Information Tribunal orders NTC to Publish Cracks Reports, NTC orderd to publish hydrogeological reports by 2 May Options

[Simon Kirby]

Linky

The Information Tribunal has ruled that the public have a right to see the hydrogeological reports and NTC have been given until the 2nd of May to publish them.

After all the public talk about not being able to publish because of a "confidentiality agreement" the Council didn't even argue that point with the Information Tribunal and instead assert litigation privilege in the reports. However, the Tribunal agreed with the appeal and found that the reports were not legally privileged, but went further and said that even if they had been the public interests would still have been string enough to override any objection to publication.

It should never have taken this much effort to see the reports - and the Council might yet ask leave to appeal the judgment which will delay publication until after the election - but point is the Council should have been open about the reports from the off, and then there would have been much less cynicism about the sense of pursuing the claim. As it is it'll be interesting to see if the reports do indeed support a four and a half year dispute.

 cracks_judgment.pdf ( 440.57K ) Number of downloads: 39

[Petra]

Dear all,

I disagree with The Information Tribunal ruling that the public has a right to see the hydrogeological reports. Such reports could be used as litigation. Then there is the insurance angle as well. I see the trouble here is that those that will read the report don’t have the intelligence to comprehend what they would have before them. I don’t know if anybody noticed the letter in the NWN where a Councillor said the public wouldn’t understand the report. He is right, they woundn’t. This report could create a world wind of stupidity and misunderstanding. Hopefully the council will use its top lawyers to fight to keep this away from the community.

We give people all sorts of rights and all this does is to create havoc and instability. That is why we have PMs and Councillors to work on behalf of those that can’t grasp the finer points of such complex reports. If they disagree then they will act appropriately on your behalf. We don’t allow monkey’s dictating to the Zoo keeper so therefore should we allow the ignorant to do the job that professionals have been trained to do?

Allow the professionals, whom you elected, to comprehend what is beyond you.

Yours,
Petra

[Andy Capp]

Dear all,

I disagree with The Information Tribunal ruling that the public has a right to see the hydrogeological reports. Such reports could be used as litigation. Then there is the insurance angle as well. I see the trouble here is that those that will read the report don’t have the intelligence to comprehend what they would have before them. I don’t know if anybody noticed the letter in the NWN where a Councillor said the public wouldn’t understand the report. He is right, they woundn’t. This report could create a world wind of stupidity and misunderstanding. Hopefully the council will use its top lawyers to fight to keep this away from the community.

We give people all sorts of rights and all this does is to create havoc and instability. That is why we have PMs and Councillors to work on behalf of those that can’t grasp the finer points of such complex reports. If they disagree then they will act appropriately on your behalf. We don’t allow monkey’s dictating to the Zoo keeper so therefore should we allow the ignorant to do the job that professionals have been trained to do?

Allow the professionals, whom you elected, to comprehend what is beyond you.

Yours,
Petra

It is clear you haven't read and understood the ruling yourself as you will see you are wrong on a number of accounts.

It was professionals that ruled against the council's argument, and if you read the ruling you will see inconsistencies with the council's position. The Information Tribunal decided unanimously that the council didn't have any reason to deny the information and the potential litigation argument was declared invalid.

I doubt there is not one councillor that has a better grasp of the hydrogeological report than any member of the parish, after all, councillors are 'normal people' like the rest of us. Just because a handful of people voted for them doesn't make them any more qualified to interpret the results than anyone else.

[Petra]

It is clear you haven't read and understood the ruling yourself as you will see you are wrong on a number of accounts.

It was professionals that ruled against the council's argument, and if you read the ruling you will see inconsistencies with the council's position. The Information Tribunal decided unanimously that the council didn't have any reason to deny the information and the potential litigation argument was declared invalid.

I doubt there is not one councillor that has a better grasp of the hydrogeological report than any member of the parish, after all, councillors are 'normal people' like the rest of us. Just because a handful of people voted for them doesn't make them any more qualified to interpret the results than anyone else.

Dear Mr Capp,

1. Actually, I have read it.
2. Yes, you are right, professionals have ruled against the council’s argument. But they are not the same professionals that only have the councils interest and reputation at heart. As for the Tribunal’s unanimous decision, that may be their decision, but it is not the councils. I personally believe that the council has the superior hand here and the tribunal is only playing politics. Don’t forget that they can be challenged and it is not the end of this matter.
3. Yes, councillors are normal people, however, they’ve been elected to represent those that put them there. Usually the electorate votes in those that can grasp and more in tune than those voting them in.

I noticed that you quoted my words again and attributed them to Ms Edge, therefore I will allow your chosen representative to answer what I said to you.

Yours,
Petra

[Andy Capp]

1. Actually, I have read it.

That wasn't clear from you first comment.

2. Yes, you are right, professionals have ruled against the council’s argument. But they are not the same professionals that only have the councils interest and reputation at heart.

Which is what justice and natural law is all about: unbiased judgement and thank the Lord for that.

As for the Tribunal’s unanimous decision, that may be their decision, but it is not the councils. I personally believe that the council has the superior hand here and the tribunal is only playing politics. Don’t forget that they can be challenged and it is not the end of this matter.

If the council wish to continue with their ridiculous argument, then that makes them even more stupid than they appear to have been so far. The best thing the council could do is just publish the documents. The council's performance on this right from start has been very poor and inconsistent. The judgement bears that out quite clearly.

3. Yes, councillors are normal people, however, they’ve been elected to represent those that put them there. Usually the electorate votes in those that can grasp and more in tune than those voting them in.

People vote for many reasons, but to assume that the average councillor has a better grasp of law and science engineering than any particular constituent is a laughable notion.

Your arguments remain incoherent.

I noticed that you quoted my words again and attributed them to Ms Edge, therefore I will allow your chosen representative to answer what I said to you.

That was just an editing error and unintentional.


The simple question remains: why are the council so determined to keep the reports and data secret.

[Petra]

That wasn't clear from you first comment.


Which is what justice and natural law is all about: unbiased judgement and thank the Lord for that.


If the council wish to continue with their ridiculous argument, then that makes them even more stupid than they appear to have been so far. The best thing the council could do is just publish the documents. The council's performance on this right from start has been very poor and inconsistent. The judgement bears that out quite clearly.


People vote for many reasons, but to assume that the average councillor has a better grasp of law and science engineering than any particular constituent is a laughable notion.

Your arguments remain incoherent.


That was just an editing error and unintentional.


The simple question remains: why are the council so determined to keep the reports and data secret.

Dear Mr Capp,

1. I am glad it is clear now.
2. You may say unbiased judgement, I question it. How do you know they don’t have their own agenda? After all, they are just ordinary people, albeit professional people, but with an agenda.
3. I understand how it is ridiculous coming from you and those that are hostile to councils, but to others they would disagree.
4. My arguments are incoherent to you, which I understand, however, to those around me and to a more intelligent mind it is very coherent. Didn’t you put up on this forum that you wished to get back to criticizing WBC? That answers your question in a nutshell.
5. I thought this was pretty obvious. By releasing it and being read wrongly, it could affect how the public see them and also open themselves up to every crank out there. Then there is the litigation angle. Maybe I shouldn’t say this, but whatever business I worked for, it was always a policy to “deny everything. It is up to the challengers to prove their case and then challenge.”

Yours,
Petra.

[Andy Capp]

1. I am glad it is clear now.

But it isn't and still isn't

2. You may say unbiased judgement, I question it. How do you know they don’t have their own agenda? After all, they are just ordinary people, albeit professional people, but with an agenda.

They are learned people, but I wager that their 'agenda' is likely to be more balanced than that of an entity that wishes to pursue a hidden one. However, if you have evidence, lets see it. Show me how you can justify a cynical stance on their judgement?

3. I understand how it is ridiculous coming from you and those that are hostile to councils, but to others they would disagree.

Only if they wish to pursue an unjustifiable stance; however, agreeing or disagreeing isn't the issue: it is what is reasonable, and the council's actions, had they chose that route, would have been unjustifiable when measured by 'common sense'.

4. My arguments are incoherent to you, which I understand, however, to those around me and to a more intelligent mind it is very coherent. Didn’t you put up on this forum that you wished to get back to criticizing WBC? That answers your question in a nutshell.

You obviously don't recognise satire or irony when you read it (don't worry, I recognise trolling when I see it, but this is fun!). However, your arguments remain incoherent as you offer no supplementary ideas other than to contradict and as the old comedy sketch goes: "this isn't an argument; it's just contradiction". I have no doubt you are not thick, but the problem is it takes a lot of imagination to defend the indefensible and you don't seem to show much of that.

5. I thought this was pretty obvious. By releasing it and being read wrongly, it could affect how the public see them and also open themselves up to every crank out there.

How is that an issue? I doubt few people will be motivated to do anything ridiculous; no more ridiculous than building a multi-story development and underground car park in a marsh, anyway.

Then there is the litigation angle. Maybe I shouldn’t say this, but whatever business I worked for, it was always a policy to “deny everything. It is up to the challengers to prove their case and then challenge.”

This shows your ignorance of the judgement. NTC were not defending anything litigious; they were just judged to have behaved unnecessarily. Perhaps now things are in the open the council may be free to explain themselves.




I wonder of anyone is wishing they'd just let Simon have his allotment back, yet?