Jump to content

Stop the felling of the St Marks Elms


Amadeus
 Share

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Trackman said:

It is so kind of you to suggest alternative entrances into the applicant's land and to have a good go at him/her too. I assume he owns the land and in our free society can enter it how he likes. It is akin to your neighbour opposite not wishing you to enter your house by the front door and asking you to use the back door instead. I am sure you would not mind obliging. You would tell them to mind their own business and that's what you should be doing. This applicant lawfully submitted an application to make changes as suited him. It doesn't matter why he did, he just followed a lawful process. The application was successful. That is not his fault. The blame lies indirectly with all of you. It is YOUR Government's process and policies that have been applied. These policies have been sanctioned by YOUR Government. YOUR MHKs are in a position to affect these policies. YOU put the MHKs into Tynwald. DEFA, under which Planning falls is a Department of YOUR Government. Perversely DEFA also has within its remit the Nature Conservation staff. If there is flak to give out then at least send it in the right direction.

 

I am not related to the applicant, I do not even know who it is, but then again, that is none of my business, is it?

There's nothing particularly wrong with the process, which has operated for years but produced only moderate grumbles now and then. This one has become controversial because somebody's judgement erred this time.

What's aggravated the matter is that Perkins is still defending it as "regrettable but necessary", which means his political judgement (representing constituents' views) can no longer be trusted - his presence in the planning process will now mean not a single tree can be felled without a petition being started. Council of Ministers (or whoever hires and fires)  will have to jettison him and hope the mud sticks to him and not the planning process.

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/24/2021 at 8:50 AM, Roger Mexico said:

Is this Barrowman?  This is Ballavarvane Farm - I think his property is Ballakew on the other side of the road.

As I understand it, he bought the farm immediately opposite Ballakew a few years back. Whether that extends to, and includes Ballavarvave, I do not know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trackman said:

It is akin to your neighbour opposite not wishing you to enter your house by the front door and asking you to use the back door instead.

Except it's not.

Nothing like.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Barlow said:

Andy WInt  will see it as an ambush. He often says on air "it is your programme" when it is more The Wonderful Andy Wint Opinion and Teaching Show.

The caller spoke well and knowledgeably and there was nowhere for Wint to jump in and change the direction, as he often does.

There was another caller asking why access to legal representation was so difficult here and why couldn't we adopt no-win, no-fee like the UK.  All Wint could say is we are not the UK.  

He really is a waste of space, arrogant condescending and often ill-informed. 

Edited by Gladys
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Annoymouse said:

Is it only the fact that it’s mature Elm trees? , if it was a different type of tree I assume nobody would care less.

Of course it's because of the Elms. If it was just a load of Oak trees it would be fine. Oak trees can piss off.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Gladys said:

There was another caller asking why access to legal representation was so difficult here and why couldn't we adopt no-win, no-fee like the UK.  All Wint could say is we are not the UK.  

He really is a waste of space, arrogant condescending and often ill-informed. 

Yes he really couldn't get his head around his argument!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

There was another caller asking why access to legal representation was so difficult here and why couldn't we adopt no-win, no-fee like the UK

Why haven't we gone down this route then? I would also be interested to know the reason.

Apart from money - it's always about money.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, finlo said:

Yes he really couldn't get his head around his argument!

No, he couldn't,  just kept repeating we are not the UK.  He did, however, enlighten us all by saying it would require legislation and the support of the profession.  No shit Sherlock.

As to why we don't, it could be as simple as not much money to be made and, at the end of the day, lawyers are businesses with stonking overheads to support.  The no-win, no-fee type case in the UK is probably underwritten by other fee-earning activity in the practice.   Also, I suppose there has to be enough compensation litigation to increase the odds of successful cases to justify the no-wins.  The fees are taken from monetary awards.  Not sure that we have much of that type of litigation here.  Potential litigants will also have to understand that no-hopers would not be taken on no matter how strong they think their case is. 

Legal aid, however, is very narrow and a lot of people fall into the 'earn too much to qualify but not enough to afford it' category. 

I am sure John can explain why.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Trackman said:

It is so kind of you to suggest alternative entrances into the applicant's land and to have a good go at him/her too. I assume he owns the land and in our free society can enter it how he likes. It is akin to your neighbour opposite not wishing you to enter your house by the front door and asking you to use the back door instead. I am sure you would not mind obliging. You would tell them to mind their own business and that's what you should be doing. This applicant lawfully submitted an application to make changes as suited him. It doesn't matter why he did, he just followed a lawful process. The application was successful. That is not his fault. The blame lies indirectly with all of you. It is YOUR Government's process and policies that have been applied. These policies have been sanctioned by YOUR Government. YOUR MHKs are in a position to affect these policies. YOU put the MHKs into Tynwald. DEFA, under which Planning falls is a Department of YOUR Government. Perversely DEFA also has within its remit the Nature Conservation staff. If there is flak to give out then at least send it in the right direction

You can’t argue with that. Although the YOU/YOUR in higher case is really annoying.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gladys said:

There was another caller asking why access to legal representation was so difficult here and why couldn't we adopt no-win, no-fee like the UK.  All Wint could say is we are not the UK.  

He really is a waste of space, arrogant condescending and often ill-informed. 

One of his repostes was that there are advocates who will work pro bona, what's your problem, sort of thing.

To throw that up into the discussion as he did, was entirely misplaced and just shows what an arrogant knuckle head the man is. Once again he was just showing off some of his little knowledge and tried to use it to show how clever he is.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

/bot

Planning stuff not mentioning trees and stating no car crashes (or even near misses/near hits), and politicians squirming before an election.

Treegate

Edited by Barlow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Gladys said:

No, he couldn't,  just kept repeating we are not the UK.  He did, however, enlighten us all by saying it would require legislation and the support of the profession.  No shit Sherlock.

As to why we don't, it could be as simple as not much money to be made and, at the end of the day, lawyers are businesses with stonking overheads to support.  The no-win, no-fee type case in the UK is probably underwritten by other fee-earning activity in the practice.   Also, I suppose there has to be enough compensation litigation to increase the odds of successful cases to justify the no-wins.  The fees are taken from monetary awards.  Not sure that we have much of that type of litigation here.  Potential litigants will also have to understand that no-hopers would not be taken on no matter how strong they think their case is. 

Legal aid, however, is very narrow and a lot of people fall into the 'earn too much to qualify but not enough to afford it' category. 

I am sure John can explain why.  

No win no fee has been a disaster for people wanting to sue.  It’s been a boom for ATE insurers who sell policies that protect no win no fee litigants from adverse cost orders if they lose.

It actually reduces access to justice in the over regulated, small markup if you win, English, no win no fee legal market. It’s not UK wide, just England.

if you get a 10% markup ( that’s common, not 100% or a cut of the damages ) if you win that has to cover all your losing cases. So you’ve got to win 9 to afford to lose 1. So, under legal aid it’s 50%+1 to justify proceeding. So many fewer cases get taken on. You only do the ones you can win. It leaves those with weaker, but still winnable, cases by the way side and means there’s nothing in representing someone to mitigate.

Then there’s the question of how you fund out of pocket expenses. Medical, engineering, surveyors, etc. Who pays for them? If they only get paid in winning cases you risk them over egging their independent reports.

Then there’s the horrendous side litigation about costs. That’s a spin off. Nearly 10% of all hearings nowadays are about the validity of conditional fee agreements, the amount of uplift allowed, whether the adverse costs cover is voided by lawyers giving over optimistic estimates of the merits when they take out the cost protection cover.

And having an interest in the outcome gives a lawyer a direct conflict with the interests of his client.

There’s lots wrong with our courts and legal system. But it’s a paragon by comparison to England. No win no fee isn’t in the interests of anyone. Even an unregulated system like in USA where 50% of damages might get swallowed up. Who pays, well, we all pay, by higher insurance premiums, Doctors not taking on patients without checking litigation history. Obs & Gynae insurance almost impossible, making that care out of reach.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Barlow said:

One of his repostes was that there are advocates who will work pro bona, what's your problem, sort of thing.

To throw that up into the discussion as he did, was entirely misplaced and just shows what an arrogant knuckle head the man is. Once again he was just showing off some of his little knowledge and tried to use it to show how clever he is.

Pro bona?. That’s gay law polari/palaree from the Julian & Sandy book of practical law by Ken Horne, Kenneth Williams and Hugh Paddick. 

Ive always done lots of pro bono work. But it’s not suitable for disputes of this sort.

Last night an MHK contacted me with a constituent issue. I’ve known the politician all our adult lives. It’s a not uncommon occurrence. 4 or 5 e-mails, bit of research. That’s how pro Bono usually works. Or for a charity, or a deserving case with a public interest.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ten minutes ago I had a look around the Elm trees and have a few observations. The application which is now announced on the radio as a road safety issue is horse shit ! The entrance to the old garden centre in the bottom of the road on a bend is far more difficult than the locus of this. It seems blindingly obvious to me that the application has little to do with the house entrance on the left towards Douglas, but everything to do with the entrance on the right ! The reasons behind this are so transparent to anyone with half a brain that you can read a book through them ! Why Perkins hasn't stopped to think what it's all about is beyond me. There is no anecdotal evidence of road traffic issues at the locus so thats a red herring, as I say the application is all about the entrance on the right and you draw your own conclusions. Planning are clearly very easily led !

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...