| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The 1871 Act is Law | |
| Posted by: | John Cameron | |
| Date/Time: | 29/04/18 08:51:00 |
| @ Andy 1. Are you suggesting that an Act of Parliament is changed to facilitate a pub gaining a beer garden on common land. Who would realistically support this? The trustees couldn’t for a start, as it would not be in the interests of the charity. 2. The Act is clear, and the trustees legal duty is to uphold the Act. To not do so is unlawful and deliberate misconduct by the Trustees. This will be a matter for the Charity Commission, who are already dealing with Lee and Whyte’s lies and the collusion to cover up the undersale of land. I guess the CC just add it to the list. 3. The Spencer has 8 benches outside. Not an unreasonable number. Customers in fine weather can take their beer to the common, and enjoy it. 4. The Act was well drafted when it was enacted by Parliament. It has, subject to the failures of the Conservators done what it was meant to do. Proctect the common. 5. The planning application is a change of use for five years, to a licensed consent to use it commercially. The use is unlawful 6. No need to change the law. The need is for the Conservators to enforce the Act and do what they were appointed / elected to do, but don’t. To protect the common, for everyone today and future generation. 7. Creating a beer garden for the enjoyment of a few, and the commercial benefit of a pub is unlawful under the Act. The Conservators defence is a flawed ‘consultation’ conducted by managment who made a ‘deliberate misrepresentation’. to the planners over the application, to gain a financial advantage. The Spencer did so as well. The planners made the Spencer pull the application. The planners are not pursuing the deceit, but were lied to. 8. Have the Conservators learned nothing from their recent mismanagement? Will they keep making the same poor judgement calls based on their bravado and flawed thinking that they know best? |