[mi2]

I like these.

http://www.petermoulder.co.uk/

[Higham8]

That is truly appalling. Then the DDC say they are accountable?....Hmmmm I think NOT :arghh::arghh::arghh:. I hope the person concerned takes the individuals to court and sues them for everything they have.

This post has been edited by Higham8: 12 August 2008 - 12:09 AM
Reason for edit: added content

[Bern]

Even accepting that there are many sides to a story, I have to say I am not surprised by the behaviour of the officials. I have known people working for authorities who bend and break rules to get the decision they want or to "punish" people who challenge or irritate. Prejudicing documents changing words or phrases is not uncommon. It is unacceptable and dirty.

[The Fabric Fairy]

Bern said:

Even accepting that there are many sides to a story, I have to say I am not surprised by the behaviour of the officials. I have known people working for authorities who bend and break rules to get the decision they want or to "punish" people who challenge or irritate. Prejudicing documents changing words or phrases is not uncommon. It is unacceptable and dirty.

..........as are the actions of the Council in the whole saga of this shocking affair. Anyone know of a good lawyer who'd be willing to act pro bono for this man? DDC have a good many questions to answer here; I accept that there are two sides to every tale, but this goes into the realm of the surreal.

[Higham8]

As always, I suspect, when challenged all the representatives say is, "We are unable to comment on specific cases"

This is totally unacceptable, but unfortunately, we are the ones to blame for putting these people into the positions they are in.

Just goes to show that the governments at whatever level are capable of with regards to supporting their constituents....... or should I say screwing their constituents over.

This post has been edited by Higham8: 12 August 2008 - 11:21 AM
Reason for edit: added content

[www.doverpast.co.uk]

Higham8 said:

That is truly appalling. Then the DDC say they are accountable?....Hmmmm I think NOT :arghh::arghh::arghh:. I hope the person concerned takes the individuals to court and sues them for everything they have.

Our money ???!!??

[Bern]

Poo!! However, there has to be a pathway that would hold someone accountable for the suffering and the distress caused apparently by local officials. At the very least it warrants an independent public enquiry........that would rule out or in the allegations being made.

[Higham8]

Doverpast, I didn't mean to imply that this gentleman sue the Council. I meant that he should sue the individuals concerned. Sorry for being a little ambiguous in that post.

[www.doverpast.co.uk]

Higham8 said:

Doverpast, I didn't mean to imply that this gentleman sue the Council. I meant that he should sue the individuals concerned. Sorry for being a little ambiguous in that post.

Not sure it would be possible to sue individuals as it is "the council" that take decisions as a body unless someone is taking backhanders ??

Not read the website as it is a bit intense, but if someone can summarise in 2 sentences it would be good :)

[Ptah]

As he lived there he assumed that his home was a residence but DDC disagreed, saying that it was uninhabited, so made him wait outside while they knocked it down.

A truly dispicable case and one that we should all take warning from the next time you hear a District councillor say that it is more 'time and cost effective' to leave a lot of the decisions to officers rather than have them decided by elected councillors.

[howardmcs]

i feel sure that a councillor and/or officer will come on here soon to give their side of the story.

i would type more, but i am not allowed anything sharp where i am at present.

[suenicholas]

I recall this case very well I was on Planning Committee at that time.Councillors are bound by the code of conduct and all i will say the decision was made by councillors following Officers and legal advice.Some where on this thread it talks of compensation .The decision was collectively made by a council committee.When ever appeals are made etc depending on the legal ruling the money has to be found from the councils finances.There is a lot more to this story and Im amazed it has appeared again .It was quite a story at that time .A long time ago.
I can not enter into further debate but decisions of that nature are not taken lightly .

[madsmum]

The attitude that the council displays is that the decision was quite easy and that it was more than acceptable to knock down a home that wasn't theirs to knock down.

[Thommo]

I think I remember the original fuss about this back in the eighties.

It's just my opinion, I can't help feeling that if there was really a case to answer then a legal action would have been brought by now (and there are plenty of no win, no fee lawyers around willing to take on a case like this if there was any chance of winning).

It's very easy to to knock together a website supporting a one sided argument, however, it's often the last resort of the lost cause and saying a thing is a fact does not necessarily make it so.

All very unfortunate, but it could well be a case of buyer beware, pehaps they are pursuing the wrong people?

[www.doverpast.co.uk]

Thommo said:

I think I remember the original fuss about this back in the eighties.

It's just my opinion, I can't help feeling that if there was really a case to answer then a legal action would have been brought by now (and there are plenty of no win, no fee lawyers around willing to take on a case like this if there was any chance of winning).

It's very easy to to knock together a website supporting a one sided argument, however, it's often the last resort of the lost cause and saying a thing is a fact does not necessarily make it so.

All very unfortunate, but it could well be a case of buyer beware, pehaps they are pursuing the wrong people?

Was thinking the same myself, if there was a true case and it was 'winable' then it should have been taken years ago...

[Bern]

You may or may not be right, but we should also bear in mind that at that time litigation was not so popular or accessible, and if even part of the case presented is correct the pressure could easily have caused the people concerned to feel disempowered and abused.....enough to put them off fighting.

[mi2]

suenicholas said:

ICouncillors are bound by the code of conduct .... decisions of that nature are not taken lightly .

Unfortunately, this does not necessarily mean they adhere to the Code of Conduct... or make their decisions competently.

[Ptah]

Having read the web site, the gentleman concerned lost his home and wife over the case and was obviously very distressed over the whole thing. As has been said, litigation was not as easily gained in those days, it was certainly not advertised on the television and there was no internet to promote his case. It would appear that it was easier to knock down somebodies home than it is to demolish an unused office block in the centre of the town. They learnt well from Brook House.

[The Fabric Fairy]

I can think of two other buildings in Dover that were summarily knocked down without any due processes being adhered to - the old Post Office [to make way for Woolworths] and the signal box in the Western Docks near what is now the Limekiln Street pumping station. I'm pretty sure that both of those were listed buildings, so how come this keeps happening in Dover? Is our own Council flouting the law?

[Terry Nunn]

It's not a new thing. The old Borough Council were just the same. They mostly demolished these delightful flint cottages (where Watling Tyres is now) before Terry Sutton and the Dover Society pointed out that they had a preservation order on them. All that is left is a few flint inserts in the wall by the bus stop.

Terry