Nothing will change while ever the good people of Wakefield keep voting Labour in the local elections. Many people have indicated in strong terms on here that they would never ever ever ever ever not vote Labour and that's their prerogative and fair play
to them. Wakefield is the only council that has never changed its party in power. Safe in this knowledge Box has built his fiefdom of lies, scheming and deceit surrounding himself with lackeys, sycophants and yes men who do his bidding, chief sycophant been Jeffries who can`t lie straight in bed, who Box controls by putting her in a safe Cas seat. The privately educated, highly paid, mansion living Labour leader Box`s worst trait is that he is a Bully, a sickening Bully. His hold on power is absolute and is unchallenged, the last person to stand up to him Robin Fostelly. His hold on power is absolute and is unchallenged, the last person to stand up to him Robin lly. His hold on power is absolute and is unchallenged, the last person to stand up to him Rlly. His hold on power is absolute and is unchallenged, the last person to stand up to him Robin lly. His hold on power is absolute and is unchallenged, the last person to stand up to him Robin Foster was sacked from his position as Chief Exec I think , costing the tax payer in the region of half a million pounds, ( Box happy to pay this to get rid of the dissenter ) and filled the position with his lap dog Joane Rooney who is happy to do Box`s` bidding as she is paid in excess of £ 120,000 p.a. We have a rotten Borough a rotten council and a rotten council leadership.
Could we be right in assuming sandal cat,that if we went down the high court route, that this might jolt the council into back tracking and sorting their mess out before the lawyers bills started dropping on boxes table? .. Providing there is a water tight case..
Quite often once legal proceedings are instigated it can indeed jolt the other party into settling before the matter gets to the High Court. However you need to have the cash to commence the proceedings and be prepared to take your case all the way.
No Lawyer will ever tell you that you have a watertight case and there is always a risk that however much you are confident of your case the Judge may not see it your way.
The problem is the cost of instigating proceedings. The Stadium Trust will need to raise a substantial amount of money but the Council will just use the Council Taxpayers money to fund a defence. The Supporters Trust has investigated and found a crowdfunding web site who will allow us to raise money to fund such a legal challenge if it comes to it.
No one wants to take this to the High Court, we want to see the Council enforce the Section 106 Agreement/UU and the Developer to deliver what they promised the citizens of Wakefield at the Public Inquiry, however if they are not prepared to deliver on that promise we are prepared to take the matter to the High Court by way of a Judicial Review.
When JFK came to power, the CIA noted that things just didn't get done as JFK and those after him started to employ lawyers rather than military men as advisers. If told to do something, a military person would work out how to do it, whereas a lawyer would merely work out a way to weasel out of it. By the way, I'm a lawyer.
From Sandal's earlier post, reading it as a lawyer, I'm assuming the problem is that the council won't stump up the 2 million. Yorkcourt can say that the unilateral undertaking is dependent on the council paying 2 million. The phrase "unilateral undertaking" means a promise by one party acting alone. So I'm guessing that the council are saying that they are not obligated to pay anything as they haven't undertaken to pay anything.
So there is an impasse, a stalemate, the council refusing to pay 2 million, and Yorkcourt saying that was the precondition as part of the undertaking.
My take the council don't want to enforce Yorkcourt to do anything as WMDC are complicit with the whole front of using the stadium/community facilities to deliver Newcold. I have my own theory why certain public servants don't want to delve into the shady dealings and it doesn't smell great. I cant think of any other reason as to their reluctance to due their duty and the trotting out the faux legal advice claim.
I hope TRB, IA, Sandal Cat can be the catalysts that bring this rotten borough council down.
Are we going down the wrong avenue like i posted on FB Try to informed the S.O.S. of what is going on ie email every MP as possible the rough details what this council are trying to get out of and the link to BOX'S council meeting speech where he lies about the 106 agreement and also the Press every national newspaper lets make this national news name and shame them what have we got to lose lets get some pressure put on them.
My take the council don't want to enforce Yorkcourt to do anything as WMDC are complicit with the whole front of using the stadium/community facilities to deliver Newcold. I have my own theory why certain public servants don't want to delve into the shady dealings and it doesn't smell great. I cant think of any other reason as to their reluctance to due their duty and the trotting out the faux legal advice claim.
I hope TRB, IA, Sandal Cat can be the catalysts that bring this rotten borough council down.
You've just saved me from having to write the same post!
I can't see any legitimate reason why the Council wouldn't want to enforce the S106!
The statements from Box just make me think he's desperate to strangle this at birth, his aledged threat of legal action against the Trust makes me very suspicious of what they're desperately trying to hide. "He doth protest too much meethinks"
I can't see any legitimate reason why the Council wouldn't want to enforce the S106!
I can (albeit you can question the legitimacy of it): they don't want to hand over two million quid.
I was trying to think of an analogy to explain the difference between a unilateral undertaking and an agreement, and this is the best I can come up with.
If I come to an agreement with Michael Carter that I will drive him to the Magic weekend for £200 and he isn't at the pre-arranged meeting spot, he owes me £200. We had an agreement, I have consideration for the agreement by driving to the meeting spot, and I am £200 down.
If, however, I give him a unilateral undertaking that if he is at the pre-arranged meeting spot, I will drive him to the Magic weekend for £200, he owes me nothing if he isn't there and hopped on the team bus. I have promised to do something if he does something in return, but he isn't bound by it. He could turn round and say that he wanted to save £200.
Applying my reasoning to what I presume is the case, Yorkcourt aren't bound by the undertaking until the Council cough up two million, and I'm presuming the Council have decided they don't want to spend the money. That allows Yorkcourt the get-out.
I can (albeit you can question the legitimacy of it): they don't want to hand over two million quid.
I was trying to think of an analogy to explain the difference between a unilateral undertaking and an agreement, and this is the best I can come up with.
If I come to an agreement with Michael Carter that I will drive him to the Magic weekend for £200 and he isn't at the pre-arranged meeting spot, he owes me £200. We had an agreement, I have consideration for the agreement by driving to the meeting spot, and I am £200 down.
If, however, I give him a unilateral undertaking that if he is at the pre-arranged meeting spot, I will drive him to the Magic weekend for £200, he owes me nothing if he isn't there and hopped on the team bus. I have promised to do something if he does something in return, but he isn't bound by it. He could turn round and say that he wanted to save £200.
Applying my reasoning to what I presume is the case, Yorkcourt aren't bound by the undertaking until the Council cough up two million, and I'm presuming the Council have decided they don't want to spend the money. That allows Yorkcourt the get-out.
S106? You're having a laugh if you think these cut any ice these days. They're widely unenforced and disregarded by councils throughout Britain, not just yours. In many cases they were included as conditions merely to give councils the wriggle room they needed to let various contentious developments to proceed. Nowadays councils simply don't have the resources or the desire to police them all - in fact it's unlikely they ever did.