Pages

Showing posts with label establishment spotlight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label establishment spotlight. Show all posts

Friday, June 29, 2007

Counsel for the Highways Agency: Charles Calvert


The counsel for the Highways Agency has made his mark on this Inquiry. On Tuesday, he did his best to avoid using the microphone, pretending that he didn't know how to use it or simply avoiding it altogether. Clearly, his words are intended largely for the Inspector. This man could strut sitting down.

But he needs to be taken seriously. His Bio on his Chamber's website makes it clear he is very experienced and this profile shows he has a clear track record in advocating road schemes. It also ironically shows that he finds leisure in the 'country life' - presumably not that of the Peak District and Longdendale, which he helping his client to ruin for eternity.

But his manner and deportment are at times ridiculous. He forever reminds me of ' la de dah Gunner Graham' from 'It Ain't Half Hot Mum':



Can you see the resemblance?

Friday, May 04, 2007

Counsel for TMBC: Martin Carter


First up in the 'establishment spotlight' is TMBC's barrister at the Pre-Inquiry Meeting (PIM), Martin Carter.

At the PIM, Carter (a member of the Planning & Environment Bar Association) announced that he would be appearing only at the PIM, and that his colleague, John Barrett would be conducting the Inquiry.

Of course, we all know that lawyers accept all kinds of cases, sometimes appearing as advocates for both sides of a particular cause. And Carter is no exception. Although it is interesting to note that he has backed some causes we'd approve of and that are somewhat relevant here: resisting Compulsory Purchase Orders and fighting cases where Village Greens are under threat.

On Tuesday, he came across as somewhat less incompetent than Charles Calvert (for the HA), but admitted that TMBC were 'working towards' submitting their evidence for the deadline of 5th June. He also said he 'didn't know' what the extent of the information that was available on the combined environmental impacts of the Bypass & Spur together. Such an admission may mean a number of things, though as one objector remarked it's not possible to comment on information that doesn't exist...