Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Court Closure
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 28 2010, 08:32 AM
It has become clear since the CSR that the Coalition are planning to go ahead with planned closures despite the advice of Lord Justice Oldring, who has said that Newbury courts should remain open. As a last ditch attempt to save the courts, I have invited the Shadow Justice Minister Sadiq Khan MP to Newbury to visit some of the areas in the constituency that will be badly hit by the closure. I'd like to hear from those of you who would like to come along and give your views to the minister, email me on richard.garvie@googlemail.com.
Posted by: blackdog Oct 28 2010, 08:57 AM
Wouldn't it be better to invite the Justice Minister rather than his Shadow?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 28 2010, 09:15 AM
I did send an email, but was told to email my local MP who didn't reply!!! So much for fighting this like a "terrier with a rat". If our MP won't talk to me about it, I will have to try and get senior MP's from my party to fight it for us. I gather some of the local bench are now a little upset that Richard Benyon seems to be taking credit for their response to the consultation now too!!! The fact is, he needs to be seen to be doing something to fight this, and in my eyes he has only filled out the consultation form and given a strongly worded story to the press.
If he was fighting this, he would have brought people here to show them the problems people in areas like Lambourn, East Ilsley and Hermitage will face getting to Court. He would have spoken to the Justice Minister about his concerns. He claims to be good friends with the PM, has he not raised the issue with him? The fact is, Richard has said things on a number of subjects before (such as equal gay rights) and then voted in a complately different way in the house. If he has to vote on the bill in the house which includes proposals for closing our courts, where will his loyalty be? He always votes the same way as Cameron, look at his voting record. Will he vote with the PM this time round, or will he actually stay true to his word and vote against the bill?
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 28 2010, 01:49 PM
If he was fighting this, he would have brought people here to show them the problems people in areas like Lambourn, East Ilsley and Hermitage will face getting to Court. He would have spoken to the Justice Minister about his concerns. He claims to be good friends with the PM, has he not raised the issue with him? The fact is, Richard has said things on a number of subjects before (such as equal gay rights) and then voted in a complately different way in the house. If he has to vote on the bill in the house which includes proposals for closing our courts, where will his loyalty be? He always votes the same way as Cameron, look at his voting record. Will he vote with the PM this time round, or will he actually stay true to his word and vote against the bill?
How naive are you? Do MP's follow the party line? ummmm Let me think what happened tp MP's who dared challenge Bliar/Browne/Mandelson by voting against them. Whats that a party whip?? Oh you have just lost it.....
Do I care if a few Criminals have to travel to Reading to face prosecution? Not a jot. Hopefully the inconvenience will put them out for a day.
Posted by: Roost Oct 28 2010, 02:41 PM
That's fine and I agree about the criminals BUT
What about the witnesses, victims and local volunteer staff???!
Apparently it's already difficult enough getting witnesses and victims to court in the first place without telling them that they'll have to go to Reading. And if they do, will they be entitled to claim back 'reasonable expenses'? If so then the closure could end up being more expensive than keeping it open!! Or maybe this would be financed by the sale of the land for housing.....
Mr Garvie, I would set a challenge to the shadow justice minister, or indeed any minister interested enough to listen. That would be along the lines of getting public transport from, say Inkpen or Hampstead Norreys to Reading in time for a court appearance in the morning. Let them see first hand the time-consuming logistical and financial difficulties that would be faced by the residents of West Berkshire.
Government by the people for the people. Sure I heard that somewhere..........
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 28 2010, 03:18 PM
As above, what about the victim, witnesses, police officers, solicitors and such like? The cost of the golden tickets (travel warrants) that get these people to court? The Coalition want to close it because it will save £150k in running costs, but they haven't considered all of the new expense involved. Just look at Lord Justice Oldrings report before you shoot me down. The thing is, if Richard Benyon was representing the views of the people in West Berkshire (which he is there to do remember), I wouldn't need to invite shadow ministers or anyone to West Berkshire. As for whips, George Osborne has voted the same way as Cameron less times than Richard Benyon. http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=George_Osborne&mpc=Tatton&house=commons&parliament=2005&display=allfriends http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Richard_Benyon&mpc=Newbury&house=commons&parliament=2005&display=allfriends
If Hannah Cooper had been elected at the last election, I'm sure she would be voting to save our court regardless of what Miliband / Brown or anyone else had said.
Posted by: GMR Oct 28 2010, 04:41 PM
To be honest this isn't really a surprise, it has been planned a long time ago.
Posted by: Iommi Oct 28 2010, 04:57 PM
Richard Garvie; is there an easy place to lodge a protest; like an email or something?
Posted by: HeatherW Oct 28 2010, 07:24 PM
I can understand the cuts we will have to endure over the next couple of years but I do think it is wrong to remove our one and only court. This will create a backlog and Newbury might be pushed to one side, in favour of the bigger cities.
Posted by: Jayjay Oct 28 2010, 08:27 PM
What about the witnesses, victims and local volunteer staff???!
Apparently it's already difficult enough getting witnesses and victims to court in the first place without telling them that they'll have to go to Reading. And if they do, will they be entitled to claim back 'reasonable expenses'? If so then the closure could end up being more expensive than keeping it open!! Or maybe this would be financed by the sale of the land for housing.....
You are allowed to claim public transport or mileage, but not parking. The charges for parking in central Reading, where the courts will now be heard, is horrendous.
Posted by: HeatherW Oct 28 2010, 08:56 PM
In other words it is a rip off. You would think that if they expect you to travel further out they would help towards the fare. Granted, if you are well off then that is ok. But a lot of poorer people (who go as witnesses) have to find the money themselves.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 29 2010, 02:40 PM
Worst affected by this will be victims of crime, who will have to travel to give evidence. Bobbies will be off the beat longer, solicitor companies will abandon West Berkshire and the cost of getting offenders to and from court will rise dramatically. The Coalition have made the decision based on the potential £150k saving for the court being closed. But they haven't taken into accound the additional costs or the impact it will have on other areas such as victims and the police resources. They would also have to fork out to expand Reading Court, three courts there already have no access to the cells.
I've challenged Richard Benyon to a public debate on the matter, but I won't hold my breathe. The fact is, when the bill comes up in the house which way to you think he will go? I can hardly see him going against his buddy DC, so looks like we will have to rely on others to vote against the bill and hope it fails. This is why I'm inviting senior Labour MP's to get first hand experience of the problems we face so that they can bang the drum for West Berkshire in the house.
Iommi - The consultation has now closed, but please write to Richard Benyon or the NWN asking him to take up the challenge of a debate.
Posted by: Newbury Expat Oct 29 2010, 08:52 PM
I've challenged Richard Benyon to a public debate on the matter, but I won't hold my breathe. The fact is, when the bill comes up in the house which way to you think he will go? I can hardly see him going against his buddy DC, so looks like we will have to rely on others to vote against the bill and hope it fails. This is why I'm inviting senior Labour MP's to get first hand experience of the problems we face so that they can bang the drum for West Berkshire in the house.
Iommi - The consultation has now closed, but please write to Richard Benyon or the NWN asking him to take up the challenge of a debate.
Is Hannah Cooper no longer the standing candidate for Labour in the area? Would she not be better placed to have public debate? If not then someone should tell the webmaster of the Newbury Labour Party website (which interestingly purports to be a collective, but has a link called "Contact Me" - an army of one perhaps).
Is it really an effective use of an MP's time to hold forth with public debate on any issue that airs itself with anyone who demands it? Debates are typically a chance for people who like to hear the sound of their own voices, with no other aim than self-promotion to make themselves appear relevant, during which no action is taken.
I would hope for the sake of those who live in the constituency that if any response is made it is via an efficient e-mail or phone call and not a waste of time public debate.
I think it's commendable that you take an interest in local matters but you do seem to be lacking a little bit of realism with your recent posts Richard. Pour your energies into achievable goals (such as the skate park) and people will appreciate it more.
In the meantime, I am going to demand that Obama debates with me over the need for more British pubs in Southern California
Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 29 2010, 09:43 PM
Forgetting for the moment the utter impossibility of Newbury returning a labour MP, it's worth asking why Hannah Cooper, or for that matter anyone else from Labour other than yourself Richard, hasn't got something to say for themselves. You complain about a poor response from Richard Benyon, but for all his duties as a cabinet minister I've found him to be very responsive. Hannah Cooper on the other hand didn't respond to my e-mail. Fair play to you for engaging publicly like this - and goodness knows it's rare for any of our snivelling politicos to hob nob with the hoi polloi - but this is all just an election stunt isn't it.
Posted by: Iommi Oct 30 2010, 09:19 AM
I think the Richard that we should be concerned with is the one in parliament. It was Richard Benyon that said he would fight terrier like to save this local facility. Well I would imagine eyes are watching on this issue, and Richard Benyon seems to have gone all quiet on this.
In criminal and political circles, I understand the word is 'tame' to describe a politician like Richard Benyon.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 30 2010, 06:11 PM
Is this actually about the court closure, or is it just another bit of politicking. For sure, if RB said he'd "fight like a terrier" to save the court (and I missed it if he did) then it's reasonablle to expect him to be seen doing just that. But I'm totally fed up with politicians riding issues for their own political advantage when they care nothing for the cause or the people involved, and RG has so very suddenly become so very passionate about so very many issues that I'm losing faith.
Posted by: Iommi Oct 30 2010, 06:42 PM
Not verbatim, but close enough.
Mr Benyon wrote on his internet blog last June: “I have said it before and I will say it again. The plan in Whitehall is for courts like West Berkshire’s to close and for the centralising of all magistrates’ courts in somewhere like Reading.
“This will diminish our local community and seriously disadvantage victims of crime who will need travel far to an unfamiliar place in order to give evidence.”
He added at the time: “The endless tinkering with Government departments means I have to take this up with the justice department and the Home Office. Both will try to fob me off by passing the buck to the other but I am like a terrier with a rat on this one. I will persist.”
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=13743
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 30 2010, 06:58 PM
The debate would be between all interested parties, so Labour, Richard Benyon, Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP??? I've instigated it because of his response in the paper calling my concerns (and those of other residents) "utterly rediculous". He can say that sitting in Westminster, but I doubt he would say it in a public debate with a large audience. Whilst we are debating the court closure, let's also debate the CSR. He says he will support the hike in tuition fees, he says he will back the unfair changes to child benefits, he says he will support sure start (but will he actually?)... the list goes on. He says one thing and does another. He was very vocal before the court consultation began, but what has he done since? He seems to want to take credit for the magistrates responding to the consultation, because I doubt they would have replied if he had not gone to the meeting that he was invited too!!!
The Labour website is about to be revamped and has not had the focus it deserves since the election so may be a bit out of date. This is due to a revamp which is underway, and therefore will be very limited until it is relaunched.
Simon - It's not a stunt. I've published my contact details many times, and have spoken to numerous people since. My job is Community Organiser and Campaigns Manager, therefore it is my job to engage with people. I may not be selected to stand yet, so to say I'm only trying to boost my own votes is a little wide of the mark, but yes I am trying to put together a campaign that reflects the local area. The website and manifesto launch will be the final pieces of the jigsaw, and they are both quite far down the road in terms of development. The fact that I have to ask senior Labour ministers to fight this for us is a discrace, Richard Benyon is our MP and he should be fighting it in the house. But all we get is silence.... That's why I think there should be a debate.
As for a reasonable use of an MP's time, he doesn't speak to constituents on the phone, he doesn't personally reply to emails and when his staff do, they conflict with what he votes for in the house. I think it's perfectly acceptable for our local MP to take a couple of hours one night to debate the court closure and CSR with other parties and residents. If he was representing the views of the constituency, there wouldn't be an issue. He obviously needs to hear what people think to help him remember why he is in parliament.
Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 30 2010, 08:33 PM
The closure of 'lesser' Courts started years ago - Hungerford, Lambourn, Bradfield & Sonning - and has continued certainly since 1997 with the withdrawal of admin services etc to 'the Centre' (Reading). Hard for a 6 month old Government to reverse something that has been rolling for at least 13 years. Maybe, if it is such an awful thing, whoever had control previously would've reversed the process...... Personally I reckon the 'local justice' system, having evolved for hundreds of years, was more effective than the new version we are having imposed within a generation.
As for contact with Mr Benyon, while I don't contact him that often I have always found his responses prompt and appropriate, and he has always researched and delivered a sound reply. I have no expectation whatsoever that he will reply in person to every contact (but I know he does to some). Considering the dross he must receive I am sure his time is better spent than hand-crafting a reply to everyone, regardless. I doubt even Milliband Minor answers every correspondence in person
Posted by: Jayjay Oct 30 2010, 08:58 PM
Must agree with this. I have always got a full written reply from Richard Benyon. To get an appointment with his surgery, you do have a lengthy wait though.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 30 2010, 10:11 PM
A written reply from Richard... or his PA or SPA???
Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 30 2010, 10:33 PM
I have had each, and each was totally satisfactory. Whether in his hand or in his name, if the response meets the needs of the recipient who else is to have an opinion?
Perhaps there were typos in the senders address that meant Great leader Garvie's answer went elsewhere?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 31 2010, 07:54 AM
He knows how to get in touch. But this isn't about me or you, it's about saving our local courts and I can't see him doing anything himself so people want to know why he is yet again going against his word!!! So much for "terrier with rat" 
Posted by: Iommi Oct 31 2010, 09:08 AM
Let's not lose sight what our MP said. Whether Richard Garvie has had a reasonable response from Richard Benyon is a trivial matter by comparison.
Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 31 2010, 10:11 AM
Agreed, but he does get very upset when he is not agreed with, let alone listened to.
I have asked Mr Benyon some questions on both issues and will await his response
Posted by: gel Oct 31 2010, 11:35 AM
Register your concerns with the sudden quiet on issue; perhaps the terrier's down some hole somewhere, or sleeping?
This is Michele, his PA's address:DEANGELIM@parliament.uk
Justice should be seen to be done, local closure of courts would hinder this apart from other issues re witnesses already highlighted.
Let's remember that politicians, judges, and Civil Servants work for us the populace. 
)))))
Posted by: On the edge Oct 31 2010, 01:20 PM
Are we really that worried about the local magistrates court going to Reading? That's where the County and Crown courts have been for many years. The magstrates these days are not really local worthies responsible only to the Crown to dispense justice as they saw fitting in the locality. They are now no more than cyphers for the civil service. That's OK - but means that justice does not need to be dispensed locally. There were far greater and perhaps more important functions that have migrated away from Newbury with little if any fuss. The maternity unit at the local hospital for instance. Quite happy that this is good political knock about - but its hardly a critical issue and looking at the previous threats on this forum the local magistrates don't seem overly effective anyway!
Posted by: Iommi Oct 31 2010, 02:12 PM
So because other greater issues have happened is a good reason not to get excited about any other? This issue was important enough for our MP to get excited about it back then, it would be interesting to see how he deals with it now.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 31 2010, 03:40 PM
You make a serious point of course. If RB has backed away from his stated position then that's not quite right. But it's not completely obvious that he has abandoned the magistrate's court to its fate is it? He said he'd make strong representations to the consultation and I see no reason to suppose he's done any different, but as a cabinet minister he has an obligation to the government so unless he feels strongly enough about the issue to resign from cabinet I don't think he can make too much public noise about it.
He made the terrier comment in opposition and before the CSR. Everyone knows we're in worse shape now than it might have appeared last summer. Personally I don't see what the problem is taking the train to Reading, and if it means a hospital ward doesn't have to close or school kids can have books then that's no great sacrifice is it?
Posted by: Iommi Oct 31 2010, 04:11 PM
I don't think that is true. I think that is cobblers designed to support their potentially unpopular budgets.
Update: Wait a minute, I see what you mean...I slightly take that back, but I am suspicious of the ConDem excuse about things being worse than imagined.
In any case, if this was the case, I think it would be prudent for our MP to make a statement about it. He mustn't look like he's shying away from local issues to further his career.
150k theoretical saving a year? But it isn't just about 'me' taking a train to Reading. This also means local plod a lawyers having to do the same. Is it free for them? I presume the tax payer will stump that bill as well? let's see the maths (before I can comment properly).
Like I said: it was an issue last year but not one now.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 31 2010, 04:43 PM
Yes Iommi, £150k saving in terms of the building not being operational, but running the West Berks cases will cost more than £150k by moving them all to Reading plus an increase in time it takes to convict somebody. Therefore I don't see why the closure will stop a hospital ward from closing or buy books for children, but no doubt this will be the justification used as to an untrained eye that would sound like a decent thing to do.
Let me know if our MP responds, he has refused to answer any of the questions I have sent!!!
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 31 2010, 04:46 PM
..
Posted by: NWNREADER Oct 31 2010, 05:16 PM
'Refused' or just hasn't answered?
I don't want to know for myself, but I trust you are a constituent? And if you ask as a representative of the local Labour Party then maybe different protocols apply.
I'm not into judgemental terminology used to appear to strengthen a cause
Posted by: On the edge Oct 31 2010, 05:22 PM
Well we are in rather a mess financially right now. As all the rest of the Courts have been based in Reading for some considerable time - the cost of getting lawyers and Police (headquartered in Castle Street Reading) are a little spurious. Of course, there will be an overhead - you don't get anything for nothing. However, I'd much rather see attempts to cut back the legal system than ripping support for OAPs, etc. away. We need a sense of priority here - what are the important things we need to retain? Equally, a little imaginative thinking wouldn't go amiss - for instance, no reason why the Magistrates couldn't meet in other accommodation - many years back they met at the Pelican. Would be a sensible use of Newbury Town hall - which appears empty most days. So why not just have the Court - not the admin. overhead - or is that too radical?
Posted by: Iommi Oct 31 2010, 05:32 PM
Why spurious? I'm sure Mr Campbell (is he still doing it?) will be happy to invoice for his time.
This is the point, perhaps moving the court is a financially sensible move, for the legal budget, but often this just puts a financial pressure somewhere else. I am left thinking as well, why was the court good enough to have had a recent referb (I bet that wasn't cheap), that it is somehow now dispensable. I agree, however, it would be good if we could be just a little more imaginative with our administration costs.
The Tories were for decentralising, but this seems to be going in the other direction. I am not aware of the figures, but this seems like a drastic measure to save what appears to the layman as a relatively small amount of cash.
Posted by: On the edge Oct 31 2010, 06:53 PM
This is the point, perhaps moving the court is a financially sensible move, for the legal budget, but often this just puts a financial pressure somewhere else. I am left thinking as well, why was the court good enough to have had a recent referb (I bet that wasn't cheap), that it is somehow now dispensable. I agree, however, it would be good if we could be just a little more imaginative with our administration costs.
The Tories were for decentralising, but this seems to be going in the other direction. I am not aware of the figures, but this seems like a drastic measure to save what appears to the layman as a relatively small amount of cash.
The decentralisation point is a good one. Wonder how many at Central Office have noticed these clashing policies. Suspect the return argument will be how local is local - the NHS certainly feel Reading is local for all sorts of things. Although we were promised the budget wouldn't be 'salami slicing' - that's just what this has turned out to be; simply the easy option. Not sure that it would gain much traction with our politicians, but one answer might have been to have asked the staff. And I do mean the staff and not the trades unions. I was in a firm once, where just as significant cuts were needed and the CEO did just that - with brutal honesty. They did come up with several workable answers, one of which hurt at the time, but its still trading today
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 31 2010, 07:14 PM
Funny you mention the NHS, which is actually facing a cut to frontline services to fund the changes brought in by the Tories and the Liberals. They both said they wouldn't mess with the NHS, and that spending would be protected, but when you look into the detail the real terms spending on frontline spending is reduced.
Back to the courts proposal here in West Berkshire, the changes will end up costing slightly more, bobbies will spend less time off the beat and solicitors and victims will have to travel fyrther at their own time and some of their own expense such as parking. I doubt anyone is fighting this closure on the basis of disruption to criminals. What this is about is protecting the level of service. Richard Benyon said he would fight this like a terrier with a rat, but what has been doing??? In recent weeks he has been almost absent, only speaking to support the rise in tuition fees and the bodge job that was made of child benefit. When put to him that I had said I was hurt that he appears to be doing very little in this weeks NWN, Richard said my concern was "utter nonsense", saying he had "co-ordinated" the magistrates response. From what I remember, he was invited to a meeting by the magistrates and now he is taking credit for their work. Does he honestly believe that magistrates would not have responded had he not have attended that meeting. The only other evidence that he has actually done anything id the letter he sent as part of the consultation.
How many Government minister / MOJ civil servants have came to see the problems we face??? Why after Lord Justice Goldring spoke has he not rammed this report down Ken Clarkes throat??? Maybe now that he is starting to feel a little heat he might actually do something, but I still doubt he will vote against any bill (which he seems to think won't even be presented to the house(!)). I challenged him to a debate with Labour and any other party that wishes to take part so that he can tell us what he has been doing, hear OUR concerns collectively and also to ask questions about the CSR. He told us his party would protect Sure Start, yet it appears the evidence suggest not. He said he was against a hike in tuition fees, so will he vote against that bill? He said he was against reform of child benefit, yet he now says something else. Why shouldn't we be able to pose these questions to him in public, why must he hide away in Westminster. As our representative in Parliament, surely he should be pleased to attend these type of events???
Posted by: On the edge Oct 31 2010, 07:25 PM
You are quite right - there has been a lot of politicing going on. However, the fact still remains we need to cut expenditure. Yes, that does mean making sure that the cost of implementing the cuts doesn't actually cost more. So are there any solutions? I think there may be - for instance have the Court itself travel but centralise the admin. There may be more. I'd think Richard Beynon would be more likely to respond properly to some alternative solutions than just swapping emails which simply state party positions. Let's be frank - the centralisation proposal isn't new - it was on the table when the last administration were in office. So its just what the civil service would say was a quick win. To fight it - let's say how we'd save the money and still deliver the cut.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 31 2010, 07:32 PM
In the case of Newbury Court - We would save money and keep performance levels by keeping it as it is. By moving all business 6to Reading, it will cost millions to extend Reading courts but there may not be cell access, so any crime punishable with possible custodial sentances will more than likely face long delays. You could make even more savings by closing Slough or Maidenhead, something which Lord Justice Goldring also seemed to suggest by raising his concern about most of Berkshires courts being clustered in the east of the county.
Posted by: gel Nov 1 2010, 02:32 PM
And I note today that Reading parking charges have gone up to £1.50 an hour which will not be reimbursed as a witness or jury member. 
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 1 2010, 04:29 PM
Anyone had a response from our MP on this yet?
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 1 2010, 04:50 PM
Not me.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 1 2010, 07:37 PM
But there are car parking charges in Newbury.
Posted by: gel Nov 1 2010, 07:59 PM
You miss the point.
As most know, you can park in Newbury nearby in Sainsburys, and even paid parking has not
reached the stratospheric levels in Reading.
The walk from Savacentre is not realistic option.
Centralisation is the solution of big centralised Government and er the USSR for example;
the new leadership we have is supposed to be keen on devolving.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 1 2010, 08:33 PM
As most know, you can park in Newbury nearby in Sainsburys, and even paid parking has not
reached the stratospheric levels in Reading.
The walk from Savacentre is not realistic option.
Centralisation is the solution of big centralised Government and er the USSR for example;
the new leadership we have is supposed to be keen on devolving.
Don't think so. If Sainsbury's find this is to the detriment of their own customers guess what will happen; as it would if HMG didn't keep bowing to Tesco and leaving store car parks out of the rate assessment - but that's another thread.
The difficulty with 'centralisation' is that its presented as all or nothing. There is nothing wrong with centralising the administration. That's likely to make that overhead less expensive and more efficient if done properly.
There is no reason why the Court itself couldn't be held in Newbury. Having said that, the arguments made for moving the Magistrates, apply equally well to the other Courts, notably the County Court which migrated some time ago. I don't seem to remember any
issues raised when that happened, or for that matter since. Albeit a civil court, the County Court has just as many 'customers' as the Magistrates.
Posted by: user23 Nov 1 2010, 08:38 PM
Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 3 2010, 09:29 PM
I have. A rather good one. Very detailed and including copies of corres. with local consultees, and bearing his own handwritten signature. He is also specific that he answers every one of his 200+ contacts every day, and that he has had no contact from R Garvie. Perhaps RG made so many errors in the address the letter went to Beynons in the Market Place?
As far as I am concerned, unless the chap is lying (and he is not in the same league as Tony B Liar in my experience) he is doing what he said he would on behalf of his constituents.
Posted by: Iommi Nov 3 2010, 09:33 PM
Hurrah!
Posted by: gel Nov 3 2010, 10:02 PM
They can't withdraw the free parking period, as it was a condition of planning permission.
Posted by: user23 Nov 3 2010, 10:11 PM
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2010, 10:17 PM
As far as I am concerned, unless the chap is lying (and he is not in the same league as Tony B Liar in my experience) he is doing what he said he would on behalf of his constituents.
That is exactly what I expected.
I haven't had any correspondance because I'm in the same boat as RG - I haven't written to our MP.
Posted by: Iommi Nov 3 2010, 10:34 PM
Why are you so confident that everything NWNREADER and Richard Benyon MP is alleged to have said is true?
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2010, 10:37 PM
You have to believe one side. Otherwise what is the point of posting?
Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 3 2010, 10:46 PM
You think I lie?
Why on earth would I do that?
Posted by: Iommi Nov 3 2010, 10:57 PM
Hardly a rational approach from someone who often is; or is it the truth that you are prejudiced in this case?
Where did I say I think you were lying? I asked dannyboy why he was so ready to believe you over someone else. Indeed, it could be true that you and Richard Benyon are genuine, but his back-room staff are not.
If I or anyone else were to question whether that what someone says is true or not, is not necessarily to call them a liar.
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2010, 11:07 PM
Where did I say I think you were lying. I asked dannyboy why he was so ready to believe you over someone else.
After a while you get to be able to tell what sounds right & what doesn't.
Sicilians are great liars. The best in the world. I'm Sicilian. My father was the world heavy-weight champion of Sicilian liars. From growing up with him I learned the pantomime. There are seventeen different things a guy can do when he lies to give himself away. A guys got seventeen pantomimes. A woman's got twenty, but a guy's got seventeen... but, if you know them, like you know your own face, they beat lie detectors all to ****. Now, what we got here is a little game of show and tell. You don't wanna show me nothin', but you're tellin me everything. I know you know where they are, so tell me before I do some damage you won't walk away from.
Posted by: Iommi Nov 3 2010, 11:13 PM
Putting your bumph to one side; you might be right about RG, but RG stands to loose a lot if he is pulling a fast one. I suggest you simply have kicked a speculative punt.
So here it is then: Richard Garvie (I notice you've been quiet lately, or turned into GMR ) do you solemnly swear that you have written to Richard Benyon exactly as you have mentioned in this thread?
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2010, 11:15 PM
So here it is then: Richard Garvie (I notice you've been quiet lately, or turned into GMR
) do you solemnly swear that you have written to Richard Benyon exactly as you have mentioned in this thread?and another thing - RG has a desire to be a politician. They never, ever, ever tell the truth, or at best are economical with it.
Posted by: Iommi Nov 3 2010, 11:18 PM
Yet you immediately (by proxy) believe Richard Benyon's alleged: 'answers every one of his 200+ contacts every day' statement?
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2010, 11:25 PM
He answers them, yes. It would be foolish of him, or his staff, not to. Truthfully or not is another question. You'd have to take each Q/A on its merit.
btw - NWN did say unless the chap is lying...
Thing is RG uses 'asked him to meet for a public debate' quite often, knowing that it is a win, win situation. If the meet goes ahead RG can claim the credit, if it does not RG can claim there is something to hide etc etc.
If you call people's bluff too often, you yourself can end up being undone.
Posted by: Iommi Nov 3 2010, 11:40 PM
I know, but in truth I was not challenging NWN or RB's integrity; only your speed of acceptance, and an accusation you made that (I understand) you cannot currently prove.
True, but I believe you and user23 are too quick and apparently too sensitive to RG's rhetoric, to a point where I'm convinced that it is because you have affinity to the people he 'insults'.
In simple words, had you said: 'I don't think RG has written to RB'; it is possible I wouldn't have tried to call you out on this, but it is almost impossible to prove RG has or hasn't written to RB or not anyway.
Posted by: NWNREADER Nov 3 2010, 11:49 PM
Where did I say I think you were lying? I asked dannyboy why he was so ready to believe you over someone else. Indeed, it could be true that you and Richard Benyon are genuine, but his back-room staff are not.
If I or anyone else were to question whether that what someone says is true or not, is not necessarily to call them a liar.
I asked if you think I am lying. Do you think I did not make contact with the MP on 31 October and receive a full response today?
Do you think I have not truthfully reported on what he said about responding to correspondents?
Do you think I have not truthfully related the presence of his corres with consultees?
Do you think I am not being truthful the letter is signed in his own hand?
Overall, which bits do you doubt?
Who else has made the contrary statement you imply may be as/more believable than mine.
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2010, 11:50 PM
True, but I believe you and user23 are too quick and apparently too sensitive to RG's rhetoric; to a point where I'm convinced that it is because you have affinity to the people he 'insults'.
In simple words, had you said: 'I don't think RG has written to RB'; it is possible I wouldn't have tried to call you out on this. It is almost impossible to prove RG has written to RB or not anyway.
I have no affinity to WBC.
Posted by: Iommi Nov 3 2010, 11:57 PM
Do you think I have not truthfully reported on what he said about responding to correspondents?
Do you think I have not truthfully related the presence of his corres with consultees?
Do you think I am not being truthful the letter is signed in his own hand?
Overall, which bits do you doubt?
Who else has made the contrary statement you imply may be as/more believable than mine.
Have you read my replies or NOT???? If not, please go back and read them; I don't post for the heck of it!!!
Posted by: Iommi Nov 3 2010, 11:59 PM
That's not what I said.
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2010, 12:01 AM
Or anyone else RG has had a pop at.
Posted by: Iommi Nov 4 2010, 12:05 AM
I take back any insinuation I made then, but I still maintain that you and user23's responses to RG, look, or looked, less than impartial to me.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2010, 11:09 AM
Hi everyone, was in Lincolnshire yesterday so could only monitor events on here via my mobile at certain points of the day.
First up, not only did I write to Richard and send an email, I also challenged Richard via twitter and the twitter feed can be found at www.twitter.com/newburyclp. I've copied in Newbury Today and the BBC Berkshire reporter into all tweets about the debate, so how he can say he has not been contacted by me is rubbish. I'm not a politician (yet), just somebody who wants to help sort out the mess we are in locally. By suggesting that makes me a liar is a bit unfair.
I'm happy to meet with anyone this afternoon to show them the email I sent on my laptop, show them the twitter account in person and also show I have recieved zero reply. Yes Danny, I am happy to meet with people about local issues. But it's not because I'm calling somebody's bluff, it's because those issues need discussed openly and honestly.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2010, 11:11 AM
NWNREADER, if you have had a reply, may I see it??? If he has said I haven't contacted him, I'll take that up with his office personally. I've spoken to his Westminster office on numerous occasions, and every time they have fobbed me off and told me to put my comments in writing. Have I ever recieved a reply?
Posted by: David Allen Nov 4 2010, 11:37 AM
I'd just like to make some quick comments about this topic - I spent a couple of days recently at both Newbury and Reading Magistrates Courts (observing, I hasten to add).
Reading Court utilises video link technology and in some cases (remand usually) the accused do not even have to appear in the dock. He or she spoke from their remand cell or local police station and I can see a similar situation developing in Newbury, should the local court be closed.
The clerks and ushers at Newbury are the same people employed in Reading, so there won't be much saving in staff costs if the Newbury court is closed.
And lastly, the courts at both Reading and Newbury have a direct link to the police cells, so as much as I'd like Newbury Town Hall to be used more frequently I don't think it's very practical.
Regards
Posted by: On the edge Nov 4 2010, 11:42 AM
Reading Court utilises video link technology and in some cases (remand usually) the accused do not even have to appear in the dock. He or she spoke from their remand cell or local police station and I can see a similar situation developing in Newbury, should the local court be closed.
The clerks and ushers at Newbury are the same people employed in Reading, so there won't be much saving in staff costs if the Newbury court is closed.
And lastly, the courts at both Reading and Newbury have a direct link to the police cells, so as much as I'd like Newbury Town Hall to be used more frequently I don't think it's very practical.
Regards
Think the video from Police cell would solve the problem!
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2010, 11:44 AM
Reading only has access to the cells in five courtrooms, and further additional courts built to deal with the extra workload will not have cell access.
What percentage of court cases have the accused on remand?
Are you sayijng the court should be closed?
I do agree that the Town Hall is a non starter.
Posted by: On the edge Nov 4 2010, 03:24 PM
I believe that the Court itself could continue to be held in Newbury. Arguably that's only transporting a few staff for the days the Court sits. There seems nothing wrong with centralising Admin. however Dave Allen on a previous thread has suggested that the savings would be two fiths of ******* all. So OK - accept that the costs of moving probably outweigh any benefit, so its not worth doing.
However, I suspect there are savings that could be made (as there are in any big operation) and a root and branch review wouldn't go amiss. So will agree this is one area where we need to think before we slash
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2010, 04:22 PM
Still no reply from Richard Benyon!!!
Posted by: Jayjay Nov 4 2010, 05:34 PM
Reading Court utilises video link technology and in some cases (remand usually) the accused do not even have to appear in the dock. He or she spoke from their remand cell or local police station and I can see a similar situation developing in Newbury, should the local court be closed.
The clerks and ushers at Newbury are the same people employed in Reading, so there won't be much saving in staff costs if the Newbury court is closed.
And lastly, the courts at both Reading and Newbury have a direct link to the police cells, so as much as I'd like Newbury Town Hall to be used more frequently I don't think it's very practical.
Regards
Happy to go with the move to Reading if, as a juror or witness, I too can sit in a nice cosy room in Newbury Police Station with a video link. If not, serving on a jury for a week is likely to cost me up to £52 (7 x 5 x £1.50), which I will unable to reclaim.
Posted by: blackdog Nov 4 2010, 06:32 PM
I'm not quite sure why the Town Hall should be a non-starter - it is used regularly by the Coroner's Court. Surely there are plenty of Magistrates' Court cases where custodial sentences are unlikely/impossible and where the accused would not be on remand. In such cases there would be no need for cells - so why not hold them locally at the Town Hall? More serious cases could go to Reading if they must close the current court.
Come to think of it - why does the Coroner use the Town Hall rather than the often unused Magistrates' Court?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2010, 10:17 PM
Still no reply!!! Who was it who said that he had said I hadn't contacted him???
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2010, 10:18 PM
But this is one of the problems with the move. You'd still get travel allowances, as would everyone. That alone is predicted to cost in excess of the money saved by moving the court.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 5 2010, 09:37 PM
Is NWNREADER the only person to get a reply then? I've had nothing by post, email or twitter... starting to think he will just hope I forget about it!!!
Posted by: gel Nov 8 2010, 07:19 PM
Some comments on Benyon's submission here:
http://www.richardbenyon.com/images/stories/pdf/court%20consultation%202.pdf
Posted by: Cognosco Nov 8 2010, 07:44 PM
I would have thought it would be common courtesy to send an acknowledgment even if he did not immediately reply in detail?
Any other forum members had problems?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 15 2010, 06:57 PM
Finally got a reply today, "a public meeting would fail to satisfy the concerns of most of the room".
Posted by: Iommi Nov 15 2010, 07:24 PM
Well that's true, I suspect.
Posted by: Cognosco Nov 15 2010, 08:20 PM
Well at least you have now had a reply! Not what you would call a rapid response over such and important issue though is it?
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 16 2010, 09:30 AM
Well, I'm a bit dissapointed. I was going to publish the letter on our website, but thought better of it. He had a couple of pops at me though, one about "my party" and the fact I should apologise for the financial crisis. Not sure what I could have done differently to be honest, hardly my fault that the world has gone into financial meltdown and that Ireland needs bailing out, possibly Portugal now too. Maybe I sold too much radio advertising back in my media days, I don't know. I still can't see how it is MY fault!!!
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 16 2010, 09:39 AM
What did he say exactly then? I'd like quotes please rather than spin.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 16 2010, 09:43 AM
"If you represent the Labour Party locally, your first act to gain credability with local people would be for you to make a public apology for the disastrous state of our economy".
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 16 2010, 09:52 AM
So pretty much what has been said by a lot of people on here. I know its not all Labour's fault and that the current economic situation has been caused by many factors but politicians should be a little more contrite when dealing with the public when the public feel like they have been c***ped on from a great height....
One thing is for certain. No matter what Party, no matter what Politician, it won't be anyone's fault as Politicians never ever accept reposibility for anything that go's wrong. Politicians by there very nature have the most slopey shoulders in the land and very rarely answer any question with a full and detailed explanation. You only have to see some Jeremy Paxman interviews to see that..
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 16 2010, 10:23 AM
Exactly. But this is why I want to get involved in local politics, because I'm fed up of civil servants making our decisions for us. Yes, I do wear the Labour badge, but do you think Ed Miliband is advising me on our campaign here? We have the least input from the party of any branch in the country, and for this reason it allows us to pretty much do as we see fit. This is why we are trying to shape Newbury Labour Party as a party that reflects the views of local people. You may not like the fact that we went to war in Iraq, or you may believe that Gordon Brown is to blame for the economic downturn. Whatever your views on Labour are nationally, we have no say on that. What we do have a say on is what is happening at the council, and we will provide an objective argument and put forward alternative solutions.
The Tories and the Libs will shout us down here by saying it was all the Labour Government. I would much rather they engage in proper debate, and explain how they will deal with the issues we face here. This is why I'm dissapointed with Richard Benyon. He said he would represent the people of West Berks, but now he is a junior minister, he is far too busy to engage in debate. Also, how can he say that a debate won't satisfy those in the room? If I was the MP, or if you were the MP, surely we would stand there until all questions had been answered? If you aren't doing it to represent the views of people in the constituency, whyare you actually doing it?
Forget Labour for a second. Are Conservative voters not worried by certain aspects of the spending review? Are Lib Dems voters not concerned? If we don't have a debate, how will these questions ever be answered, and how will he know the level of feeling of people here in West Berkshire if he refuses to engage in debate?
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 16 2010, 10:29 AM
The Tories and the Libs will shout us down here by saying it was all the Labour Government. I would much rather they engage in proper debate, and explain how they will deal with the issues we face here. This is why I'm dissapointed with Richard Benyon. He said he would represent the people of West Berks, but now he is a junior minister, he is far too busy to engage in debate. Also, how can he say that a debate won't satisfy those in the room? If I was the MP, or if you were the MP, surely we would stand there until all questions had been answered? If you aren't doing it to represent the views of people in the constituency, whyare you actually doing it?
Forget Labour for a second. Are Conservative voters not worried by certain aspects of the spending review? Are Lib Dems voters not concerned? If we don't have a debate, how will these questions ever be answered, and how will he know the level of feeling of people here in West Berkshire if he refuses to engage in debate?
Richard. All very well & good. Power corrupts though and absolute power corrupts completely. I suspect you may not be so concerned with the views of your would be constituents once you joined the gravy train...
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 16 2010, 11:28 AM
I don't agree. When the manifesto that I have put together on behalf of the party is published, you will see the bits about reducing numbers of members, monthly executive member forums where people can come along and ask questions then mingle afterwards. Everything about what I'm trying to do is about bringing power back to people like you and me. This is why we are actively supporting independent candidates who don't want to stand for Labour, it's why I won't field candidates against genuine candidates like Brian Burgess and anyone else who has something to offer.
I agree with what you say about "power corrupts" though. I could use a certain example that was given to me my our MP's office, but let me use a Labour example. Our MP back home in Corby when I left school was Phil Hope. Since 1997, he was one of the best local MP's that I ever met, and the whole town is now a different place when I go back to visit. However, he made some mistakes with his expenses and was booted out by the electorate and now there is a Tory MP again. This person has done amazing things for Corby, but he misled them on expenses and paid the ultimate price.
Richard Benyon isn't anywhere near that level, but his office told me before I got a response that "now he is a minister" his time is restricted. I don't care, he is elected to represent us, he has a dutyto listen to what we say regardless of political poison.
If I'm elected in the ward I stand in (if selected), I will do everything I can to do a good job. If you ever found me passing all my case work to officers, delegating powers to oficers or refusing to attend surgeries, I would expect you to call for my resignation. I want to give something back because it is something I feel I have to do to prove myself to myself. I won't allow my colleagues to do what is happening now, and that is why we are only selecting candidates who have something to give.
Posted by: Iommi Nov 16 2010, 11:34 AM
We have the politicians that we do because we have the electorate that we do. If a politician was to be honest and campaign for what needs to be done, they would not get elected. It is the fault of our democratic system.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 16 2010, 11:39 AM
Maybe you are right Iommi.
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 16 2010, 11:39 AM
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Nov 16 2010, 11:40 AM
Quite correct. So in effect the electorate (on average) are as thick as 2 short planks for not seeing through the mumbo jumbo.
How refreshing it would be if ALL political parties actually put together manifesto's that were binding and not 'subject to change' after elections. It would have caught out all 3 parties and we would have seen how each one actually proposed to get us out of this mess.
Posted by: Bloggo Nov 16 2010, 11:49 AM
How refreshing it would be if ALL political parties actually put together manifesto's that were binding and not 'subject to change' after elections. It would have caught out all 3 parties and we would have seen how each one actually proposed to get us out of this mess.
Spot on TDH.
We are misled, lied to and conned at every election. Your's is a great idea but one that the political parties will not sign up to and I guess it is niave to even expect honesty and clarity from them.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 16 2010, 12:02 PM
How refreshing it would be if ALL political parties actually put together manifesto's that were binding and not 'subject to change' after elections. It would have caught out all 3 parties and we would have seen how each one actually proposed to get us out of this mess.
ONE HUNDRED MILLION PERCENT AGREE!!!
At least people could then make informed decisions.
Posted by: Iommi Nov 16 2010, 12:13 PM
If I were in charge, I'd have manifestos 'audited', and if they didn't add-up, they would be handed back for resubmission. At the last election, it was made clear by the pundits in the media that none of main parties manifestos added up.
Posted by: Bloggo Nov 16 2010, 12:22 PM
The problem would be finding someone who isn't politically motivated to be honest enough to trust as an auditor.
What is clear is that the last Government lied and misled the electorate and left us with huge depts, uncontrolled immigration, increased gun and knife crime, increased sexual crime and children leaving school who can't read or write. We have to wait to see if this government will do any better. By which time after 5 years it is too late of course.
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Nov 16 2010, 12:43 PM
Not from some farcical aquatic ceremony?
Posted by: Bofem Nov 16 2010, 01:06 PM
Blo ody peasant
Posted by: dannyboy Nov 16 2010, 02:25 PM
At least people could then make informed decisions.
You are assuming that people actually read the manifestos. Big assumption.
Posted by: Iommi Nov 16 2010, 02:33 PM
He said 'could', not 'would'!
But good point. I'd say the majority of people vote regardless of candidate and manifesto.
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 14 2010, 04:01 PM
Well it looks like Mr Benyon's campaign to exert pressure on the government to ensure that Newbury keeps it's court house has paid off.
Well done Mr Benyon.
I expect Mr Garvie will be apologising for his lack of faith in the ability of our MP to get the right result.
Posted by: Darren Dec 14 2010, 04:23 PM
...and a Labour government would have made it a Crown Court...
the County Court wasn't so lucky though.
Posted by: Exhausted Dec 14 2010, 04:41 PM
Well done Mr Benyon.
At least the naughty persons can stay in bed a bit longer not having to go to Reading to be offered community service.
Posted by: gel Dec 14 2010, 04:54 PM
Good job by the Terrier!
Odd, that BBC Teletext is reporting the reverse ie only County Court remaining open!
That's wrong hopefully;
list of all closures here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11993436
Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 15 2010, 12:16 AM
Fantastic news. Mr Benyon had recently increased the pressure on the minister responsible, and there were a number of other MP's asking questions regarding Newbury too. Well done everyone, it was the right decision in the end!!!
I think the report from Lord Justice Goldring helped too, as Spalding magistrates was also saved and both were recomended for repreive in that report.
Posted by: Iommi Dec 15 2010, 05:30 AM
While perhaps I should be pleased, I can't help but think why this has been agreed, especially when you think that we have good rail and bus links to Reading compared to the closures in, say, Wales where they have a number of courts closing that will mean 'real' problems for the populous (if their MPs are to be believed today). It probably helps having a Tory MP close to the PM!
Posted by: blackdog Dec 15 2010, 09:33 AM
It probably doesn't hurt that the PM is from the Newbury area.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 15 2010, 12:25 PM
Look at the Goldring report (he's the most senior judge who slated the closure programe and asked for a number to be saved). The closures and reprieves are pretty much in line with that.
Posted by: dannyboy Dec 15 2010, 12:39 PM
So you are basically saying that all your spouting on the topic was a waste of time!
Posted by: Bloggo Dec 15 2010, 01:00 PM
No, what he is saying is that this result had little to do with Mr Benyon's efforts.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 15 2010, 01:20 PM
Mr Benyon actually deserves some credit for his efforts of late, by all accounts the justice minister had resorted to dodging him in the lobby. All parties in Newbury have contributed to this effort, but the biggest contributing factor was the Goldring report which also suggested a number of other courts be kept open. I know South Lincolnshire very well and the reason I heard Newbury was saved was a text from somebody who works at Spalding magistrates which was also saved.
I simply said at the time that he appeared to be doing very little and I had been told that West Berkshire was being closed. I contacted the paper to share the information I had been given and to voice my concern at what I believed to be a lack of action. Almost immediately the Goldring report was released which then threw everything up into the air again and we were in with a chance. Since the media coverage, Mr Benyon has really went for it on this and does deserve to take some of the plaudits. But if it wasn't for the Goldring report, West Berks would have closed regardless of what we did here.
Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 15 2010, 02:03 PM
I simply said at the time that he appeared to be doing very little and I had been told that West Berkshire was being closed. I contacted the paper to share the information I had been given and to voice my concern at what I believed to be a lack of action. Almost immediately the Goldring report was released which then threw everything up into the air again and we were in with a chance. Since the media coverage, Mr Benyon has really went for it on this and does deserve to take some of the plaudits. But if it wasn't for the Goldring report, West Berks would have closed regardless of what we did here.
How do you know what difference, if any, the Goldring Report had, and whether or not any other activityhad any impact?
We? Who is 'we' and who of the 'we' did anything?
Posted by: dannyboy Dec 15 2010, 02:08 PM
you can read it that way if you wish.
Posted by: NWNREADER Dec 15 2010, 02:11 PM
A Garvie-ism in another thread where he mentions the Court closure debate seems to imply Mr B was only truly active after Mr Gs involvement, IMHO
Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 15 2010, 02:12 PM
I was told a couple of days before the Goldring report that Newbury would be one of the courts to close. The same source told me on the day of the Goldring report that there was a change the report would be enough to change the court closure list, but wasn't sure if it would affect Newbury or not. I think it's worth noting that Mrs Cameron sat at Newbury for 30 years, maybe she had David put in a word?
Posted by: dannyboy Dec 15 2010, 02:36 PM
Why not just conceed that our MP did what he was elected to do and that your involvement was worth nothing?
Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Dec 15 2010, 05:57 PM
So was he elected to see that Newbury County Court closed and the Magistrates Court remains open then? Didn't see that in his literature.
Posted by: Richard Garvie Dec 16 2010, 12:03 AM
Personally, all I did was ask numerous party colleagues to make enquiries with the relevant minister, and the more people fighting our cause the better. So yes, my personal involvement was pretty worthless, I'm not trying to say that this result is anything to do with me. But the only reason Mr Benyon pulled his finger out in recent weeks was due to criticism in the media. Mr Benyon seems to be taking credit for saving both the Magistrates and County Courts, so is he unaware that the county court is to close, or have all of the media outlets reported this in mistake?
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)