One law for everyone
This is the first and last time I will comment on the Paul McCartney & Heather Mills divorce case - all divorces are sad and painful events for those concerned, usually with some right and wrong on both sides, and making comments on such cases usually amounts to kicking someone when they are down.
However, I have been following the newspaper coverage and commentary on Heather Mill's action in pouring a jug of water over Sir Paul's lawyer. There have been a great many jokes about this, and then there have been rows over whether those jokes were offensive. However, with one or two honorable exceptions what strikes me as the most important aspect of this incident appears to have been almost completely ignored. That is that "celebrities" should be treated the same by the courts as everyone else.
Supposing that instead of Sir Paul McCartney and the soon-to-be-ex Lady Heather McCartney, these events had taken at the divorce proceedings between Mr Paul Smith and Mrs Heather Smith, a couple for whom a settlement involving an equivalent share of their assets would have had a value of a few thousand pounds instead of millions.
What do you think would have happened to Mrs Heather Smith if she poured a jug of water over her soon-to-be-ex husband's solicitor?
Well, I'd put money on it that Mrs Smith would have found herself spending a few hours in the cells for contempt of court, during which time she would probably have had a visit from a psychiatrist to see if she needed medical help. And if the professional did consider that the lady had a problem requiring medical assistance and might be a threat to herself or others, there is a distinct possibility that she would have been further detained for treatment under section II of the Mental Health Act. I say that as someone who used to hear appeals against section II orders.
People in the public eye should not be treated any more or less favourably than anyone else. I am surprised and disappointed that Heather Mills was allowed to get away with her behaviour.
However, I have been following the newspaper coverage and commentary on Heather Mill's action in pouring a jug of water over Sir Paul's lawyer. There have been a great many jokes about this, and then there have been rows over whether those jokes were offensive. However, with one or two honorable exceptions what strikes me as the most important aspect of this incident appears to have been almost completely ignored. That is that "celebrities" should be treated the same by the courts as everyone else.
Supposing that instead of Sir Paul McCartney and the soon-to-be-ex Lady Heather McCartney, these events had taken at the divorce proceedings between Mr Paul Smith and Mrs Heather Smith, a couple for whom a settlement involving an equivalent share of their assets would have had a value of a few thousand pounds instead of millions.
What do you think would have happened to Mrs Heather Smith if she poured a jug of water over her soon-to-be-ex husband's solicitor?
Well, I'd put money on it that Mrs Smith would have found herself spending a few hours in the cells for contempt of court, during which time she would probably have had a visit from a psychiatrist to see if she needed medical help. And if the professional did consider that the lady had a problem requiring medical assistance and might be a threat to herself or others, there is a distinct possibility that she would have been further detained for treatment under section II of the Mental Health Act. I say that as someone who used to hear appeals against section II orders.
People in the public eye should not be treated any more or less favourably than anyone else. I am surprised and disappointed that Heather Mills was allowed to get away with her behaviour.
Comments
If you or I were involved in a court case and were foolish enough to pour a jug of water over someone else in the courtroom, I'll bet you neither of us would walk away with no punishment - other than being made to look extremely silly by the whole world's media.
If you or I made a Planning Application had it refused, made an Amended Application which was Approved, then deliberately flouted your Planning Approval and Conditions and built the development to the first REFUSED Plan, then I am sure swift action would have been taken against us, and rightly so. In this instance a developer (very friendly with the Council) broke the Highways Act, the Health and Safety at Work Act, and put the public in danger, but Copeland Borough Council refuse to act, refuse any democratic accountability, and refuse to take enforcement action against such unlawful practices.
Don’t start whimpering about it being a Labour controlled Council your Party condones these undemocratic, corrupt practices. You and your Party have done and will do nothing to hold the Officers, they are the problem, to account.
If so, most of the allegations above are not correct and the second paragraph above is complete nonsense.
I am not happy about the way the planning application was handled: I and colleagues have said as much to officers from the Chief Exec downwards. We have also asked for the matter to be brought back to the planning panel. So I do not accept that we have condoned this.
But I have not seen any convincing evidence or argument that the building of the golf course in the wrong place or the diversion of the footpath poses any threat to the safety of the public.
You know my phone number and you know how to get hold of me. If you want to try to convince me that there is a risk to the public, I'm quite willing to meet you on site or see any other evidence you have.
I can see why you won't to, you don't want to upset your chums at the Golf Club.
As for your pathetic comment about "chums at the Golf Club", I do not play golf. I have no idea whether any of my friends in Cumbria do play the game, but none of them have ever mentioned the subject to me. If you think you enhance your case with that kind of silly and inaccurate comment, you are sadly mistaken.
You were approached about this issue last April, nearly a year ago, you weren’t interested even though it’s in your ward. As for the evidence you claim the Officers can produce, where is it? they won’t supply me with it, if you have any such evidence please make it available, send me a copy.
Copeland BC and Cumbria CC REFUSE to take action against the unlawful development, instead they prefer to take action against the Public rather than the perpetrator of the offence. This is completely undemocratic and entirely contrary to the legislation.
The Public, not just me, 60+ million of us have been banned from using the footpath because of the Golf Club's illegal development, why? Because it is dangerous, the Prohibition Order has been in place since 23 June 2006. I have emailed you Cumbria CC’s Health and Safety report on it.
The planning breach, now two years old has never been back before the Planning Panel, Councillors are aware of it but they (you included) repeatedly fail to hold the unelected Council Officers to account to fulfil their duties of enforcing planning control and protecting our rights.
Norman Clarkson, Conservative Councillor who sits on both Copeland BC and Cumbria CC typifies the hypocrisy of our Politicians. One minute he is spouting “It’s no good putting conditions down and not doing anything when they are not fulfilled. They have gone way over the time limit by eight months. It’s time we took some action.” [Whitehaven News 27 March 2008], this about a trivial issue of what some claim to be an eyesore. Yet Mr Clarkson sits there voting through applications that are condoning breaches of Planning Condition, condoning breaking the Highways Act and breaking the Health and Safety at Work Act. Mr Clarkson certainly can not be trusted.
It’s no wonder no-one has any time for you Politicians.
You say that I was "approached" about the issue last April and was not interested. You know perfectly well that this is disingenuous.
I was not yet a Copeland councillor last April. It was actually me that approached you you during last year's election in the sense that I called on you, you raised the issue with me, and I spent some time on your doorstep listening to your concerns.
Subsequent to my election I have spent a considerable amount of time time talking to officers and other councillors about the issues you raised. I happen to think that on some of the issues you raise, you have a point, and the award of costs against you was a very poor decision, but on some other issues, such as the value of the land, I totally disagree with you, and a third group of issues are not as black and white as you insist.
I have pursued the issues on which I think you have raised legitimate concerns, and that includes asking for the issue of how the breach of planning control was dealt with to come back to the planning panel.
I have received your two emails, one 17 page document with your own "Background information" e.g. your evidence to the inspector who heard the previous footpath diversion order, and Judith Chandler's Health and Safety Witness statement about the Helath and Safety issues, which I am digesting. This document does indeed argue that the combination of the Golf course as built and the footpath in its original location would form a hazard, and I accept that. However, it also says that
"A suitable control measure would entail moving that part of the footpath around the outside of the fence this offering reasonable protection to people using this part of the footpath."
I am given to understand that this is precisely what the applicants were asking for a diversion of the footpath in order to do.
If you have any evidence that there is a hazard with the footpath diverted as now proposed I would be interested to see it.
Your comments about Norman Clarkson - who, by the way, is not a member of Copeland's planning panel - are grossly unjust.
As I explained on an earlier thread, the officers have shown me evidence that the Golf course was not under-valued, specifically that the sale price was not cheaper than the valuation. They also explained to me why they do not consider it to be in the public interest to put the precise valuation in the public domain.
Regardless of my personal opinion about the merits of the argument, they are acting within their authority under the law and I am bound by the National Code of Local Government Conduct not to unilaterally release documents or information which the council has classed as confidential.
(The first draft of this comment was deleted so that I could correct a mistake.)
You are like all politicians, you have an opinion on everything, you like to flit about not wanting to get involved in anything contentious for fear of upsetting anyone.
I am still waiting for you getting back to me about our conversation last April.
I notice how you picked up on the lunatic (and she is a lunatic) Judith Chandler's Health and Safety Witness statement - "A suitable control measure would entail moving that part of the footpath around the outside of the fence this offering reasonable protection to people using this part of the footpath”.
Chris, please go and walk on the Imposed Diversion that Judith Chandler thinks is safe.
This was the First proposed diversion and was retracted because the Ramblers Association didn’t think it is safe, I had pointed this out months before but as we know Councils don’t listen to the public. Anyway this dangerous diversion is still imposed on pedestrians today, because Cumbria CC’s Health and Safety Team Leader thinks it’s safe.
The Second proposed diversion isn’t safe either and was rejected after a Public Inquiry by the Planning Inspectorate as not being in the interests of the public. The Planning Inspector even indicated that this diversion would bring unnecessary conflict between golfers and walkers.
Now a Third diversion has been applied for which is virtually identical to the second diversion, and will also bring unnecessary conflict between golfers and walkers. Mr Pomfret [Copeland BC Planning Manager] claimed there was “reasonable justification” for Councillors to support this diversion. What was the “reasonable justification”? Because the applicant applied for it!
Mr Pomfret is not fit for the position he holds, but we know that already.
Anyway, it looks like the Councils (one Labour and one Conservative) are going to waste more time and public money by having another Public Inquiry to decide what one Inspector has already decided – the diversion of the Public Highway is not in the interests of the Public.
I see you won’t supply any evidence to contradict the documentation I sent you.
You only refer to one valuation that must remain classified top secret. This Defective Sale issue is incidental to the illegal obstruction of the highway and Copeland BC’s repeated failure to take enforcement action against it. However when the two issues are married together and then consider the people involved, the former Copeland BC Director of Development, with his understudy Mr Pomfret refusing to take action against the developer, it stinks.
What are you doing about the maladministration going on in the Council, specifically Mr Pomfret, Mr Jepson, and even Mr Murphy the Chief Executive? I do appreciate many of the other wastrels in finance and development have got out but this lot remain.
As for Norman Clarkson, Conservative Councillor he sits on the Planning Panel of Cumbria CC. In Whitehaven News of 27 March 2008 he is reported spouting “It’s no good putting conditions down and not doing anything when they are not fulfilled. They have gone way over the time limit by eight months. It’s time we took some action.” But a week earlier on 20 March 2008 he voted through an applications that condoned breaching of Planning Condition, condoned breaking the Highways Act and breaking the Health and Safety at Work Act. The man is a hypocrit, and possibly much worse.
If in his capacity as a member of the County planning panel he had made no attempt to form a view on whether the amended arrangements for the footpath were safe, you might have had a point. He did, and the fact that he came to a different conclusion to you does not make him a hypocrite.
This sort of personal attack, which has sadly characterised too much of the discussion about the Golf Course site, has been actively counterproductive to those of us who have tried to get anything done about the mistakes which in my opinion were made.
Because just about anyone in a position of authority in relation to the site, and plenty of people connected with Copeland BC and Cumbria CC who are not, has been accused of lying, incompetence, or worse, most of them, including several who might otherwise have been more helpful, are instinctively inclined to distrust the source of those allegations. And I don't blame them.
If you don't look at the documentation and instead just believe everything the Officers tell you then of course everything will appear rosey.
A scant look at any of the documentation and the attitudes of the Officers involved reveals a very different story, a story of neglect, mismanagement, maladministration and possible corruption.
But what are the Councillors doing, looking after their own interests not the interests of the public.