Rejection South Seafront Scheme

No Alien Bias Here

 Cabinet members at Suffolk Coastal have rejected claims that the council's newspaper was Tory biased--so it must be 'right' right!

Biased Claim Rejected

The attractive monthly Council Magazine Spotline  carries  an article concerning the south seafront and contains the often repeated phrase " Since this very sad and rather surprising decision" referring to the scheme rejected in July.

This could well come under the heading of Propaganda' (i.e. ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause.)

The article is of course biased as it does not contain any reference to the overwhelming Rejection reasons listed and for the integrity of the Development Control South sub-Committee in doing their job.

Residents believe  that had the council not been involved it would have been very sad and surprising if the scheme had been accepted.

Who is Sad ?

- certainly not residents or visitors !

Who is Biased?

250 letters against 2 for the scheme

The axiom you can con some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time, would seem to apply in this situation.

Biased report claim rejected.

Cabinet members at Suffolk Coastal have rejected claims that the council's newspaper was Tory biased and misleading the public about  Felixstowe's south seafront scheme.  Liberal Democrat Mike Ninnmey said Coastline, delivered to every household in Suffolk Coastal, should be "honest, accurate, informing and balanced". He claimed in the latest  issue an article about the  development of the 17-acre seaside site was a very partial report and  used a misleading image.  He said he was disappointed  the article - in which Andy Smith, cabinet member for the project, talks about his sadness and surprise at rejection of the plans - did not tell the public the proposals had been thrown out by the council's own planners because they were against policy and did not provide a major activity park. Colin Hart, cabinet member responsible for communications, denied the ruling Conservatives had influenced the editorial content to mislead the public. Mr Hart said: "Neither cabinet, nor any individual cabinet me member, decides what goes in to Coastline nor how individual articles are  presented. That is left to the judgment of the officer responsible who is in every sense the editor. "Whether intended as such or not, councillor Ninnmey's observations in the preamble to his question might therefore be viewed by some as an attack on an officer and could be seen as calling into question his professional competence. "The officer concerned is not here to rebut the charges but I am more than happy to do so on his behalf."

Evening Star 30/10/04

No Alien Bias Here Propaganda