Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think

Lewes Forum New message

49 Sites.

On 12 May 2015 at 3:21pm trooper wrote:
Ref the 49 sites that the council are apparently selling off and they refuse to name them, or even talk about them,prompts one to ask the question have we got another St Anne's fiasco. Is there going to be a cosy deal between certain members of the Council and the developers ??? I presume that they will reveal all when the deal is done and nothing can be done about it if we do not like it.
On 12 May 2015 at 8:57pm RedHeartedCyclist wrote:
To be honest I think your right trooper. Politically we have seen (to a point) a fracturing on the centre left vote in Lewes which maybe due to the collapse of their vote nationally.
If documents were to come out showing decisions and conclusions had been made behind closed doors a whole re run of St Anne's could be on the cards. It's a shame in the past the local press (and might keep the Sussex express newspaper going!!)were good as acting as the reminder to the local politicians of the constituents they served exclusives
Let's hope that the elected district councillors (both old and new) are aware of the risk they have been left with. A lack of proper debate and investigation will not only generate a black mark against their name but also for their credibility outside the political environment that the rest of us have to live in
On 13 May 2015 at 2:20am wrote:
Well maybe they’re finally accepting the Tory way of doing things, did you consider that? Srsly, get with the programme.
People voted Conservative obviously because they prefer government who’s main priority is feathering their own nests with extraordinarily profitable business deals funded by public money.
As for Sussex Express, they’re a business for Christs sake! How are they meant to make a fabulous profit if they have to waste money paying journalists to scoop up news, when they can easily just reprint PR releases from the very people who have a financial interest in their perspective being reported as news?
What you people need is a lesson in business economics, maybe you won’t go shooting your mouth off with outdated communist ideas of expecting rates to be spent on ‘community needs’ . Honestly, I despair, didn’t the Tory landslide even register with you people?
On 13 May 2015 at 6:21pm RedHeartedCyclist wrote:
( ) I accept your point on the outcome of victory I think what the majority of the discussion is how it was conducted. The majority of reports suggest that within the council the higher bodies decided the fate of council buildings with consulting councillors who are supposed to represent the residents.
In this lack of democratic consultation by the council there is an ability that the reputation of councillors (of any party) and what they are elected to do are powerless compared to what council employees want
On 14 May 2015 at 4:04am Peasant wrote:
Don't be silly. If the list of 49 sites was not kept secret then other developers might get wind of their potential so we would not be able to commit them to our secret friends at a secret price with secret conditions that we can all benefit from. How can corruption, sorry, improvements to benefit local people, thrive without secret deals? Lucky we abolished the Standards Commission, interfering busybodies.

32 posts left

Your response

You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool



Lewes antiques centre 53:132
Lewes antiques centre

'The sooner politics gets out of the way of medicine the better for all concerned.'

Health is a political issue. Thaty's why... more
Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people.
John Adams