OK - yet more misleading stuff from the campaign.

The Government didn't criticise the lab in the quotes above. Those quotes are MPs criticising the Government, specifically the Treasury, for not supporting the lab enough. So the opposite of what you suggested.

The MPs' report had a go at the Treasury for trying to claw back money off MRC. The full quotes were:

"Recently the Treasury decided to invoke previously unused rules to claw back £92m of these savings [...] We are at a loss to understand the rationale for this behaviour by the Treasury and request an explanation. Encouraging the MRC to be self-financing to a degree and then appropriating its savings, thus forcing the MRC to come cap in hand for funding, is hardly redolent of good faith."

That's not to say there's not lots of useful stuff in that report for the campaign. This quote, say, would have been better:

"We remain concerned that the sponsors and proponents of this scheme have not seriously evaluated other options outside London, particularly as the proposed location has planning considerations which may prove fatal to the project."

But I'd be careful of bandying this report around as proof that MPs don't like the lab. It's also full of stuff like this:

"We can see the immense benefits that should result from the realisation of this exciting vision."

The article refers to an argument within the government about the lab and doesn't claim that the goverment uses these quotes to criticise the lab. It is true that there are MPs who have criticsed the lab plans and that there have been arguments over funding. So this campaign is not "misleading" but quoting an argument between government departments over the lab which is true and which I understood from the article. You haven't read it properly, either that or you have some kind of personal disagreement with the campaign ; )

The article refers to an argument within the government about the lab and doesn't claim that the goverment uses these quotes to criticise the lab. It is true that there are MPs who have criticsed the lab plans and that there have been arguments over funding. So this campaign is not "misleading" but quoting an argument between government departments over the lab which is true and which I understood from the article. You haven't read it properly, either that or you have some kind of personal disagreement with the campaign ; )

The article refers to an argument within the government about the lab and doesn't claim that the goverment uses these quotes to criticise the lab. It is true that there are MPs who have criticsed the lab plans and that there have been arguments over funding. So this campaign is not "misleading" but quoting an argument between government departments over the lab which is true and which I understood from the article. You haven't read it properly, either that or you have some kind of personal disagreement with the campaign ; )

Sorry "Norvello" but £300 million of public funds are to be used for the lab. Get your head out of your arse...this is a good campaign.

The quotes were used in the original post to suggest that the decision to give the lab any funding was irrational and in bad faith. Look at the top of the page:

--
'A parliamentary report says of funding the lab : "We are at a loss to understand the rationale behind this behaviour" and "It is hardly redolent of good faith".'
--

There's a vast difference between "funding the lab" and "the way the lab is funded". There's a massive difference between "funding the lab at all is a bad idea"; and "the specific way the lab is funded needs to be improved because they should get more cash from the Treasury". That's not splitting hairs - that's crucial. The MPs weren't saying the Treasury shouldn't give the lab cash in that section; they were attacking them for being stingy (the MPs aren't a government department, incidentally).

And I've never said it wouldn't cost taxpayers £300 million. Of course it will - it's in the report. The whole thing will cost £500 million, at the very least.

Hmm. Let's look what else those critical MPs said. Oh yes - "We should very much like to see the project succeed. We believe that a centre of such ambition would place the UK firmly at the forefront of world-class medical research, with substantial benefits for the public as well as for British science."

We need housing here not this lab. £300 million would be better spent on housing.

We are residents who do not want this lab. Norvello is clearly working for the MRC and seems to be against Camden residents requests that housing is built in place of the lab.

Some of these residents support vivisection but are against the lab.

You are the one in the wrong. The campaign people have said that £300 million of public funds will be used on the lab and that there have been arguments about in government. There is aparliamentray report where the comments are made. The person [whoever he or she is] was quoting the reports as they are written. It is you who has put bias on it. You obviously work for the MRC so will be biased but you are just point scoring against residents in Camden which is petty and unprofessional of the MRC.

Looks like it.

Looks like it.

The priority for our campaign is our community. Having spoken to people including those with pharmaceutical careers there is an overwhelming feeling that there has been a distinct lack of consultation and an overwhelming opinion that housing and other businesses should be placed on the site. The argument for most people lving here is not one of whether or not the MRC present excellence, world class expertise or none but that of lab v housing, that of safety and appropriate use of the land. It is important that local people are aware that different members of and workers within the govt do disagree over important issues regarding the lab.

We are concerned that questions from resident communities regarding a possible link between the UKCMRI project and the UK Border Agency have still not been answered.

These issues are more important to most people living here rather than an argument about vivisection. We do of recognise that animal cruelty and possible reprisals because of this will affect the community and that this too is another reason not to build the lab here.

It is important that these serious issues are addressed rather than get into pointless point scoring with an agent from a government department about a newspaper article who hasn't even looked at the article regarding 28 Days Later on our FB webpage then makes false statements as to whether it exists when it clearly does. A newspaper article isn't going to get the lab built nor stop it from being built, it is simply news.

 http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=10876&id=175834579&1=5ad709d3bf