A profanity filter is employed. Please use a valid e-mail with your message and a valid name if at all possible. Please keep to the posters subject.
RICHMOND WATCHDOG OPEN FORUM
 Subject: The Implications.
 
Author: R H
Date:   11/3/2001 2:49 pm WEDT

Councillor Mann's excuses are unworthy. While he talks as if a planning Inquiry is nothing more than a lottery, others labour under the illusion that Inquiries are supposed to bring all the relevant evidence comes to light in order to arrive at the fairest possible outcome. In stark contrast to any such hope, we have the deliberation in question, diametrically opposed by nature and intention to any such ethos.

Indeed, if it had not been performed in bad faith, why else would it subsequently be denied that the secret meeting ever took place? Why else would they, for twelve years, persistently duck, dive and twist to deny the evidence and the implications?

Make no mistake, the Watley notes clearly inculpated the Council in stating that "Doubt exists as to whether LET have any intention of building the present pool/ice rink scheme.", the point being that in so far as that was the case, the notion of 'compensation' was nothing less an ingenious but profoundly dishonest intention to sell a planning permission. Notwithstanding Councillor Mann's protestation to the effect that this sort of corruption was par for the course in 1989, the fact is that Local Authorities were never entitled to sell permissions.

Let us please be clear about this, the complaint here is that the public were deliberately deceived. As Mr. Meacock has pointed out: David Williams wrote hundreds of letters to skaters, some considerable time after his clandestine meeting, assuring them all that a new rink would be built. The Council leaders ran a dual agenda, pretending that the Ice Rink was to be replaced, albeit that the real intention to take the money instead had already been settled.

Let us also be clear that the subsequent proceedings in the High Court in no sense negated any of these facts and implications. On the contrary, three Appeal Judges all agreed that there was cause for concern. The appeal was dismissed only because it was deemed to be too late and that in itself was a gross injustice because the delay was entirely the fault of the culprits, not the appellant. It is simply not possible to appeal in good time against a confidential decision that has not yet been discovered.

I came to all this with an open mind and the more I look at it all the less I like it.

Sincerely,

Ron Harvey
Reply To This Message

 Topics Author  Date      
 Real Issues of Concern   new  
Richard Meacock 11/1/2001 5:35 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 7:13 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 10:45 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
Richard Meacock 11/1/2001 11:13 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 11:32 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 11:54 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 11:56 am WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
Voter 11/1/2001 1:18 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
In need of more help 11/1/2001 2:58 pm WEDT
 STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
J. Watley 11/2/2001 0:10 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
Trevor Clarke 11/2/2001 11:59 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
R H 11/2/2001 12:21 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
Knowledgeable 11/2/2001 1:20 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
R H 11/2/2001 3:31 pm WEDT
 Still Waiting.   new  
R H 2/24/2002 6:36 pm WEDT
 RE: Still Waiting.   new  
Laurence Mann 2/25/2002 1:08 pm WEDT
 Minutes   new  
R H 2/25/2002 2:07 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
Cllr Laurence Mann 11/2/2001 8:46 pm WEDT
 The Implications.    
R H 11/3/2001 2:49 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
Cllr Laurence Mann 11/3/2001 10:05 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
Anthony P Berend 11/4/2001 0:35 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
RichardMeacock 11/4/2001 8:41 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 7:56 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
Trevor Clarke 11/4/2001 10:43 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 7:46 pm WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
Anthony P Berend 11/5/2001 0:35 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
Richard Meacock 11/5/2001 7:55 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.     
Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 11:27 am WEDT
 RE: The Implications.   new  
Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 10:38 am WEDT
 Statistics.   new  
R H 11/8/2001 3:55 pm WEDT
 RE: Statistics.   new  
Laurence Mann 11/9/2001 9:09 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
Anthony P Berend 11/4/2001 0:05 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL?   new  
Cllr Laurence Mann 11/4/2001 9:03 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
Public Service Information 11/2/2001 8:37 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
Knightsbridge LET Staff member 11/3/2001 10:23 am WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
Trevor Clarke 11/4/2001 10:36 pm WEDT
 RE: STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL   new  
Laurence Mann 11/5/2001 10:27 am WEDT
 Purpose?   new  
R H 11/8/2001 3:23 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 3:14 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
Trevor Clarke 11/1/2001 4:47 pm WEDT
 RE: Real Issues of Concern   new  
Cllr Laurence Mann 11/1/2001 8:07 pm WEDT
 Reply To This Message
 Your Name:  
 Your Email:  
 Subject:  
  Submission Validation Question: What is 58 + 15? *  
* indicates required field
     

Sexist, Racist, Rude or unnecessary messages will be removed. Tolerance to anonymous messages will be at the discretion of the administration body. Anyone who insults the owner of this forum will be barred for life. No adverts permitted.