from the Argus.

Obviously there is more than just one issue involved for the voters in Lewes.

Maybe we can have a city-wide referendum for the location of the stadium and then hopefully the noisy minority who want to build in an unsuitable place will go away...preferably to Sheepcote Valley!

Keep up or go home. It's been done and overwhelmingly Falmer was chosen. Rightfully so

Peter wrote:
We've already had a city wide referendum, CM. And a thumping majority voted FALMER yes. So why do you think we need another referendum. Get on and get that stadium before my kids are too old to enjoy it!

But there has not been a referendum of the area they want to build in has there!!!!

But, to get back to the man's second point, I don't think the stadium had any bearing on Lib-Dem losses. There were no Seagulls candidates in the wards that lost seats.

Ms Pepper was probably undone by her speech last week and her relentless & hideous self-worship in the column she writes for Viva Lewes

Actually the Argus is not being biased. As with pretty much every newspaper in the country it has its alligiences and campaigns which it supports. Thank God the Argus does back Falmer because there is, and I am tired of saying this there is no other site, and CM there WAS a city-wide referendum. It's such a pity that the anti-falmer nimbys never bother to look at the facts before spouting off their anti-Brighton, anti-Sussex and anti-sport gibberish

Maybe we can have a city-wide referendum

or

why Brighton lost a central stadium in the first place - The Goldstone Ground!

Both these quotes just outline why so little is thought of the Lib Dems by a lot of people in Sussex. I used to vot Lib Dem, but then Bellotti, Baker and LDC came along. If they kept to the point and didn't make false statements I would be quite happy for the democatric rights of people to object to local issues. However the democratic process was bypassed by LDC with closed council meetings and the public were misled (as I assume the two quotes have been made in error by two misled individuals). No Falmer wasn't the only issue, why aren't LDC fighting harder against the incinerator (probably because it blows out over Eastbourne, Polegate and Hailsham and not over Falmer). Lib Dems to me are now the worst kind of chameleon politians. If you believe that Falmer was not a main issue in the Lib Dems quite visible bloody nose then what reasons can you give?

Pat Roberts wrote:

Peter wrote:
We've already had a city wide referendum, CM. And a thumping majority voted FALMER yes. So why do you think we need another referendum. Get on and get that stadium before my kids are too old to enjoy it!

But there has not been a referendum of the area they want to build in has there!!!!

But it's not being BUILT in Falmer is it?!!!!!

Pat Roberts wrote:

Peter wrote: We've already had a city wide referendum, CM. And a thumping majority voted FALMER yes. So why do you think we need another referendum. Get on and get that stadium before my kids are too old to enjoy it!

But there has not been a referendum of the area they want to build in has there!!!!

Considering only a small percentage of the actual site (a bit of the coaches drop-off point) is in LDC jurisdiction and ALL of the actual stadium is planned on B&H land, then the referendum in 1999 is entirely valid!

More to the point, why have LDC not held a referendum to finally demonstrate support for their heavily criticised & wasteful use of LDC tax-payers money? I'm pretty certain that the answer is because they are scared to expose their actions as undemocratic and baseless.

LDC have gone out on a limb to protect the interests of a handful of wealthy & influential people in Falmer whilst bigger issues affecting more of their electorate (Newhaven Incinerator) have suffered from LDCs blinkered infatuation with the community stadium.

One wonders why LDC have been pandering to the few in Falmer & not the many elsewhere in their constituency?

For those that posted crass comments earlier, perhaps some research is needed before you go spouting off? Oh, I forgot, that's exactly what LDC have been doing anyway - lying about where photos are taken, lying about how long it takes to walk from Brighton town centre to Sheepcote etc etc.

Hear hear Mr Higgins...I have never really understood what the Lib Dems are for, but then I probably am the sort of Albion supporting knucklehead that LDC seem to think will be wandering around Falmer village beating up the swans...Some of the comments they have made including that they believe the people of mouslecomb are too stupid to fill the jobs the new stadium will create is staggering in its ignorance...Falmer will happen get used to it!

Cheerio, Mr Neighbour. I enjoyed our e-mail correspondence, such as it was. It's a shame that you failed to answer most of what must have been inconvenient questions, such as the following. 'What is the basis for your statement that Brighton & Hove Albion chose the cheap option in Falmer?' Enjoy your retirement. If you find yourself at a loose end, you can always be a steward at the new stadium adjacent to Falmer.

I deliberately voted against the Lib Dems for the single issue of Falmer and their disgraceful behaviour and blatant lies. To criticise the Argus for "biased reporting" is a blinkered viewpoint to say the least. If the LD's had the integrity to tell the truth, then they wouldn't have had so many people's backs up.

The stadium was the issue for me. I'm not even a Brighton fan, but I'm a football fan, and to see LDC try to basically make Brighton go bankrupt before they can finalise the arrangements for Falmer is horrendous. As far as I can see, these people have reaped what they sowed. Good riddance to them.

Told all the Libs in Peacehaven their time was up, and over the moon I was right. Well done to all that booted out the anti-Albion Libs.

Peter wrote:
We've already had a city wide referendum, CM.
And a thumping majority voted FALMER yes. So why do you think we need another referendum. Get on and get that stadium before my kids are too old to enjoy it!

When did we have a city wide referendum and why wasn't I eligible to vote? It seems to me that this is just more propaganda in favour of green belt development by people who dont have to suffer the effects. STOP FALMER NOW!

Why did brighton lose a city centre ground in the first place?

Better ask ex Liberal MP David Bellotti how come he forgot to pay BHAFC's tax bill.

@john - exactly!
No-one I know was given the opportunity to vote - maybe a few flyers were handed out at Withdean on alternate Saturdays.

Still, with the way B&HA are performing at the moment, even that stadium will soon be too large for them.

The referendum was held in 1999 (look how successful lewes have been in holding things up since then!). There were two questions - 1) do you support the council's policy for a new permanent stadium for Brighton and Hove Albion in the city

2) Do you support the council's policy for the stadium at falmer

The votes were nearly 90% yes to the first and nearly 70% to the second.

Why one site? The council and club reviewed all sites and there was no other. There's no point suggesting sites that wont work - a fact borne out through public inquiry.

We had a referendum during a council election day about 7 years ago.

Perhaps CM & John missed because they we too busy with their heads stuck up their backside.

The Albion have been suffering financially for years due to the mis management by a former lib dem MP & ignorant Falmer residents who seem to think that the University & southern water buildings are outstandily beautiful

Maybe Lewes Lib-Dems will have a rethink now. It won't be long until the General Election. The stadium won't be the largest issue on people’s minds but this will cost them votes unnecessarily throughout Sussex. They may not care about the Albion or sport in general, but self-interest has always been upper-most in their minds.

I would say people voted against the LDs on their stadium view (a) some because LDs were against the stadium but also (b) because they pledged substantial council funds in their obsessive fight.

I do not know why Marina Pepper and Liz Lee stood as Liberal Democrats. During the protestations against the Ocean Hotel being used for asylum seekers both were heavily involved with the Socialist Workers party who bussed in protestors. Pepper was often seen swigging cider whilst walking down the street and both of them are foul mouthed. Good riddance I say.

Not a proper referendum as no real choice involved. Good to see the Seagulls party coming nowhere. Unfortunately, the stadium decision will be a yes regardless, but well done to LDC delaying it as long as they have. B&HCC have wasted way more ££ than LDC.

Welcome back septicman.

Just to clarify, referendums by nature are yes/no questions. NOT multiple choice!

If you think 24% of people in wards with a seagulls party candidate, voting sp is nowhere then you are clearly deluded. Also the two key areas that saw Tory candidates being pro falmer was east saltdean and seaford where 5 lib dems lost their seats.

Finally, B&HCC as planning authority have had to spend LESS on public inquiries that Lewes have spent opposing. Interestingly, B&HCC have a policy backed by referendum for their spending. LDC dont!

What a banal 'debate'! Why not admit what everyone knows: i.e. that if you support B&HA (God knows why, but I won't mock the afflicted) you want a stadium built anywhere just as long as one is built, and that if you don't support B&HA then this issue either bores you to tears or you think any new stadium should really be located in a BROWN field site in a part of B&H where the traffic won't be snarled up for miles around every time the Seagulls play at home. Oh, and Seagulls fans, don't imagine for one second that the Fib Dems of LDC are the only people who would be quite happy if B&HA went bust before a new stadium gets built...

Well done to the Seagull Party. Around 22% of the voters got behind you. Not bad considering there is no national political machine to back you up.

Neighbour, Pepper, can you hear me?

You Lib Dems took one hell of a beating.

septicman wrote:
Not a proper referendum as no real choice involved. Good to see the Seagulls party coming nowhere. Unfortunately, the stadium decision will be a yes regardless, but well done to LDC delaying it as long as they have. B&HCC have wasted way more ££ than LDC.

What a total knob end you are

Ding-Dong the witch is dead !!!

Seagulls !!!!!!

Looking foward to meeting the trustafarian students that play at being scruffy and weering Cuba T Shirts for 3 years. We can enjoy Falmer together even if you think we are stupid and we know your treacles are fit and the blokes need a wash. A piece of Falmer will soon be for the people of Sussex. Bring on Falmer. Up the Albion. Lib Dems, you should bu wont be ashamed of yourselves.

Si wrote:
What a banal 'debate'! Why not admit what everyone knows: i.e. that if you support B&HA (God knows why, but I won't mock the afflicted) you want a stadium built anywhere just as long as one is built, and that if you don't support B&HA then this issue either bores you to tears or you think any new stadium should really be located in a BROWN field site in a part of B&H where the traffic won't be snarled up for miles around every time the Seagulls play at home. Oh, and Seagulls fans, don't imagine for one second that the Fib Dems of LDC are the only people who would be quite happy if B&HA went bust before a new stadium gets built...

It's one thing to have an opposing view but to actually wish something out of existance that benefits thousands of people shows a very selfish and stupid attitude. So you would prefer that the people who have had help with their literacy problems through the clubs workshops would cease to get any support ? Try engaging your brain before spouting mindless rubbish.

It high time that the Lib Dems abandon Marina Pepper and Liz Lee who are merely using the party as a vehicle for their left wing politics. It is now our civic duty to ensure that they do not get onto the Member of Parliament gravy train!

This is all about property development for profit. Unfortunately, as there appears to be no middle ground where the stadium is concerned, the only thing that will prevent it being built is the club going bust. If that's the case, then so be it.

People have voted for the club with their feet. There is lots of rhetoric about how important it is, but the real demonstration of its value to the community is a tiny attendance at home games.

The so-called referendum was designed for one outcome.

septicman wrote:
This is all about property development for profit. Unfortunately, as there appears to be no middle ground where the stadium is concerned, the only thing that will prevent it being built is the club going bust. If that's the case, then so be it.

People have voted for the club with their feet. There is lots of rhetoric about how important it is, but the real demonstration of its value to the community is a tiny attendance at home games.

The so-called referendum was designed for one outcome.

I think you are probably right. The turnout on the referendum was pretty low. Most people are apathetic about the club anyway.

The fact is that there are no suitable sites in our crowded city, just compromises. Falmer is probably the least worst site. I still have concerns over how the traffic will be managed. As a regular user of Stanmer park at the weekend I suspect that it will suffer as a result. I've lived near 2 big football clubs (Leeds, Newcastle) in the past and people can be very very inventive about parking their cars...!

John wrote:

septicman wrote: This is all about property development for profit. Unfortunately, as there appears to be no middle ground where the stadium is concerned, the only thing that will prevent it being built is the club going bust. If that's the case, then so be it. People have voted for the club with their feet. There is lots of rhetoric about how important it is, but the real demonstration of its value to the community is a tiny attendance at home games. The so-called referendum was designed for one outcome.

I think you are probably right. The turnout on the referendum was pretty low. Most people are apathetic about the club anyway. The fact is that there are no suitable sites in our crowded city, just compromises. Falmer is probably the least worst site. I still have concerns over how the traffic will be managed. As a regular user of Stanmer park at the weekend I suspect that it will suffer as a result. I've lived near 2 big football clubs (Leeds, Newcastle) in the past and people can be very very inventive about parking their cars...!

So first there was NO referendum John, and now you are saying it was really low. You really are a clutz. For info, a 64% turnout is extremely high comparitvely, but plesae don't let facts get in the way of your pathetic argument.

Mace Windu wrote:

John wrote:

septicman wrote: This is all about property development for profit. Unfortunately, as there appears to be no middle ground where the stadium is concerned, the only thing that will prevent it being built is the club going bust. If that's the case, then so be it. People have voted for the club with their feet. There is lots of rhetoric about how important it is, but the real demonstration of its value to the community is a tiny attendance at home games. The so-called referendum was designed for one outcome.

I think you are probably right. The turnout on the referendum was pretty low. Most people are apathetic about the club anyway. The fact is that there are no suitable sites in our crowded city, just compromises. Falmer is probably the least worst site. I still have concerns over how the traffic will be managed. As a regular user of Stanmer park at the weekend I suspect that it will suffer as a result. I've lived near 2 big football clubs (Leeds, Newcastle) in the past and people can be very very inventive about parking their cars...!

So first there was NO referendum John, and now you are saying it was really low. You really are a clutz. For info, a 64% turnout is extremely high comparitvely, but plesae don't let facts get in the way of your pathetic argument.

The yes vote to a stadium was about 64% of a 38% turn out. The yes to Falmer vote was quite a bit lower. In other words, about 75% of available voters didn't vote positively for a stadium in Falmer.

Im not sur if you are right but if so, so what? You cant force people to vote. hen a UK gov wins an election by a landslide they never get more than 35-40% of the available vote. Tis all is a side show. Building a ground at Brighton Poly by a train station, on a site designated for development and by motorway is perfect.

am so happy the anti falmers have gone, do any of you people saying its in a site of beauty, actully been there? i suggest you go and view the site. i asked a councillor to point it out on map... he picked stammer park. you people should get your facts straight... the truth is there is no wild life, and no access to walk on this field. and its on a busy motorway, surrounded by concrete uni buildings, if the lib dems dont back down there be gone in 4 years,

septicman wrote:

Mace Windu wrote:

John wrote:

septicman wrote: This is all about property development for profit. Unfortunately, as there appears to be no middle ground where the stadium is concerned, the only thing that will prevent it being built is the club going bust. If that\\\\\\\'s the case, then so be it. People have voted for the club with their feet. There is lots of rhetoric about how important it is, but the real demonstration of its value to the community is a tiny attendance at home games. The so-called referendum was designed for one outcome.

I think you are probably right. The turnout on the referendum was pretty low. Most people are apathetic about the club anyway. The fact is that there are no suitable sites in our crowded city, just compromises. Falmer is probably the least worst site. I still have concerns over how the traffic will be managed. As a regular user of Stanmer park at the weekend I suspect that it will suffer as a result. I\\\\\\\'ve lived near 2 big football clubs (Leeds, Newcastle) in the past and people can be very very inventive about parking their cars...!

So first there was NO referendum John, and now you are saying it was really low. You really are a clutz. For info, a 64% turnout is extremely high comparitvely, but plesae don\\\\\\\'t let facts get in the way of your pathetic argument.

The yes vote to a stadium was about 64% of a 38% turn out. The yes to Falmer vote was quite a bit lower. In other words, about 75% of available voters didn\\\\\\\'t vote positively for a stadium in Falmer.

No.. once again false info being spewed.
Here are the exact figures:

Thursday 6th May 1999

A historic day in the history of the Albion. Brighton & Hove awakes to 5,000 green and white YES YES balloons all over the two towns. 56,701 (83.5% of those voting) vote in favour of a permanent home for the Albion, while 44,985 (67.6%) people vote in favour of the stadium being at Falmer.

Would you like a calculator?

67% of a 38% turn out.

So, no thanks.

You cant force people to vote and that is more votes than Csome MPs get elected on. But either way the issue is the site. Go to the site, and see for yourself, its at Brighton Poly and south of the motorway (unlike Sussex Uni which is built in the downs - how did / do they continue to get away with that by the way?), next to a motorway/train station/ Southern Water/Moulscom. The site is designated for development and is frankly ideal. Just like a sports stadium at a US uni. Just look at the site. The reason for the fuss is that a few people got on a hobby horse and then could not lose face by backing down,and they have now cost us all a lot of cash.

septicman wrote:
67% of a 38% turn out.

So, no thanks.

Thats how voting works. You want to have your say you turn up and put your tick in the box.
The majority of those that did turn up voted yes. The rest are irrelevant to the argument as no one, even someone so clearly intelligent as yourself, could possibly know which way they would have voted. Chances are they couldn't care either way otherwise they would have turned up to have their say.

If Lewes District Council is so worried about the community stadium, why has it never held a referendum? The answer is the council knows it would lose.

Some of these comments have been unbelievable. If the newcomers do not know why and how we lost our original stadium, I would suggest they read 'Build a Bonfire'. A copy can be found in the Jubilee Library. I would imagine you will need directions, so the post code is BN1 1GE.

The chosen site is not perfect, but it is the best site for the stadium. A stadium that brings vast benefits to the City and indeed Sussex. The vast majority of the opponents appear to be anti-football full stop and do not seem able to put forward a decent case as to why the stadium should not be built.

As for Green Belt? You are kidding yourselves. A proportion of the chosen site is Brownfield and the AONB was designated in the 60s - long before the latter developments such as Sussex Uni, Brighton Uni and Southern Water. It does not set a dangerous precedent of further development.

Good to see the backs of Neighbour, Pepper and Lee. Three people who were intent on spreading half truths/mistruths and disgraceful spin in an effort to stop the stadium.

Brighton & Hove Council gave us a chance to voice our opinion on where the stadium should be built. Did LDC consult their residents whether they wanted so much time and money spent on stopping the stadium? Er..no.

Well done to the Seagulls Party for taking a stand and it was a brave effort. Those criticising the party need to take a long and hard look at themselves. The Party was simply doing what you claim you were unable to do - voice their opinion.

Roll on July 9th and let us hope Ruth makes the right decision and The Albion can soon be in their new home.

Hm... interesting debate, this. But shouldn't it be taking place behind closed doors with the public excluded. That IS the Lewes District Council way after all.

As a Lewesian I don't usually venture your boards, but I did this time to see how the Argus would report the result. To be blunt the Argus has given a blatent misrepresentation of the result and has shown a complete lack of knowledge of the area. Firstly the LDC has been liberal since 1991 and therefore it was always deemed likely that it could fall to NOC (being historically a Conservative area.)In 2003 when expecting losses the Lib Dems made increases, which meant they had complete controll in all the towns. In Lewes 6 out of 7 seats, 5 out of 5 in Newhaven, 3 out of 3 in Telscombe and fantastically 8 out of 8 in Seaford (outside Peacehaven the most conservative town). Realistically having scored spectacular victories in 2003 it was inevitable that they would lose seats having reached as far as they could go. So lets forward to 2007 werethey lose 6 seats and gain 1. in Seaford i expected them to lose seats and the lib dem numbers returned to pre 2003 levels. On second glance though they lost 2 seats by only 50 votes, and that would of been avoided if there was not a lone Green Candidate. Finally to Telscombe, which is the only ward in the District not to be part of the Lewes constituency. The Conservatives were desperate to win the seats to make an assault of the Brighton Kemptown constituency. If your going to deduce any form of meaning from the result, than the Labour Party will probably lose at least two constituencies next time round. It tells us little about Lewes. Lastly Seagulls Party result was awful, although I would be happy for them to continue for future elections. An average of 400 votes per ward is not something to shout about. A Hamster would get at least 300 in a local election. I'm not being flipant, but as many parties don't put forward a full slate of candidates. It makes it likely that independents who can't get elected will get votes as they are not seen as threats.

What a fantastic thread:

First we have people who've obviously moved to brighton in last 7 years commenting on something the clearly know nothing about. Why else would they not know of the referendum and then try and ignore that it was a full electoral commision governed one?

Then we have the reappearance of septicman who has made a hobby of typing innaccurate statements which when corrected allows him to commence more ill informed bile. I can imagine him almost seething as he thumps his erroenous reply into the keyboard.

Then we have people saying, it wont have been the falmer issue that contributed to the losses only to see voters from that area confirm it was.

As per usual we get the 'not everybody voted' argument which falls over when it is statistically proved that it is easier to be anti than supportive on planning matters (see Robertson and McKenzie for the academics out there). Ipso facto - it means that the greater majority of antis than pros would turn out so therefore to get a majority is indeed an indicator that the majority either actively want or are not bothered by the proposals.

Finally we get the Lib dem sympathiser who will use any kind of statistics to try and cover up a less than satisfactory result for them. The lib dems didn't just lose seats, their vote dropped everywhere. Ann de Vecchi in 2003 had the largest majority and personal vote of any councillor. This time she struggled to come second and then only got half of the total that the highest candidate in her ward.

They ignore the facts, Adrian.

Something that the Lib Dems have proven to be very adept at.

Marvellous post, Sir. I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments.

Fine you can believe what you want, I know that you will follow the Seagulls line. As for Statistics facts. In 2003 Ann De Vecchi got 1,166 votes. In 2007 she got 1,264, maybe you can explain to me where her vote exactly went.

You included the misnomer of the Independent, but this was a councillor who first got elected in 1999 as a Liberal Democrat, who then defected afterwards to the Greens before becoming an Inde just before 2003.

If you actaully know anything about Lewes (which evidently you don't)you would have known that on Southover street that are several houses with Lib Dem and R O'Keefe posters on them. Thats because despite the defection most Libs recognise that she has been a good councillor for the area. Many people in Priory will have voted for De Vecchi and O'Keefe. The only reason that she has 800 votes more is that Conservatives vote for her as they know that it is the only way the Lib Dems won't get a full slate elected.

To be fair they are correct as that is the only seat they didn't win.

Lastly in Priory ward Lib Dems got more votes, Castle ward they got more votes and Bridge Ward they got more votes.

I think that it is you who would need to dig up some statistics to prove how 1,600 votes over four candidates, against 1,200 just for Cllr De Vecchi is sending shockwaves around Lewes

how is it then - if I know nothing about Lewes District that I KNOW no conservatives were actively door to door canvassing in east saltdean but 2 of the 3 lib dems were. One on a sunday morning (obviously being a witch, a sunday is not so special)?

Also Ruth O'Keefe is no friend of the Lib Dems.

I would hazard a guess that because you live in Saltdean, that you know the going ons in that ward.

Perhaps it was the Falmer issue that affected the outcome in that ward, perhaps it was Marina Pepper erratic behaviour, perhaps it was local issues, perhaps it was Conservatives returning to the fold, perhaps it was tactical voting by Seagull supporters (as some posts seem to suggest).

In the end the East Saltdean result was not reflected elsewhere.

Finally that last remark was almost funny, if I didn't think you actually serious. In which case i'm actually slightly scared.

BHA needs a home.
Many people in Brighton and Hove have voted for that too in the local elections and not just in LDC. An example candidate was Tracy-Anne Ross who polled over 1,000 votes in Preston Park.
A concerted effort is needed to make this home happen.
Many people have lost site of the fact in the region a wold class facility is needed for housing the needs of BHA.
The Falmer plan is not just for a professional football team. It is also for a training facility for the young people of the region.
I don't think this goes far enough. It should be a centre of excellence for other activities for investment in young people which are future for supporting a growth economy.
We all want good infrastructure and services. Someone has to pay for it which means farming businesses in as well as more income earners.
The Falmer project should be more than a stadium and training facility. It should be stadia for othe sports at a world class level for our children and young children.
This drive at all levels and we should have a candidate from seagulls party or tracy-anne ross to take this forward at a local and central government level looking at the interests of the region. where is the nearest word class swimming pool? not in the southeast.
We have capabilty at Lewes for watersports for building kayaking and canoeing.
Going to shoreham we have the capability for rowing.
Brighton already has sailing.
We need to invest in community enjoyment with a growth economy, not a spend spend , or a burden economies.
all parties need to smarten up their views.
we need to have planners with a plan.
we need government with a vision that can be teken yo a strategy for this.
Falmer well it has infrasture (water, train, road,...), good geography for the site (in the crease of a hill) supporting a micro climate. Is a city centre going to offer the same? can we build out from a city centre?.
those that want to hold back the tide know what happened to canute.
More importantly lets all invest in our young people and children.

The referendum was entirely pointless. It forms no part of the planning process, but is an attempt to pervert the official process instead. The public enquiry process is intended to protect all parties from inappropriate development, and should have done when two independent inspectors found that the development "overwhelmingly" failed the test of need. The inspectors, like anyone with common sense, didn't agree that there would be many, if any, community benefits to building a stadium. Let's get one thing clear - the stadium is almost exclusively designed to generate income for BHA.

If we want to invest in our children, the stadium is the thing least likely to have any effect on them as the stadium is intended for professional, albeit mediocre football. Real investment in the young starts at grass roots level. A fantastic example of this is the all weather pitch at Waterhall, available to all the city's young rugby, soccer and hockey players. This facility will do more for the community than anything built at Falmer for a fraction of the cost. And, it was a great example of co-operation across a number of sports.

The pro-Falmer arguments always try to justify the argument by insisting on building the thing, and then retro-fitting the arguments to suit the building of the stadium.

The council, in their latest local plan have stated that if Ruth Kelly says no to Falmer, (as she should under her own government's rules), then they will assist the club to find an alternative site. If Kelly says no, you can bet plan B will appear as if by magic, within days. Don't forget the club agree that Sheepcote meets all their needs. Expect to see the traffic issue become a thing of the past five minutes after the no decision.

septicman wrote:
The referendum was entirely pointless. It forms no part of the planning process, but is an attempt to pervert the official process instead. The public enquiry process is intended to protect all parties from inappropriate development, and should have done when two independent inspectors found that the development "overwhelmingly" failed the test of need. The inspectors, like anyone with common sense, didn't agree that there would be many, if any, community benefits to building a stadium. Let's get one thing clear - the stadium is almost exclusively designed to generate income for BHA.

If we want to invest in our children, the stadium is the thing least likely to have any effect on them as the stadium is intended for professional, albeit mediocre football. Real investment in the young starts at grass roots level. A fantastic example of this is the all weather pitch at Waterhall, available to all the city's young rugby, soccer and hockey players. This facility will do more for the community than anything built at Falmer for a fraction of the cost. And, it was a great example of co-operation across a number of sports.

The pro-Falmer arguments always try to justify the argument by insisting on building the thing, and then retro-fitting the arguments to suit the building of the stadium.

The council, in their latest local plan have stated that if Ruth Kelly says no to Falmer, (as she should under her own government's rules), then they will assist the club to find an alternative site. If Kelly says no, you can bet plan B will appear as if by magic, within days. Don't forget the club agree that Sheepcote meets all their needs. Expect to see the traffic issue become a thing of the past five minutes after the no decision.

You have absolutely no idea at all do you? Feel free to wallow in your own self importance and ignorance when the stadium IS built

Get a grip.

It's only football.

If idiots like you put as much passion into the things in life that really matter, imagine how much good could be done.

Preservation of the AONB doesn't matter? The spending of hundreds of thousands of pounds of B&H taxpayers doesn't matter? For the avaoidance of doubt, B&H council have spent far more ££ than LDC, backing a private co. in building on AONB. That seems bizarre to me, especially as the so-called jobs are already available elsewhere, as are the literacy programmes. The money spent could have supported the educational programmes for a number of years many times over. But then , it's not about community benefits is it?

As a neutral in the whole stadium argument this and many other threads in the past have made fantastic reading as apart from a few hotheads the arguments on both sides have been very well, albeit passionately, presented, but there are a few things that bother me. 1/ We didn't have all this furore when those horrendous university buildings were plonked high up on the skyline, 2/ The students of Sussex Uni' who have now decided to come out and oppose any development of the site are quite happy to study and live there themselves for their own good. 3/ Falmer parish council have made some quite deflammatory remarks about the residents of local estates. 4/ several months ago my family and i dropped down into Falmer to take a look and see what all the fuss was about for ourselves whilst we were out for a walk on the downs. Whilst there we got talking to a lovely old gentleman about the development and one sentence in that conversation surprised me, although we politely continued our conversation until we went our ways it worried me, and that was that he "would rather see an industrial estate built there than a football ground" this brought home to me that this isn't really about the downs or any AONB it's just about class with the social elite trying to keep a distance between themselves and the hordes of the great unwashed working classes which is a shame as we seem to be taking backward steps in this country as far as class goes with the gulf between the haves and the have nots getting bigger by the day.

Jason wrote:
Get a grip.

It's only football.

If idiots like you put as much passion into the things in life that really matter, imagine how much good could be done.

"Hoe to display your true ignorance" - a new book by Jason.

Thursday 6 May 1999 - A historic day in the history of the Albion . Brighton & Hove awakes to 5,000 green and white YES YES balloons all over the two towns. 56,701 (83.5% of those voting) vote in favour of a permanent home for the Albion, while 44,985 (67.6%) people vote in favour of the stadium being at Falmer.

Care to explain yourself, oh wise Tony?

IM, you would be far better informed if you read some of the documents regarding the situation. The original inspectors report made it clear that the residents of Falmer will suffer greatly should the stadium development go ahead. And you cannot blame the residents of Falmer for loathing the football club - I certainly would in their position. Like most Brighton residents, I used to feel completely apathetic towards the club, but now can't stand them over the stadium saga. As for the "defamatory" comments by Falmer PC, I'm not sure why you think they are. Go to the FPC website and check out the report regarding the effect of the stadium on East Brighton based on the facts and not dubious reporting.

Hi septicman, So you agree then that this is wholly about Falmer residents protecting their perfect little world from the intrusion of the working classes and not protecting the downs at all, you fail to answer why there was no furore over the expansion of the uni' halls of residence which surely you must agree are an abominable sight right up on the crest of the hills and as for going to the FPC site to get the facts well that would be like going to the BHA or LDC site for the facts no-one can deny that LDC "sexed up" their traffic consultants report because they inadvertently put it on their website with all the little footnotes explaining which parts to omit and which to over emphasise and then they have the cheek to tell us - their voting public, that we should ignore it because it wasn't the finished article. To be honest all of this falls into insignificance compared to the fight the people of Newhaven have had to put up against the incinerator planned for their town but for some reason there doesn't seem to be the same amount of fuss generated about this, could it be because the vast majority of Newhaven is populated by decent working class people and not the higher earning social elite (who are generally also decent of course), I bet you if the incinerator had been planned at Falmer it wouldn't have got the go-ahead. TTFN

IM, no, I don't agree, and to think the issues are solely to do with Falmer residents is to miss the point entirely - but then you wouldn't be the only one who doesn't understand the scope of the objections.

The so-called sexed up dossier is a complete nonsense. Again, if the concept of documenting and revising an argument is alien to you, then no doubt it would come as a shock. But it's hardly a smoking gun. Every submission to Ruth Kelly will have gone through numerous iterations prior to being sent, in order to present arguments in the most advantageous way. RK will do the same to her result document prior to publication. LDC Lib Dems were again returned to power. The Seagulls Party came nowhere, even in the wards they thought would favour them the most. Clearly LDC residents support the stance their council has taken.

The building of the uni is also something to be despised. Why does it not need a public enquiry? It just appears to have happened..... Maybe a reward for not opposing the stadium? Who knows? It certainly appears to have been slipped under the radar.

As for the incinerator at Newhaven, I know little about this. What I do know is that it should be treated on its merits, and according to the rules and regulations, as should the stadium. If the independent inspectors had said the stadium was OK to go ahead, I wouldn't object, although I might not have agreed. It sticks in my throat tat Prescott had clearly already made his mind up and was given the wrong decision. Are you also saying the residents of Falmer should have no protection because they might have money?

Important though the B&HA ground issue is it does seem to me that some contibutors ignore the many hours of positive and worthwhile but largely thankless work in other areas which those who have lost their seats put in throughout their time in office. Many community issues in particular have been highlighted and solutions found....perhaps it is all too easy to become blinkered by a passionate view we may hold on a specific subject and the efforts which have been made to improve the lot of those less fortunate than ourselves.

Important though the B&HA ground issue is it does seem to me that some contibutors ignore the many hours of positive and worthwhile but largely thankless work in other areas which those who have lost their seats put in throughout their time in office. Many community issues in particular have been highlighted and solutions found....perhaps it is all too easy to become blinkered by a passionate view we may hold on a specific subject and to lose sight of the efforts which have been made to improve the lot of those less fortunate than ourselves ?

Jason wrote:
Care to explain yourself, oh wise Tony?

I could, but after all, i'm an 'idiot' so it wouldn't be fair to you to drag you down to my level

septicman wrote:
67% of a 38% turn out. So, no thanks.

So that means that only 12.5% of those able to vote voted no. Is this your "silent majority" septic? By your own twisted logic, I make that to mean that 87.5% of the people of Brighton and Hove want the stadium in Falmer.

A big thankyou to all those Seagulls who stood as candidates. Everywhere they stood, a Lib Dem was returned to LDC. Where they didn't stand, Tories swept in. What would the LibDems have done without the Seagulls?

Thanks to the Seagulls, LibDems are still in power in LDC.

Oh yes... and they've spent more fighting the incinerator at Newhaven than trying to get people to stick to the rules over Falmer stadium.

sully wrote:

septicman wrote: 67% of a 38% turn out. So, no thanks.

So that means that only 12.5% of those able to vote voted no. Is this your "silent majority" septic? By your own twisted logic, I make that to mean that 87.5% of the people of Brighton and Hove want the stadium in Falmer.

As this falls entirely outside of the planning process, the whole issue of a referendum was meaningless.

Regarding your point, unfortunately, you are wrong anyway, as the vast majority of voters did not vote positively for a stadium. They should be safe to assume that the planning regulations will protect them, as they should have done after the public enquiry said no. Why do you think Prescott wanted another enquiry? Was he lobbied outside of the official process? What did he know that the months of public enquiry didn't uncover? Two inspectors sat on the enquiry and listened to the same evidence, and submitted two different reports stating that the stadium plan was a million miles from getting a green light. Prescott's decision to re-open the enquiry throws the whole planning process into disrepute.

Septicman - just to clarify. The referendum was in respect of the council's policy and therefore is a valid piece of information in the planning process. The two questions cover two very distint points:

1) the need for a stadium is backed by public opinion (this in answer to the question 'do you support the council's policy of having a stadium within Brighton and Hove?')

2) the support for the council policy of accepting falmer as the only site suitable (this in answer to the question 'do you support the council's policy that the stadium should be sited at falmer?')

Your assertion that those who didn't vote make the poll invalid and what those may have thought is pure conjecture. the wording of the questions clearly invited people to vote if they opposed as it mentions the council policy in existence rather than proposed

You will of course be aware that the two inspectors who sat concurrently actually reported seperately. It was as a result of the first report (into the local plan) that it became clear an error of misunderstanding had been made by Inspector Hoile in as much as he based his findings on an assumption that there was somewhere else and this may be Sheepcote. In planning terms, an assumption is no lonegr valid (following previous Inquiries that were challenged for basing findings on assumptions of other sites that MAY exist). It was for this reason and a lack of proper investigation in the inquiry process that the lawyers to the government highlighted the need for further inquiry.

Finally to septicman, you have said that for the 'avoidence of doubt' we need to understand that Brighton and Hove (who have a policy backed by referendum) have spent more than LDC (who don't!) on this process.

I have in my grubby little mitts the details of how much LDC have spent and it is eye opening. I suspect that you have no evidence to back your assertion - however for the 'avoidence of doubt' would you care to publish the amounts you believe have been spent by the respective parties which backs your assertion? You show me yours and I'll show you mine :-)

Also Scorpion - these figures call into doubt your assertion that LDC have spent more on fighting the incinerator (ironically initially suggested by the Lib Dems of east sussex!). Would you care to publish the figures you are basing your judgement on?

** deafening silence **