<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mayor: difficult to see how wind turbine could be rejected</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2009/12/08/mayor-difficult-to-see-how-wind-turbine-could-be-rejected/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2009/12/08/mayor-difficult-to-see-how-wind-turbine-could-be-rejected/</link>
	<description>Local news, sport, business, comment and features for the London borough of Hackney</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 07:58:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy King</title>
		<link>http://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2009/12/08/mayor-difficult-to-see-how-wind-turbine-could-be-rejected/comment-page-1/#comment-363</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy King</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:59:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/?p=6480#comment-363</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s difficult to see how it could be rejected since the &#039;consultation&#039; has been set up to make this impossible. This exercise is an embarrassing charade even for the Jules Pipe regime.

We were told &quot;If the overwhelming public response to this is no, then this will not go ahead&quot;. So basically it will go ahead, and will only be cancelled if some unspecified &quot;overwhelming&quot; number of people oppose it - however many say no, it will presumably be not quite overwhelming enough. And who is Pipe to declare certain objections &quot;invalid&quot;?

If this was meant to be a referendum, then it should have been properly supervised with the rules and methodology established beforehand. As it is, it really is the ultimate exercise in cynical spin, misinformation and sham consultation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s difficult to see how it could be rejected since the &#8216;consultation&#8217; has been set up to make this impossible. This exercise is an embarrassing charade even for the Jules Pipe regime.</p>
<p>We were told &#8220;If the overwhelming public response to this is no, then this will not go ahead&#8221;. So basically it will go ahead, and will only be cancelled if some unspecified &#8220;overwhelming&#8221; number of people oppose it &#8211; however many say no, it will presumably be not quite overwhelming enough. And who is Pipe to declare certain objections &#8220;invalid&#8221;?</p>
<p>If this was meant to be a referendum, then it should have been properly supervised with the rules and methodology established beforehand. As it is, it really is the ultimate exercise in cynical spin, misinformation and sham consultation.
<p>
				<span id="reportcomment_results_div_363"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="reportComment_AddTextArea( 363 );" title="Report this comment" rel="nofollow">Report this comment</a></span><br />
				<span id="reportcomment_comment_div_363"></span>
			</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
