I received a letter from my MP today about Norman BLOODY Baker

[Hiney]

which contained the text of letter he had received from Norman Baker:

Doesn't say anything we don't already know but he's got a PROPER bee in his bonnet about Prescott and the Hull game!

Also, look at the comment at the end - well you could have fooled me Norman!

TWAT

 

[bhaexpress]

We all know he's a wanker but that little affirmation just echos our sentiments.

 

[sir danny cullip]

Fair play, at least he replied.

 

[The Large One]

'I am convinced that there are other sites...'

Sorry, Brighton & Hove City Council, in its role as local planning authority, Her Majesty's Planning Inspectorate Planning Inspector and the Her Majesty's Government all disagree, and believe that there is only one site suitable and available - around half a mile west of the village of Falmer in the local ward of Moulsecoomb. Now where is this evidence upon which you base this surmation?

Note to LDC lawyers/CPS. Can this man be prosecuted/sectioned for being such a twat?

 

[Pavilionaire]

The fact that Prescott has been exposed as a hypocritical, wife-cheating, ministerial position-abusing twat in recent days further supports the anti-Falmer position that his judgement and conduct are both badly flawed.

 

[1066gull]

My form tutor keeps banging on about 'Prezza broke the law, you cannot do that because if you did anything can be allowed to happen' blah blah.

He said it is nothing to do with the football club. How can I win a loosing battle?

 

[The Large One]

The fact that Prescott has been exposed as a hypocritical, wife-cheating, ministerial position-abusing twat in recent days further supports the anti-Falmer position that his judgement and conduct are both badly flawed.

Does that mean you disagree with the way he came to his decision about Falmer? Or do you just worry unnecessarily?

Prescott didn't decide on Falmer on his own, you know.

 

[Rangdo]

But what other sites :sigh:

 

[Pavilionaire]

Does that mean you disagree with the way he came to his decision about Falmer? Or do you just worry unnecessarily?

Prescott didn't decide on Falmer on his own, you know.

What's with the rolling eyes? Prescott is ultimately responsible for the decision. LDC say he's ignored the evidence of his inspectors (which he has) and the basis for his decision is against government policy, i.e. he's a f***ing tosspot.

The fact that in the last week he has been exposed as a f***ing tosspot doesn't help.

The Yes decision was correct but despite taking an inordinate amount of time to reach it the text still contained basic errors.

 

[Screaming J]

What's with the rolling eyes? Prescott is ultimately responsible for the decision. LDC say he's ignored the evidence of his inspectors (which he has) and the basis for his decision is against government policy, i.e. he's a f***ing tosspot.

The fact that in the last week he has been exposed as a f***ing tosspot doesn't help.

The Yes decision was correct but despite taking an inordinate amount of time to reach it the text still contained basic errors.

1) Inspectors advise. Secretaries of state decide. Prezza is legally permitted to ignore Inspectors advice when reaching his decisions.

2) The Government will reject the argument that the decision is agaisnt Govt. policy. The only point in Lewes's case they will concede is that many people wrongly assumed that all of the site was in the legally defined 'urban area' of Brighton; presumably because some teenage scribbler in the Council's pen slipped. As this wasn't the fundamental reason why the scheme was approved the decision shouldn't be reversed.

3) Foolish randy old goat tho' he may be; lets face it if Prescott single handedly rescued 15 orphans from a blazing buillding Norman Baker (also not so whiter than white in the shagging dept so NSC has been told) would still find some way of saying that his actions broke the ministerial code of conduct.

 

[Everest]

Norman Baker (also not so whiter than white in the shagging dept so NSC has been told)

Do we know what the latest on this is? Please LB?

 

[The Large One]

What's with the rolling eyes? Prescott is ultimately responsible for the decision. LDC say he's ignored the evidence of his inspectors (which he has) and the basis for his decision is against government policy, i.e. he's a f***ing tosspot.

The fact that in the last week he has been exposed as a f***ing tosspot doesn't help.

The Yes decision was correct but despite taking an inordinate amount of time to reach it the text still contained basic errors.

One basic error. Granted, it shouldn't have contained any, but Lewes were going to challenge anyway.

No, he didn't ignore the advice of the Inspectors. He considered all evidence and merely gave more weight to the mitigating evidence of the stadium design and lanscaping than to the evidence that the stadium would seriously affect the AONB.

The idea that the stadium decision is against government policy is not correct. Lewes were claiming his decision was illegal. This, the Treasury Solicitor has said, has no basis in law. The government is adamant that Lewes are wrong about this.

He wasn't exposed as a 'f***ing tosspot' last week - no mention of his drinking was made. He was merely exposed as someone who was shagging someone other than his wife. Shock, Horror. Last week's expose makes NO difference to the government decision on the stadium, even in the unlikely event of his resignation.