The heritage group who want to protect Liverpool’s famous “Welsh Streets” area has been accused by the City Council’s barrister of triggering a public inquiry by exaggerating evidence!
Yes, you read it right, a lawyer made the accusation. A member of the profession whose whole raison d’être is to present a case in the best possible light on behalf of anyone that will pay them – in other words, exaggerate, understate or spin it in whichever direction is desired. Not through conviction but for money! Faking it for cash, like a certain older profession.
Still, if the Law Society has decreed that the adversarial system is no longer appropriate and their members must now speak the unspun truth then hurrah, planning matters will be a lot simpler to decide and there’ll be no need for pesky members of the public to get involved as justice will invariably be well served. Suddenly…. the noise from wind farms will no longer be always represented as somewhere between “minimal” and “acceptable”, housing developments will no longer be presented as attempts to bring unalloyed joy to the locals, developers will cease to be characterised as selfless community workers or patriots, nimbies will cease to be reviled as selfish, petty and anti-British and buffer zones will no longer be seen as too large however tiny they are. And heritage groups won’t be painted as somehow irresponsible for triggering something as unnecessary and awful as a public inquiry into a city council’s plan to demolish 271 homes!
And of course, lawyers will work for nothing and on the basis of sincere conviction. Like members of heritage groups!
Ambrose Bierce: Litigation is a machine which you go into as a pig and come out of as a sausage.
The Heritage Journal 
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
30/06/2014 at 20:56
Silkworm
Law deals with facts and in this case, the figures given by SAVE were lower than those they actually incurred so to that end they have exaggerated the facts, i.e., not been truthful with plain facts.
You make use of the words minimal and acceptable – these are not measureable and are therefore subjective and arguable but in this case the facts were exaggerated and anyone is free to point this out.
30/06/2014 at 21:28
heritageaction
Indeed, but it seemed worth pointing out about pots and kettles!
Terms like minimal and acceptable ARE measurable to an extent IMO. The fact little has been done to make them so has left them open to exaggeration – by both sides. Of all the wind farm applications there have ever been, not one has ever been described as producing unacceptable noise by the applicants’ representatives. That suggests lawyers deal with more than “facts”!
06/12/2014 at 19:23
Jimmy Truman
Go on Cunt you be an ognal wanker as usual. Life must be easy only listening to the words in your head H A IS A TWAT
07/12/2014 at 03:33
Danny
Let me guess, what would be the hobby of choice for anyone as sophisticated as you?