sullyupthewing
New member
I KEPT MY WORD NOT TO APPEAL
Several letters in the Argus have recently suggested I went back on my word,after LDC legal challenge overJohn Prescott said yes to Falmer Stadium.
This is untrue, I said after he made his decision that, whileI thought it was wrong and politically motavated I wouldn't challenge it-and I haven't.
After Prescott gave his approval my public comments haven't been on the rights and wrongs LDC's action but have reiterated my well-known views on the stadium.
From day one,I havebeen infavour of a stadium for the club,just not one at Falmer.
I wasn't involved in LDC's decision to take legal action .
I wasn't at the council meeting when it was decided to do so,nor have I seen the background papers which informed the council's view.
There is a lazy tendency to present LDC's move as a narrowLib Dem one. As The Argus correctly reported the decision to appeal was unanimous with full support from the Conservatives.
Those who castigate LDC shouldask why councillors across the political spectrum took the view they did.
It may be convenient for some more excitable readers to pretend a small, unrepresenttative minority is blocking the stadium.
I don't however criticise LDC for taking the view it has. LDC has a different role from mine, in that it is a statutory planning authority. It also has its own democratic mandate.
Opportunist motions in Parliment, slamming the council-a motion which has only been signed by 24 Labour MPs and none from any other party, in Sussex or elsewhere-aren't constructive.
We know why some people want a stadium at Falmer. But do these people understand why those against the stadium feel equally strong about it?
Norman Baker MP Lewes
Oh well same old bollocks from boring Norm.
Funny how he forgot to mention that LDC'S councillors have been gagged, now that is democratic.
Several letters in the Argus have recently suggested I went back on my word,after LDC legal challenge overJohn Prescott said yes to Falmer Stadium.
This is untrue, I said after he made his decision that, whileI thought it was wrong and politically motavated I wouldn't challenge it-and I haven't.
After Prescott gave his approval my public comments haven't been on the rights and wrongs LDC's action but have reiterated my well-known views on the stadium.
From day one,I havebeen infavour of a stadium for the club,just not one at Falmer.
I wasn't involved in LDC's decision to take legal action .
I wasn't at the council meeting when it was decided to do so,nor have I seen the background papers which informed the council's view.
There is a lazy tendency to present LDC's move as a narrowLib Dem one. As The Argus correctly reported the decision to appeal was unanimous with full support from the Conservatives.
Those who castigate LDC shouldask why councillors across the political spectrum took the view they did.
It may be convenient for some more excitable readers to pretend a small, unrepresenttative minority is blocking the stadium.
I don't however criticise LDC for taking the view it has. LDC has a different role from mine, in that it is a statutory planning authority. It also has its own democratic mandate.
Opportunist motions in Parliment, slamming the council-a motion which has only been signed by 24 Labour MPs and none from any other party, in Sussex or elsewhere-aren't constructive.
We know why some people want a stadium at Falmer. But do these people understand why those against the stadium feel equally strong about it?
Norman Baker MP Lewes
Oh well same old bollocks from boring Norm.
Funny how he forgot to mention that LDC'S councillors have been gagged, now that is democratic.
