tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1070370525847441676.post2135471971299107385..comments2024-03-19T06:10:57.511-07:00Comments on Zoompad's blog: DID FRANK WALKER NOMINATE HIMSELF?Zoompadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10241773679644853620noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1070370525847441676.post-74535105869098200472011-02-05T14:16:01.686-08:002011-02-05T14:16:01.686-08:00I never thought of that, thats a really good point...I never thought of that, thats a really good point and I will use it in the letter, thanks. xxZoompadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10241773679644853620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1070370525847441676.post-14408501871845339632011-02-05T10:52:06.715-08:002011-02-05T10:52:06.715-08:00If a member of the public wishes to nominate a cer...If a member of the public wishes to nominate a certain person for an honour why would that person need protection?<br /><br />The nominee is being nominated for public service to there community.<br /><br />The person who does nominate a member of the public does so freely hopefully with integrity and by there own choice<br /><br />Why would a nominee need protection if the nomination is made with integrity the very fact of there being no protection would be more in the public interest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1070370525847441676.post-82301864062879281492011-02-05T10:51:19.004-08:002011-02-05T10:51:19.004-08:00That's a good idea. I will. xxThat's a good idea. I will. xxZoompadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10241773679644853620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1070370525847441676.post-33631701176970603242011-02-05T07:15:17.446-08:002011-02-05T07:15:17.446-08:00Send him the paxman interview and every piece of i...Send him the paxman interview and every piece of information you have on the Jersey Child Abuse InvestigationAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1070370525847441676.post-25041085785055161902011-02-05T06:03:55.365-08:002011-02-05T06:03:55.365-08:00This letter I have recieved seems a bit mad to me....This letter I have recieved seems a bit mad to me. Or am I reading it all wrong? To me, its sets out the argument that the public has a right to know who nominated people, but then it seems to just throw out this feeble clause excuse for saying NO. <br /><br />Will someone please help me with this, as there does not seem to be any logic to it, and there must be, these people are lawyers and all sorts. I just can't make any sense out of it, and I have got to write back to this chap. Please help me understand this letter.Zoompadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10241773679644853620noreply@blogger.com