I guess 'removed' is currently too strong a word.
daisyanne wrote:So stuart let's get back to the debate. Seeing as you know all and are a authority on everything from politics to building to education.
Debate?
You and I are not having a debate. It is solely about you pathologically contesting an argument I did not make; me having to keep reminding you of that would constitute as a productive use of my time as icing a dog biscuit.
You have conveniently skirted around the topics I was actually taking about - such as how anyone can see the height of the approved plans, impractical in relation to the small surface-area on which the building will occupy can be seen as anything other than a cynical excercise in greed, to the detriment of everybody else living/working/travelling in that area? I was also talking about the highly questionable practice charging a non-specific 'consultation' fee for a pre-application. How much was the fee in this case? I've tried looking, can't find a figure anywhere.
Big, fat well done on solving the housing 'crisis' though. Who would have thought that minor miracle could be achieved without the use of paragraphs?
A bit of a tip for you however. When you are next in council chambers, be sure to put your hand up once and not jab it into the air whilst repeatedly proclaiming "me miss, I know, I know.." - because no teacher never ever picks
that child to speak.
When you finally do get your ideas across, you may need to prepare yourself to for someone telling you 'sorry we are much too busy selling off real estate to private developers to pre-occupy our efforts with providing affordable housing to those very people we were elected to represent. Sorry about that.'
Then again Labour have always
[email protected] on their own, it isn't anything new, unfortunately 'their own' have always been too impoverished by stupidity to work it out.