LEAKED DOCUMENT: The full Ashton Vale letter they don't want you to see
bristol |
local government |
news report
Monday February 27, 2012 10:12
by The Bristol Blogger
THE VERSION OF THE LETTER THAT BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL, THE EVENING POST, THE BBC AND ITV DON'T WANT YOU TO SEE ...
As was reported by ALL the media, Bristol City Council published a press statement on Monday 20 February announcing that the judicial review of the the council’s decision to split Town Green land at Ashton Vale had been halted and that as a result there were now no obstacles to Bristol City FC's stadium being built.
The press statement is here http://www.bristol.gov.uk/node/10557 and it is alleged that Cllr Simon Cook ignored officer advice when making this statement. Officers, of course, are there to speak truth to power but it seems that the Deputy Leader of the council didn't want to listen to any legal advice.
Later on the same day the council provided a redacted copy of the letter from the anonymous applicant, identified as SDR, which is available here: http://www.bristol247.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Letter-to-Admin-Court-Office.pdf
However, the letter is unlawful and the reason becomes clear when you are able to read a relatively uncut copy of the same letter which is posted with this article.
In the uncut version, which has been made available to all the major news media in the city but has not been mentioned by any of them, it is clear that item 5 in the letter makes the step-son of SDR his legal guardian. At the bottom of the letter it is equally clear that the sole witness to the letter is the same step-son.
A legal guardian is a person who has legal authority to care for the personal and property interests of another person usually called a ward. A person is given the status of guardian because the ward is incapable of caring for his or her own interests due to infancy, incapacity, or disability.
Witnessing is designed to ensure that the person signing away the power to make their own decisions has not been forced into signing the document. However, if the witness is also the person being given the power, that assumption of 'no force' disappears. For that reason, in UK law, becoming a witness precludes the individual in question from also being a beneficiary of the agreement.
This is a basic legal concept and it is difficult to understand how Bristol City Council, with access to a legal department, could have accepted the letter as valid and lawful.
Indeed, in the absence of any evidence that SDR is mentally incapacitated or ill, a responsible council should be expressing concern that the witness having power of attorney over SDR means that SDR no longer has any power to make any decisions about his own actions. Only the witness is empowered.
Why has the witness been given this power except to restrain SDRs actions?
In their haste to conclude an end to the dispute over the Ashton Vale Town Green/stadium development, Bristol City Council appears to have forgotten its duty of care to one of its citizens and they appear to have made no effort to contact the individual concerned to ensure his wellbeing and safety.
Meanwhile, the applicants have now been granted leave to continue with the judicial review despite Cook's claims that the matter had ended while Cllr Peter Abraham's sense of relief at being let off the hook for his mishandling of Ashton Vale residents' concerns over the wrongful registration of the land approved by his Roghts of Way committee has also been short lived.
Instead the council are now scrambling to appeal, relying on a second letter from the applicant claiming that his first letter is valid despite its dubious legal status. The fact that if the first letter is valid then the second letter can only be valid if it is written by the step-son appears to be lost on the council.
More on this soon.
printable version
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (7 of 7)
Jump To Comment: 7 6 5 4 3 2 1The Ashton Vale saga already looked deeply murky, but this bizarre letter seems like an act of crazed desperation from behind the scenes on the part of some body with far too much to lose from an independent investigation into all that's been going on.
Surely the Court must want to see SDR in person, to make sure that he is safe and well and not being placed under duress?
This stinks of Criminality, Coercion and Complicity.
So, this person is now apparently the Ward of their Stepson and the adult is reduced to the legal status of a Child, and the Stepson acts as the Witness of that signing!
None of this is legal. It's what happens when someone is bullied, harrassed, blacmailed or beaten into signing. The Courts seem to think the public are stupid enough not to notice.
This is going to blow up in BCC's, BCFC's, and the Royal Courts of Justice's face.
They will end up in Jail.
If they don't the simmering knowledge of how disgustingly corrupt they all are will grow.
A 'breadcrumb' trail leading back to 'K.B' is exactly what is required here, and a proper investigation, leading to criminal prosecutions against all who have been involved in this.
I am deeply concerned about the safety and well being of K.B's Step Dad.
The Police should be following those 'breadcrumbs' and knocking on doors.
The person has been missing for almost 2 weeks, Peter Holt should be more interested in using his power to make sure he is safe and well, as his neighbours we don't believe he is.
The person left without telling anyone, which is not normal for them, we are worried, the police have been notified but they have dragged their heels on this.
1. When you said that you were sent a letter by the Applicant telling you about the discontinuance, was the letter from him or from his legal guardian ?
2. Your statements about the letter were very clear last week. Are you not at all concerned that this man was coerced. He appears to have voluntarily given up his freewill to another ? And that man is also the witness to the saem document.
3. This Stepson is also now the legal representative of the Applicant. Is the stepson a lawyer ?
Peter hasn't really addressed the issues the letter raises.
These serious issues go beyond identifying the individuals, who are still anonymous.
For instance did he state publicly that the JR has ended on the basis of this legally dubious letter?
Don’t be ridiculous Peter. Revealing some initials and a BS35 postcode is not enough to concern the courts as you well know. If you were remotely worried about 'SDR', you would have found out where he is and what has happened to him.
You withheld the information for your own benefit, and not for SDR's benefit. Also you would have dealt with this Twitter leak which links to Guy Price: http://twitpic.com/8pdbn7/full
You and your website must seek your own legal advice, and are responsible for your own actions.
In an effort to be helpful, I would remind you that the Court Order protecting the anonymity of the (now former) applicant is, I understand, still in force.
Your Publishing this letter and including the initials and partial address of a third party, and saying how that third party is related to the applicant may well have the effect of identifying the applicant, and thus breaching the Court Order, by way of a 'breadcrumb trail'.
That, indeed, is the reason we redacted that info in the first place.
I hope you'll consider the Court Order carefully, and also the impact that you may have on the individual concerned if you leave this letter up for all to see with that information (partially) revealed, which is grossly irresponsible.