Judicial Review

There's a difference between reasonable opinion based on fact, and mere wishful thinking.

The OPLC made last week's decision becasuse they feared the OS would be tied up in the courts by Tottenham. It's on this basis that I say the JR application was merely a delaying tactic.

On what basis do you say "they have been 'encouraged' not to push for that info to be revealed in the public domain"?

"There's a difference between reasonable opinion based on fact, and mere wishful thinking."

Yes.
And you have consistently showed us that you cannot distinguish one from the other.


"On what basis do you say "they have been 'encouraged' not to push for that info to be revealed in the public domain"?"

On what basis do I say :

"Perhaps" (conveniently elided by you - and noted )
"they have been 'encouraged' not to push for that info to be revealed in the public domain"

On the basis that revealing the info shows that the Newham bid funding was a joke. Which then turns the focus onto how the voting panel could vote 14-0 when the financing is a shambles.

That's not my question. I'm asking on what credible source are you putting forward that opinion.

On the basis that :

1. A Labour COUNCILLOR in Newham, who asked his OWN COUNCIL for the full details of the Newham OS bid, and on BBC London, told the reporter he was given ONE SHEET of A4 paper in response.

2. Newham Council procrastinating on an FOI request for details of the funding arrangements by THFC PLC (which gave the PLC the initial ammunition for a JR to be called) .

3. The OLPC panicking when they heard the EC (creators of the state aid legislation) might become DIRECTLY INVOLVED in the case (as opposed to on appeal by a losing party) .

I think you're inferring far too much. If there was anything dodgy or not quite right, you could be sure dishonest Dan would have made it known to the public and the relevant authorities.

"If there was anything dodgy or not quite right, you could be sure dishonest Dan would have made it known to the public and the relevant authorities."

Making the info known to the public allows a potential response by your opponent prior to the JR hearing.

Not sure who the "relevant authorities" are in your rhetoric, and what (if any) behaviour of note would be trigged in them by such info.

The hearing/ application has been withdrawn! Therefore any damaging info Levy had would surely have been disclosed.

'Relevant authorities' includes the Mayor, OPLC, govt ministers, Newham council etc.

"Therefore any damaging info Levy had would surely have been disclosed."

Why ??
Who knows what info the PLC now have, and how useful it will be to them in the new WHL proceedings ??


"'Relevant authorities' includes"

"the Mayor"

Politnik. Still ostensibly involved in the new WHL proceedings. ***


"OPLC"

Still could be embarrassed at some later date.


"govt ministers"

Politniks. Still ostensibly involved in the new WHL proceedings. ***


"Newham council"

No value whatsoever, other than being the named correspondent in the JR. Everyone expects a Labour council like Newham to have made a complete mess of their financial proposals.


*** Not to say that damage can/may not be still be inflicted at some later date (Boris being a prime candidate with 2012 looming) .

Conjecture. Fanciful opinion. Clutching at straws.

"Conjecture. Fanciful opinion. Clutching at straws."

You really must stop looking at yourself in the mirror when typing your rubbish.