Skip to content

‘The Renounced redacted Letter’.

February 25, 2012

I just had a look at ‘the letter’, stone me!!

Letter to Admin court.

Some twit has got an old typewriter out and managed to bamboozle Cook and a few other duff councillors and employees.

Good old Evening Toast jumps in feet first and ends up with a red face.

As I understand it the letter was written by the applicants stepson who now has power of attorney.

Whatever, the judge has decided the case must continue.
Quite right too.

As for Cook and co. they need to come up with some hasty backtracking apologies like soon. Experienced politicians like them and the council legal team should have smelled a rat a mile away and engaged brain before opening their traps.

Advertisements
29 Comments
  1. February 25, 2012 8:37 am

    Call me old fashioned but I thought these letters had to have a bit of lawyers input, like the original lawyers for the applicant? Or can they just be dismissed and any old hack take over with no witnesses?

  2. bobs permalink
    February 25, 2012 9:34 am

    Rich, on 23 February 2012 – 11:05 PM, said:
    Unfortunately I fear you may be hitting a nail somewhere near it’s head. I can’t remeber where, but I think I read that this decision will be used as a test case by the legal profession for fuure cases.

    More bullshit Rich:

    1. TVG cases have been going to Court for 100s of years. The last 12 years has seen the House of Lords side with the TVGers 4 times

    2. The principle that you can’t after a case has finished and been decided by an appointed Inspector, submit new evidence and change the decision of the Inspector without going back to the Inspector who made that decision or testing the new evidence – this was made law ages ago and reaffirmed just 3 years ago by the Courts. So no test there.

    3. The prinicple that a sane man can be forced to make another man his legal guardian and then let that legal guardian write letters in his name, whilst no one gives a shit because they are getting their new stadium and they don’t care that no one has seen the man for days (except for the rumour that he is on holiday with his new guardian) – only in Bristol is this considered legal. Lets see what a london High Court judge thinks.

  3. thebristolblogger permalink
    February 25, 2012 10:24 am

    It’s getting like Argentina in the 70s here. We now have “the disappeared” in Bristol.

  4. bobs permalink
    February 25, 2012 10:30 am

    Sorry – yes. This practice was considered legal in Argentina and Chile in the 1970s. It is also considered acceptible in Bagdad and Kabul under both local and US law.

    But in the UK, the only authority that I am aware of which both (i) approves of this practice and (ii) is happy to be complicit in covering it up – is Bristol under joint party rule.

    No word even from the Labour party to condemn the cover up by the Council !

  5. thebristolblogger permalink
    February 25, 2012 1:06 pm

    But why would anyone care about the disappeared of Argentina and boring stuff like due process? They won the World Cup in ’78. That’s what counts!

  6. February 26, 2012 9:42 am

    I can’t really see why Cook and Holt will appeal the decision of the judge to allow the case to continue. Other than to try and save face.
    There is a case to answer and the council must let the JR run its course if they wish to retain any credibility they’ve got left.

  7. Richard Lane permalink
    February 26, 2012 10:51 pm

    BobS
    You claim bullshit with my comment, yet come out with the biggest load of bullshit I’ve ever read, as in : “The principle that you can’t after a case has finished and been decided by an appointed Inspector, submit new evidence and change the decision of the Inspector without going back to the Inspector who made that decision or testing the new evidence – this was made law ages ago and reaffirmed just 3 years ago by the Courts. So no test there”.

    Firstly there was no decision, there was only a recommendation from the inspector, surely you remember that. She said this is a reccomendation and it’s up to the council to make the decision.

    Secondly, the review had not finished, and as such more evidence was then put forward. If the roles were reversed you would have liked the opportunity to present more evidence. The fact no more evidence was put forward from your side is only proof that there was no more evidence.

    As for my statement, I only stated what I think I’ve read somewhere. I sought no gain, I merely wanted to inform people what might be happening. Why attack me for that? Those are the actions of a paranoid madman.

  8. bobs permalink
    February 26, 2012 11:17 pm

    Richard Lane states “Those are the actions of a paranoid madman.”

    Are you planning to extend this policy of deciding who is mad, and then appointing legal guardians over them to change their opinions of the stadium ?

  9. bobs permalink
    February 26, 2012 11:19 pm

    This is the new legal guardian and sole representative of Bobs.

    Bobs rertracts all his prior opinions about the stadium, the green belt, climate change and the role of supermarkets in controlling our food supply. He now thinks that the world should be destryed for the financial benefit of some of the people of bristol.

    Bos has gone on holiday and won’t be back for some time.

  10. Richard Lane permalink
    February 26, 2012 11:24 pm

    BobS
    When I referred to a possible test case, It could be because this actual scenario has not been the norm in other TVG applications and is definately more high profile.
    Perhaps it’s because it was thought that it would become a precident for future housebuilding on greenbelt land, I don’t know why.
    It is a very large TVG that has been applied for.
    It is on land that was formerly in commercial use.
    I honestly cannot remember why it was mentioned as a test case or where it was mentioned, only that it was.
    If that is the case, it can only be good for your side, as it enables you to delay the stadium building still further, so why attack me for raising the point?

  11. Richard Lane permalink
    February 26, 2012 11:33 pm

    BobS
    It would appear from your recent comments that my description is correct.
    You were wrong about the inspection being finished and wrong about there being a decision by the inspector instead of a recommendation, yet you don’t mention it in your follow up comments, I wonder why.
    Perhaps you’re lying.
    BobS the confirmed liar, read all about it in the latest edition of paranoia news.

  12. Richard Lane permalink
    February 26, 2012 11:48 pm

    Sacredspring
    Your words: ” can’t really see why Cook and Holt will appeal the decision of the judge to allow the case to continue. Other than to try and save face”.
    Apparently it’s not the same case or JR, it’s a new one.
    I might be wrong but, isn’t there a time limit of 90 days in which to apply for a JR? I’m obviously not a legal expert and I know that you lot are all members of the legal profession. So could one of you experts please explain to this numpty, how a decision to award a JR is made when there is no representation from one of the parties being present, or being allowed to submit their version of events.
    Sounds like Argentina in the 70s to me.

  13. Richard Lane permalink
    February 27, 2012 12:00 am

    Billious Bill
    The person you refer to having dissappeared, has only dissappeared from those that have so far exploited his circumstances to their advantage.
    He’s probably in a safe house now, away from all the pressure which was applied to him. Funny how he’s getting the stick which people accused football fans of giving him, from the people that used him and so say supported him.

    BobS
    Of course I’m going to increase the use of this dissapearance policy and granting of legal powers to all city fans over TVG supporters.
    As I am the main man (not excluding my other self) in all of this cloak and dagger affair, I think it only proper to do so, Meeeester Bob.

  14. February 27, 2012 7:59 am

    The council and Lansdowns crew were allowed to submit so-called new evidence which may well have been dodgy.
    The JR as I see it is to decide if the new evidence should be subject to scutiny as would have happened if it hadn’t magically appeared after the Ross Crail hearing and just been accepted at face value by the PROW committee.
    Doesn’t make any difference who the leading name is, although the substitution has now got a number of serious questions surrounding the way in which the original applicant has been treated.

  15. thebristolblogger permalink
    February 27, 2012 9:10 am

    So could one of you experts please explain to this numpty, how a decision to award a JR is made when there is no representation from one of the parties being present, or being allowed to submit their version of events.

    The review will be allowed to continue on the basis of the simple legal principle that courts dislike the nobbling of witnesses.

    If all you had to do in public law judicial review cases was pay off/threaten/remove the human rights of the claimant and the case ended then everybody would be doing it wouldn’t they?

  16. thebristolblogger permalink
    February 27, 2012 10:23 am

    Quick! Read all about it!

    The unredacted letter has now been published: http://bristol.indymedia.org/article/707746

  17. Richard Lane permalink
    February 27, 2012 10:00 pm

    Bristol Blogger

    You tried hard but didn’t answer my question, did you Bill?

    Nobbling of witnesses?
    Pay offs?
    Threats?
    Removal of human rights?
    One persons warped interpretation of events. Your not BobS as well are you?

    Read all about it folks, I’ve just posted the letter on indymedia, says Bill.

    I hope you don’t fall foul of your claims. Actually thinking about it, I do.

  18. thebristolblogger permalink
    February 27, 2012 11:58 pm

    Dickie,

    I was giving examples not making claims. I was referring to ‘public law judicial review cases’ in general. Not a specific one.

    Do try and keep up.

  19. Bobs permalink
    February 28, 2012 2:39 pm

    Bobs’s legal guardian would like to confirm that Bobs is glad that Richard Lane posts so many times on this site, with such repetitiive nonsense.

    In case anyone doubt’s that BobS has truly given over his powers to his legal guardian, I have just made him sign another letter confirming it is true. There – that proves it doesnt it.

  20. thebristolblogger permalink
    February 28, 2012 8:07 pm

    I’m currently waiting for Stephen McNamara to leak me the documents proving Bobs has granted Bobs Jnr power of attorney.

    They’ll be with me as soon as Mr McNamara has stupidly appended his digital signature to all the documents.

  21. Richard Lane permalink
    February 28, 2012 9:56 pm

    Bristol Blogger

    Willy baby, you are back tracking over what you’ve said.

    You claim :
    “The review will be allowed to continue on the basis of the simple legal principle that courts dislike the nobbling of witnesses”.

    You also claim :
    “If all you had to do in public law judicial review cases was pay off/threaten/remove the human rights of the claimant and the case ended then everybody would be doing it wouldn’t they?”
    These are your quotes. In them you refer to nobbling of witnesses, pay offs, threats and the removal of human rights. They are not examples, they are your opinions and as such are your claims regarding what has occured during recent events surrounding the JR about the councils decision to split the site at Ashton vale.

  22. thebristolblogger permalink
    February 28, 2012 10:02 pm

    Dickie,

    pay off/threaten/remove the human rights of the claimant are mutually exclusive. You only need to do one of them not them all.

    Remind me not to invite you to join my mafia organisation. You’d be a disaster.

  23. Richard Lane permalink
    February 28, 2012 10:11 pm

    BobS

    Still persisting with the personal attacks then?
    Repetitive nonsense is when you constantly make claims about things which are totally wrong.

    I repeat.
    You were wrong about the inspection being finished, when new evidence was submitted and you were wrong about there being a decision by the inspector, instead of a recommendation, yet you don’t mention it in your follow up comments. Instead you continue with pointless attacks, I wonder why.

    Why don’t you have the balls to admit you were wrong?
    Perhaps you do need a legal guardian.

  24. Richard Lane permalink
    February 28, 2012 10:24 pm

    Bristol Blogger

    Will me old cocker.

    So to nobble is exclusive, isn’t it!. And any one of the aforementioned claims is exclusive.

    So you have claimed. “You only need to do one of them not them all”.

    Here are your revised claims then.

    A. That someone has been nobbled.

    B. That someone has either been, paid off, threatened or had their human rights removed.

    Pretty conclusive claims to me.

    What mafia were you in? I expect you’ll soon recieve an offer you can’t refuse, on that evidence.

  25. thebristolblogger permalink
    February 29, 2012 7:17 am

    Dickie,

    Why do you keep repeating everything I write? Is it some sort of condition?

  26. Richard Lane permalink
    February 29, 2012 10:45 pm

    Bristol Blogger

    Billy baby, I repeat everything you write, as conclusive evidence that you have made certain claims, which you deny making.

    Those claims are that.

    A. Someone nobbled the witness.

    B. That someone has either been, paid off, threatened or had their human rights removed.

    All we want now is, who you think carried out these claims.

  27. Richard Lane permalink
    February 29, 2012 10:47 pm

    Any word from BobS yet?

  28. bobs permalink
    March 1, 2012 8:42 am

    Bobs is still on holiday with his new legal guardian.

    He wants to state that he was pressurised to write all that stuff about how Rich Lane talks shite.

  29. Richard Lane permalink
    March 1, 2012 8:13 pm

    BobS

    I’ll take that as your admission of being wrong and your apology.
    Even though it’s utter shite.

Comments are closed.