Utterly pathetic. What a shower of ":"@"@"@"
On what grounds have they won an injunction?
Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart granted the injunction at London's High Court on the basis that there was a realistic apprehension that the measures to be taken - while genuinely believed in by the council - "may go further" than the terms of the enforcement notices.
He said: "Having regard to the fact there is no fixed date for starting these - but they are imminent - I do not see that any serious injustice will be caused if the actual implementation of any measures will not take place before the end of this week."
I think this calls for a public inquiry
I don't think so, he's worried that it will escalate beyond simply physically removing people.This:
He's worried that they might get manhandled off the site.![]()
I don't think so, he's worried that it will escalate beyond simply physically removing people.
It would only serve to discredit the approach taken, which has to date been by the letter of the law, by the council/police I mean. Whatever is deserved should anything go wrong with this case it will be clung onto for years.We can only hope
I don't think so, he's worried that it will escalate beyond simply physically removing people.
Yes, planning law, a set of laws that are accepted to be in need of reform, and were not really developed with traveller communities in mind.
We can only hope
I don't think so, he's worried that it will escalate beyond simply physically removing people.