Lissadell Costs

maryishere

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

So he feared the repercussions from "de boys" if he stood up for what he wanted?

Sir Jocelyn never indicated, as far as I know, he would have wanted to extinguish the rights of way on the roads through the estate. He never blocked or tried to block the road. Why would he have? Never caused him any real problems. He got on well with the locals. Mutual admiration. Has to be a bit of give and take in this life. Compromise. Plenty of other things to worry about in this world. I saw an interview with him and I felt a bit sorry for him in a way, how he was burdened with the responsibility of maintaining and looking after that place. Good for him he sold near the height of the boom, as I believe his family had relatively little income for a long time.

Dubl07

maryishere wrote: »

Sir Jocelyn never indicated, as far as I know, he would have wanted to extinguish the rights of way on the roads through the estate. He never blocked or tried to block the road. Why would he have? Never caused him any real problems. He got on well with the locals. Mutual admiration. Has to be a bit of give and take in this life. Compromise. Plenty of other things to worry about in this world. I saw an interview with him and I felt a bit sorry for him in a way, how he was burdened with the responsibility of maintaining and looking after that place. Good for him he sold near the height of the boom, as I believe his family had relatively little income for a long time.

As I understand it, Sir Jocelyn was made aware that his life would be made difficult if he attempted to exercise his legal rights as owner of the property. As a vulnerable elderly man, he eventually cut his losses and sold the estate.

Plazaman

maryishere wrote: »

Sir Jocelyn never indicated, as far as I know, he would have wanted to extinguish the rights of way on the roads through the estate. He never blocked or tried to block the road. Why would he have? Never caused him any real problems. He got on well with the locals.....

The big difference was back in the Gore-Booth days, whilst there may have been people out for leisurely strolls, there weren't the self-righteous, "I'm entitled to walk here", indignant, wannabe posh heads who thought the could happily wander through private property 24/7 with their diarrohea filled dogs and snotty runabout, flower kicking kids. Also there were a lot less boy racers with souped up hair dryers (OK, I may be taking some liberty but there is anecdotal evidence from good sources of incidents with walkers being too familiar on the property and cars racing through the estate).

Considering the Walshs took over the house in 2003 and for 5 years allowed the status quo to continue but then decided to close gates at night to stop increased night traffic through the estate, everything would be grand today and we all could enjoy the beauty of the place.

That was until a motion was put forward by Councillor Joe Leonard, in December 2008 to Sligo County Council who then voted to preserve public rights of way that it contended existed on the estate. This motion was made without any notice of any kind to the owners. Parish pump politics at it's best as I stated before. Maybe, just maybe, if negotiations were made first and the owners allowed to tell their side, a compromised could have been reached and Sligo Co Co would be €7 million richer.

P. Breathnach

Dubl07 wrote: »

As I understand it, Sir Jocelyn was made aware that his life would be made difficult if he attempted to exercise his legal rights as owner of the property....

I read a summary of the Supreme Court decision, and such a view seemed to be at the heart of it: it could not be established that he willingly ceded rights of way because of the coercive behaviour of some people (I think that at least one Co. Councillor was involved).

Robbo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I read a summary of the Supreme Court decision, and such a view seemed to be at the heart of it: it could not be established that he willingly ceded rights of way because of the coercive behaviour of some people (I think that at least one Co. Councillor was involved).

Apropos of nothing, has anyone ever inquired as the ownership of neighouring lands that perhaps might have benefitted from a public right of way being established?

sillyoulfool

maryishere wrote: »

Some would say that's because the owners of the 13 million euro house were part of their own - two top barristers.

Perhaps if the previous owner of the house, Sir Jocelyn or whatever he was called, decided to erect gates and block access on the roads through the estate, and there was a court case then.... do you think he would have won the court case? lol

Who really has faith in the Irish legal system at this stage?

I do.
Particularly after they affirmed the right of the private citizen to own property without being hassled by the "something for nothing" begrudgers.
A wise judgement by our most eminent Judges.

John_Rambo

Robbo wrote: »

Apropos of nothing, has anyone ever inquired as the ownership of neighouring lands that perhaps might have benefitted from a public right of way being established?

If you had a farm with valuable livestock or a a small back garden would you be happy if I took a short cut through your property to get to work? In my car? Just because it benifitted me?

maryishere

Dubl07 wrote: »

As I understand it, Sir Jocelyn was made aware that his life would be made difficult if he attempted to exercise his legal rights as owner of the property.

People had been using a road through the estate as a right of way to the sea for generations. Sir Jocelyn had no legal means to close that right of way....even if he had wanted to. As a gesture to his neighbours, he probably would not have wanted to anyway. In England for example, rights of way exist and land owners are very co-operative with walkers and people going through their lands, even over grass. People are taught that tourism is very important. If there was a roadway going through a property used by the public for generations, that right of way would be preserved.

The buyers bought the estate knowing there was a right of way through it. They allowed that right of way continue for 5 years after purchasing the whole estate for a relatively cheap price ( half the cost of the legal fees in the court case).

I suppose if an owner was going to want to sell the estate to some mega rich pop star or businessman as a private residence, then he/she would want rights of ways extinguished.

josip

maryishere wrote: »

...
The buyers bought the estate knowing there was a right of way through it. They allowed that right of way continue for 5 years ...

Mary, how do you reconcile your above statement with the conclusion of the supreme court?

maryishere

josip wrote: »

the conclusion of the supreme court?

Which part of the conclusion of that court, which different from the conclusion of the other court you mean?;)

steddyeddy

Santa Cruz wrote: »

The Courts didn't agree with your bar stool legal argument

What do courts do and do not agree with is not necessary indicative of sound judgment.

JCJCJC

The thread is about costs - can we get back to that? Who do people think will end up paying?

maryishere

JCJCJC wrote: »

The thread is about costs - can we get back to that? Who do people think will end up paying?

The ordinary people - locals and tourists - will no longer be able to travel on the road / right of way through the house to the sea, and will not be able to admire the splendid architecture of the outside of the house, as generations have been free to do.

The ordinary people will though rates and taxes pay the legal costs. Did not the troika have harsh words to say about the cost of the legal profession in Ireland....but nothing was done about it? Heard an auld wise fellow on a high stool the other day remark "Say what you want about the old ruling class, but they allowed people rights of way and they did not have holiday homes costing 13 million." Who paid for that?

John_Rambo

maryishere wrote: »

The ordinary people - locals and tourists - will no longer be able to travel on the road / right of way through the house to the sea

The coastal route to the beach at Lissadell is open.

maryishere wrote: »

Heard an auld wise fellow on a high stool the other day remark "Say what you want about the old ruling class, but they allowed people rights of way and they did not have holiday homes costing 13 million." Who paid for that?

He's not so wise really, it's their home, they paid for it, nobody else. Sligo County Council could have bought it, but they didn't and spent way more money fighting a bitter personal battle. Regarding the costs? The tax payer will pay for the silly decisions made by Sligo County Council.

maryishere

John_Rambo wrote: »

The coastal route to the beach at Lissadell is open.

as it should be, but I assume the other road to the coast (through the estate) is now closed, for the first time. Generations used that route.

John_Rambo wrote: »

He's not so wise really,

who, the old man on the high stool? you never met him or know anything about him.

John_Rambo wrote: »

it's their home, they paid for it, nobody else.

The point was, "Say what you want about the old ruling class, but they allowed people rights of way and they did not have holiday homes costing 13 million." Where did the 13 million come from? Do you remember the troika criticising legal fees and procedures in this country or am I imagining it?

John_Rambo wrote: »

Sligo County Council could have bought it,

agreed, but would they have had the money to maintain and refurbish it...13 million so far?

John_Rambo wrote: »

but they didn't and spent way more money fighting a bitter personal battle.

from reading media reports even they did not envisage at the beginning that maintaining rights of way would cost 7 million. Only in Ireland could legal costs stretch to that on a right of way case.

John_Rambo wrote: »

Regarding the costs? The tax payer will pay for the silly decisions made by Sligo County Council.

In fairness they were elected by the public and thought they were acting in the interests of the public.

If poor old Sir Jocelyn had stayed in the house everyone would be happy : people would have had access through the estate roads same as everyone always had, and the county council would not be 7 million worse off.

It would therefore be in the interests of the country, and indeed the tourist industry, if all the old remaining Anglo Irish gentry were encouraged to remain here ; perhaps by giving them grants, or reducing inheritance taxes, or by whatever means...maybe even giving them back some of the lands confinscated by the land commission.

Stavros Murphy

maryishere wrote: »

as it should be, but I assume the other road to the coast (through the estate) is now closed, for the first time. Generations used that route.



who, the old man on the high stool? you never met him or know anything about him.




The point was, "Say what you want about the old ruling class, but they allowed people rights of way and they did not have holiday homes costing 13 million." Where did the 13 million come from? Do you remember the troika criticising legal fees and procedures in this country or am I imagining it?




agreed, but would they have had the money to maintain and refurbish it...13 million so far?


from reading media reports even they did not envisage at the beginning that maintaining rights of way would cost 7 million. Only in Ireland could legal costs stretch to that on a right of way case.




In fairness they were elected by the public and thought they were acting in the interests of the public.

If poor old Sir Jocelyn had stayed in the house everyone would be happy : people would have had access through the estate roads same as everyone always had, and the county council would not be 7 million worse off.

It would therefore be in the interests of the country, and indeed the tourist industry, if all the old remaining Anglo Irish gentry were encouraged to remain here ; perhaps by giving them grants, or reducing inheritance taxes, or by whatever means...maybe even giving them back some of the lands confinscated by the land commission.

As opposed to yesterdays "burning them out"? Some U-turn there old son.

maryishere

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

As opposed to yesterdays "burning them out"? Some U-turn there old son.

I never advocated burning anyone out and I am most definitely not your old son. You did not answer the question: Do you remember the troika criticising legal fees and procedures in this country or am I imagining it?

Do you agree that if poor old Sir Jocelyn had stayed in the house everyone would be happy : people would have had access through the estate roads same as everyone always had, and the county council would not be 7 million worse off?

Stavros Murphy

maryishere wrote: »

I never advocated burning anyone out and I am most definitely not your old son. You did not answer the question: Do you remember the troika criticising legal fees and procedures in this country or am I imagining it?

Do you agree that if poor old Sir Jocelyn had stayed in the house everyone would be happy : people would have had access through the estate roads same as everyone always had, and the county council would not be 7 million worse off?

Drop in the bucket for the CC and self-inflicted anyway. And how "poor"? You richer?

Sulla Felix

maryishere wrote: »

I never advocated burning anyone out and I am most definitely not your old son. You did not answer the question: Do you remember the troika criticising legal fees and procedures in this country or am I imagining it?

Do you agree that if poor old Sir Jocelyn had stayed in the house everyone would be happy : people would have had access through the estate roads same as everyone always had, and the county council would not be 7 million worse off?

The yielding of rights of way were found not to be voluntary on Sir Jocelyns part due in large part to intimidation over the years.
So no, everyone wouldn't have been happy if Sir Jocelyn had stayed. For one, Sir Jocelyn wasn't happy to stay there!

maryishere

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

Drop in the bucket for the CC

7 million is not drop in the bucket, its a lot of money. It may not be a lot of money to you, some may feel its only half the cost of a holiday home, but its a lot of money.

ted1

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

Why is the cost of the house and renovation mentioned in your breakdown? They were paid by the owners and have nothing to do with the €7,000,000

Perspective. The council had the chance to buy the land and house out right

maryishere

Sulla Felix wrote: »

The yielding of rights of way were found not to be voluntary on Sir Jocelyns part due in large part to intimidation over the years.

have you a link for that? I saw a long tv programme on him about a year ago and he never mentioned such intimidation. The issue of closing the rights of way never arose when he owned Lissadell, so how could he have possibly have been intimidated over same? He had only good things to say about the area and the locals, and it appears all of the locals never had any problem with him.

Sulla Felix

maryishere wrote: »

have you a link for that? I saw a long tv programme on him about a year ago and he never mentioned such intimidation. The issue of closing the rights of way never arose when he owned Lissadell, so how could he have possibly have been intimidated over same? He had only good things to say about the area and the locals, and it appears all of the locals never had any problem with him.

Read the judgement. This is why only one of the four rights' of way was found to exist, it was the only one that wasn't tainted and had a solid grounding in documentary evidence.

maryishere

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Read the judgement.

I read most of it. However never mind the judgement, as the other court case found different.
The issue of closing the rights of way never arose when Sir Jocelyn owned Lissadell, so how could he have possibly have been intimidated over same? And if he was, why did ne never mention it? He said he was happy when he lived in Sligo, and had fond memories.

Do you not agree that if Sir Jocelyn had stayed in the house everyone would be happy : people would have had access through the estate roads same as everyone always had, and the county council would not be 7 million worse off?

John_Rambo

maryishere wrote: »

as it should be

And it is. Stop making up stories. The access to the beach remains.

maryishere wrote: »

who, the old man on the high stool? you never met him or know anything about him.

We can all make up stories about old men on high stools.

maryishere wrote: »

In fairness they were elected by the public and thought they were acting in the interests of the public.

I didn't elect them, but you can be sure I will pay for their fook up.

maryishere

John_Rambo wrote: »

The access to the beach remains.

as it should, but the right of way road through the estate to the coast is now closed, is it not?

The point is if Sir Jocelyn had stayed in the house everyone would be happy : people would have had access through the estate roads same as everyone always had, and the county council would not be 7 million worse off.

Oh, and you would not be having to help pay off that 7 million.

ted1

John_Rambo wrote: »

The coastal route to the beach at Lissadell is open.



He's not so wise really, it's their home, they paid for it, nobody else. Sligo County Council could have bought it, but they didn't and spent way more money fighting a bitter personal battle. Regarding the costs? The tax payer will pay for the silly decisions made by Sligo County Council.

The coastal route is very important. I regularly kitesurf there. Occasionally we experience scum who visit the car park / grass area just to rob the cars.

John_Rambo

maryishere wrote: »

Oh, and you would not be having to help pay off that 7 million.

Oh, I will. I'm a tax payer in Dublin! Anyone paying tax will be paying for Sligo county councils misadventure.

@ ted, I feel your pain, but the blame of theft lies only at the door of the thieves I'm afraid... It's a seven metre kite day on the east coust today!

Plazaman

maryishere wrote: »

The point was, "Say what you want about the old ruling class, but they allowed people rights of way and they did not have holiday homes costing 13 million." Where did the 13 million come from? Do you remember the troika criticising legal fees and procedures in this country or am I imagining it?

maryishere wrote: »

7 million is not drop in the bucket, its a lot of money. It may not be a lot of money to you, some may feel its only half the cost of a holiday home, but its a lot of money.

Where are you getting "holiday home" from? Lisadell is the family home of the Walshes and has been since 2005, they have been living there continuously since.

And Lisadell was open to sale to anyone at the time, it's just that this particular family bought it. That was the price they paid for it, it's no ones business where they got the money from. Does your old bar stool boy follow many people around who buy houses and ask them where they got the money to buy it. There's some bang of begrudgery of him thats rubbing off in your posts.

ted1

maryishere wrote: »

as it should, but the right of way road through the estate to the coast is now closed, is it not?

The point is if Sir Jocelyn had stayed in the house everyone would be happy : people would have had access through the estate roads same as everyone always had, and the county council would not be 7 million worse off.

Oh, and you would not be having to help pay off that 7 million.

Actual councils outside dublin recieve 50 times more funding per person that dublin councils. And the local property tax isn't local. Dublins share will be going to different councils

maryishere

ted1 wrote: »

Actual councils outside dublin recieve 50 times more funding per person that dublin councils. And the local property tax isn't local. Dublins share will be going to different councils

+1. And Sligo Country Council would not have had to concern itself with the rights of way at Lissadell at all if the previous owner did not sell. Sir Joycelyn and his family were very well respected around the area by all accounts. Pity their estate was decimated by the authorities over the years ( through the land commission and inheritance taxes etc ). Ironic that action taken by the new owners of the estate have cost the County Council ( and you and me ) 7 million.
And the troika criticising legal fees and structures and yet it remains!

John_Rambo wrote: »

Oh, I will. I'm a tax payer in Dublin! Anyone paying tax will be paying for Sligo county councils misadventure.

But I said you would not be helping to pay for the 7 million legal fees if Sir Jocelyn had stayed in the house. Everyone would then be happy : people would have had access through the estate roads same as everyone always had, and the county council would not be 7 million worse off.

Plazaman wrote: »

Where are you getting "holiday home" from? Lisadell is the family home of the Walshes and has been since 2005, they have been living there continuously since.

its a holiday home, the kids in the family do not go to school in Sligo, or so I read in the papers. The family lives in Kildare or on the east side of the country, I seem to remember reading. There is nothing to stop anyone spending 13 million on a holiday home. This type of carry on that happened at Lissadell does not happen in most civilised countries though.

And in most countries you can go on rights of way and walks in the countryside without hassle. I remember going on holidays to Sligo years ago and seeing lots of signs on benbulben warning against hill walking on the mountain / trespassing. Contrast that to other countries. The country has a lot of learning to do.

P. Breathnach

maryishere wrote: »

... Ironic that action taken by the new owners of the estate have cost the County Council ( and you and me ) 7 million...

Not a fair representation: it was the action taken by the County Council that led to the costs. Combined, I accept, with the extremely high fees that lawyers get away with charging.

sillyoulfool

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not a fair representation: it was the action taken by the County Council that led to the costs. Combined, I accept, with the extremely high fees that lawyers get away with charging.

The only ones who cost the CC 7 million are the begrudgers who tried to usurp the rights if legal owners of Lisadell to the peaceful occupation of their property. No rights of way were lost because no rights of way existed.

maryishere

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Not a fair representation: it was the action taken by the County Council that led to the costs. Combined, I accept, with the extremely high fees that lawyers get away with charging.

fair point: I was referring to the new owners of the estate erecting gates on roads, and locking those gates closed, I believe, which led to the county council intervening to preserve what it believed to be rights of way.

If you are going to pick a fight, do not pick a fight with boxer, where the umpire is also a boxer.

John_Rambo

maryishere wrote: »

+1. And Sligo Country Council would not have had to concern itself with the rights of way at Lissadell at all if the previous owner did not sell.

? He did sell. Sligo CC should have bought the house if they wanted it.

maryishere wrote: »

But I said you would not be helping to pay for the 7 million legal fees if Sir Jocelyn had stayed in the house.

Again, he did sell. This is stupid.

maryishere wrote: »

There is nothing to stop anyone spending 13 million on a holiday home. This type of carry on that happened at Lissadell does not happen in most civilised countries though

Why should people be stopped buying properties going for market price, who should stop them? The Gardai? Properties like this change hands all the time.

http://www.ganlywalters.ie/548965/Tulira_Castle_Ardrahan_Galway

If you don't think people spend €13 million on various properties, castles, palaces, villas, in France, Spain, England, Scotland, Africa... you're deluded.

Cantremember

I wish, then and now, that the state has purchased the estate entirely and developed it into a Yeats centre with museum, lectures etc. The public would still have had access and Sligo would have had a major attraction.

Sulla Felix

Cantremember wrote: »

I wish, then and now, that the state has purchased the estate entirely and developed it into a Yeats centre with museum, lectures etc. The public would still have had access and Sligo would have had a major attraction.

Sligo did have a major attraction until the cc started their idiocy. Last year that Lissadell was open under the new owners they had 40k visitors.

slingshot88

maryishere wrote: »

The house and land cost 3.75 million, not 4 million. 250,000 is not much in the overall scheme of things though. What I would severely doubt is that 9,000,000 was spent on renovation. I was there last year on holidays and the place, from the outside anyway, was more run down than when the previous owners had it. There was even potholes ye could bury an ass in, on the drive through the estate. Shame how the new owners could not maintain it as well as the previous ones.

As for the 7 million legal fees to sort out a right of way - that just shows what a joke this country is. You could buy about 400 brand new apartments / houses around Sligo for that, with all the unsold houses / ghost estates there are.

With legal fees so high in this little country, wonder how a couple of barristers can end up affording (to them ) a 13 million holiday home for their family of about 6, when most families in the country are struggling on a fraction of their income.

The potholes you could bury an ass in only appeared when the dispute over the rights the way started, nothing to do with the mini digger that was parked just a few feet away inside the security fenceing at the house.......

sabat

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Sligo did have a major attraction until the cc started their idiocy. Last year that Lissadell was open under the new owners they had 40k visitors.

Coincidentally, the place was closed off to the public right after the legal requirement for access in order to receive capital allowance tax breaks was complete.

slingshot88

maryishere wrote: »

have you a link for that? I saw a long tv programme on him about a year ago and he never mentioned such intimidation. The issue of closing the rights of way never arose when he owned Lissadell, so how could he have possibly have been intimidated over same? He had only good things to say about the area and the locals, and it appears all of the locals never had any problem with him.

Sir joceylyns was liked by one and all, I believe he fell on hard times and that is the reason he sold up

maryishere

John_Rambo wrote: »

Why should people be stopped buying properties going for market price, who should stop them? The Gardai? Properties like this change hands all the time.

I never said or suggested people should be stopped from buying properties for market price. If 2 barristers can afford to spend 13 million buying and maintaining a holiday home that is nothing out of the ordinary, barristers do that all the time in France, Spain, England, Scotland, Africa lol.

What annoyed the locals there and the county council was the way the new owners closed rights of way ...roads which had been used for many generations.

As other posters said Sir joceylyns was liked by one and all...as were his family. Is'nt it ironic that people give out - well have historically given out- about the Anglo Irish, yet here is a family which were very good to the locals and allowed rights of way etc on certain roads through the estate. The government over the years took land - most of their land - and assets away, with the land commission and inheritance taxes, and they end up with little or no income. Then new purchasers come along - purchasers who are where they are because of the legal system in this country- and they close rights of way and cause a legal wrangle with the council which costs the council in legal fees twice what the estate cost. Ha! Karma how are ye. Come back Anglo Irish, all is forgiven , ye ran the place better.

John_Rambo

maryishere wrote: »

barristers do that all the time in France, Spain, England, Scotland, Africa lol.

Lol? Lawyers, barristers, legal eagles etc.. buy pretty plush properties worth millions all over the civilised world, including France, Spain, England and Africa. Do you not know that they are extremely well paid and the better ones can pretty much demand what they want from the extremely rich corporations and people the represent?

maryishere wrote: »

Come back Anglo Irish, all is forgiven , ye ran the place better.

Mentioning Anglo Irish Bank to bolster thanks is weak. It has nothing to do with the costs.

maryishere

John_Rambo wrote: »

Do you not know that they are extremely well paid

Did not the troika suggest legal fees in this country were way out of line?

John_Rambo wrote: »

Mentioning Anglo Irish Bank to bolster thanks is weak. It has nothing to do with the costs.

Nobody mentioned Anglo Irish bank. The owners of many old estate houses around Ireland were loosely termed "Anglo Irish" because that was their background, but they had no more connection to Anglo Irish Bank than you or me. None of the Anglo Irish blocked rights of way as far as I know or ended up in a legal wrangle which cost the taxpayer 7 million.

P. Breathnach

maryishere wrote: »

...
What annoyed the locals there and the county council was the way the new owners closed rights of way ...roads which had been used for many generations.
...

The essence of the Supreme Court judgement is that they didn't close rights of way: they closed off private property.

maryishere

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The essence of the Supreme Court judgement is that they didn't close rights of way: they closed off private property.

Correct. And the essence of the High Court judgement is that they did close rights of way. And according to people who lived in the area and who visited the area over generations they travelled the road as a right of way, and there was never any obstruction.

The result in the Supreme court has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility that the 2 top barristers may have known anyone in the Supreme Court, or knew someone who knew someone.

sillyoulfool

maryishere wrote: »

The result in the Supreme court has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility that the 2 top barristers may have known anyone in the Supreme Court, or knew someone who knew someone.

So now you accusing the Judges of the Supreme Court of being institutionally corrupt!
The only word to describe that disgusting claim is pathetic!

maryishere

sillyoulfool wrote: »

So now you accusing the Judges of the Supreme Court of being institutionally corrupt!

I did not actually. The thought would never have entered my head, m'lord. The judges in the supreme court are entitled to their view, just as those judges in the high court and the people who live in the area and who visited the area over generations are also entitled to their views.

slingshot88

Sure everyone knows there is no corruption in ireland!

P. Breathnach

maryishere wrote: »

...
The result in the Supreme court has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility that the 2 top barristers may have known anyone in the Supreme Court, or knew someone who knew someone.

There is a similar possibility that they know High Court judges, and the High Court ruled against them.

Robbo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is a similar possibility that they know High Court judges, and the High Court ruled against them.

Easier to sell that conspiracy too, only one judge to be "got at" in the High Court. However to make 5 Supreme Court judges deliver a unanimous judgment, we're through the looking glass here people.

Can we have more folksy tales of gentle country folk tugging the forelock at the owner of the Big House, ambling down Fake Nostalgia Avenue to the beach, wise old legal philosopher's on barstools and the rantings of the Fast Show's Rowley Birkin QC.