I don't have a deep knowledge of the FOI law but in my experience it's very difficult to challenge on a point of law when those laws have been considered in full.
They may seek, and I'm reading between the lines of their response, to challenge on an interpretation of ongoing commercial competitiveness and that the tribunal incorrectly interpreted the law in this regard.
I'm not familiar with the legal text so don't know whether this is feasible.
A great and comprehensive victory in this round though @PragueAddick. Couldn't have done better.
I think you'll find that behind the partisan bluster there's an appreciation for what's been done here. After all, West Ham fans are going to be the most affected by this and themselves wants to know what the actual deal is.
Yeah, I expect they'll be sobbing into their jellied eels in the knowledge that the deal they're getting enables the club to pay the likes of Payet another £50k a week or whatever on top of his current deal.
Brilliant work by all concerned and by Richard in particular. Why is it that this country has inept and/or corrupt local politicians? Why can they not be transparent in their dealings? I favour that they are just inept and easily manipulated by smarter businessmen but maybe this is incorrect.Any ideas?
Ha. I would suggest our politicians come out looking good, compared to the rest of the world.
Brilliant work by all concerned and by Richard in particular. Why is it that this country has inept and/or corrupt local politicians? Why can they not be transparent in their dealings? I favour that they are just inept and easily manipulated by smarter businessmen but maybe this is incorrect.Any ideas?
I've been thinking about this, a lot. I would say, I think it is the same everywhere, and that power corrupts, everywhere. Conversely, here are the four GLA assembly members who have given the most vocal support to our campaign
Andrew Boff (special honourable mention) Caroline Pidgeon (Mayoral Candidate) Murad Qureshi Jenny Jones
And the remarkable thing is, they represent four different parties. Power and cronyism is politically neutral. As is integrity. I've never voted Tory, but if Andrew Boff is ever a candidate I can vote for, he's got my vote.
The good thing is, that Britain still has processes, and a legal structure, which allows citizens to hold those in power to account. That Tribunal was rigorous, fair, and populated by people deserving of our respect and admiration (including the barrister representing the LLDC, and indeed the hapless Finance Director of the LLDC, who must have gone through a personal hell those two days). Until the email with the result came through, I had no idea how it would turn out. Just as 26 years ago next month, when we turned up at Woolwich Town Hall, we had no idea whether the Valley Party would be humiliated or what.
I think Britain is possibly the only country in the world where we could have got this far in both cases. Funny that I live abroad so long now, but I have never felt more proud to be British.
Since @gavros was of the opinion that the deal should be public I expect he'll be along any minute now to add his congratulations.
I only just saw this as I've been busy all day but of course, congratulations are in order.
I would however still expect the LLDC to look for grounds to appear to the Upper Chamber.
Just to put the record straight on one point, that Guardian article contains very large inaccuracies. The total cost of converting the stadium from a temporary athletics facility to a permanent multi purpose stadium was £272 million. The £701 million figure quoted was the total cost (ie plus the cost of building the thing in the first place).
I'd be very doubtful that they could bring an appeal, unless they can demonstrate that the First Tier Tribunal has erred on a point of law. Other then that the options are really very very limited.
Even where the losing side can view a decision as being perverse, it is hugely difficult to challenge it.
I somehow doubt that the LLDC could justify an appeal (it is the sort of thing that Parliamentary Committees would query).
Had a nose around the government site and one ground mentioned is a claim that the case is not covered by existing precedent and the outcome is of relevance to other parties who may have similar cases to bring.
The LLDC lawyer went out of her way to argue that the Commissioner should have applied a public interest test. Currently, before refusing to order disclosure of information on grounds of protecting commercial interests, a test must be applied to see whether the public interest warrants disclosure in spite of the likelihood of damaging commercial interests.
What LLDC argued central to their case is that before agreeing to order disclosure, the Commissioner having dismissed precedence of commercial interests for WHU, a test, never before used, should have been applied. This test would consider whether damaging the prospect of maximising revenue for the LLDC warrants suppression on the grounds of public interest. They wasted most of the time, much in secrecy, trying to show how LLDC would be held to ransom by Chips a Plenty in a burger van franchise negotiation because Chips a Plenty knew how much WHU paid for their tenancy.
Pure fantasy land created in the mind of a lawyer who then tried to prove it was real.
Utterly crazy. And you can be absolutely certain that the ICO gave full consideration to the public interest in this case (and determined that, on balance, it was in favour of disclosure).
I got the distinct impression that the LLDC were effectively trying to argue for a new exemption/exception in this case - commercial confidentiality would have been more likely if they were going to engage in (substantially) the same negotiations in 5 years, but 99 was just taking the piss.
Page 35 half way down and 36 Blames West Ham on not releasing "They may be trying to take legal action"
Edit:
I am very happy to release all the details. It is the Club themselves that are not happy to do this. They are proposing at the moment to take legal action to protect their right to privacy on that point. Frankly, I rather agree with you. It should be a matter of public record.
Page 35 half way down and 36 Blames West Ham on not releasing "They may be trying to take legal action"
Edit:
I am very happy to release all the details. It is the Club themselves that are not happy to do this. They are proposing at the moment to take legal action to protect their right to privacy on that point. Frankly, I rather agree with you. It should be a matter of public record.
Exactly. And Doug Harper from Orient Trust, Owen Gibson from the Graun, and I were there in person to see and hear him say it.
Doubt they spent millions on the FOI. No chance it's £17k though. I reckon it would be over £60k though at least, just for the appeal.
If they've got it for £17k, I'll need to find out who their lawyers are.
Not necessarily. They might have engaged a legal opinion for the ICO appeal, but, until the Tribunal, pretty much so everything would have been done in house by their FOI team. As a public authority in their own right they should have someone providing advice and guidance (to both LLDC staff and the public looking for information) and someone to conduct the "independent" Internal Review - the first level of complaint.
Someone could ask them how much their own staff time cost, to deal with the request in total - a nice little FOI query and, as it would not be broken down by hourly rates for staff involved, unlikely to engage an exemption (IMO).
Doubt they spent millions on the FOI. No chance it's £17k though. I reckon it would be over £60k though at least, just for the appeal.
If they've got it for £17k, I'll need to find out who their lawyers are.
The 17k is only what they told the GLA they were spending on the Tribunal appeal. That was before they knew that the hearing would spill over to a second day. Or even, may only have been what they had invoiced in advance...
I tell you what (I can say this now). The LLDC barrister was quite fit. And she played the part, would have looked at home in a New York courtroom drama. When I read up on her before the hearing I was gulping in trepidation. Looks like she has just been made a 'silk' too
According to that report Boris says the LDDC were right to lodge their (failed) appeal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a little while ago Boris said they should release all the information didn't he?
You are right and we will be on his case. I think I even have it on video, when we went to the GLA assembly in September. If anyone else can dig out this reference (it was a day or two after the ICO announced their decision) we'd be much obliged.
Edit. Coalition forces have already found the transcript. You slimey backsliding fat toad, Johnson. Pass the shampoo :-)
To be fair to Johnson @PragueAddick ...this hasn't changed my opinion of him one bit!!
Doubt they spent millions on the FOI. No chance it's £17k though. I reckon it would be over £60k though at least, just for the appeal.
If they've got it for £17k, I'll need to find out who their lawyers are.
The 17k is only what they told the GLA they were spending on the Tribunal appeal. That was before they knew that the hearing would spill over to a second day. Or even, may only have been what they had invoiced in advance...
I tell you what (I can say this now). The LLDC barrister was quite fit. And she played the part, would have looked at home in a New York courtroom drama. When I read up on her before the hearing I was gulping in trepidation. Looks like she has just been made a 'silk' too
Doubt they spent millions on the FOI. No chance it's £17k though. I reckon it would be over £60k though at least, just for the appeal.
If they've got it for £17k, I'll need to find out who their lawyers are.
The 17k is only what they told the GLA they were spending on the Tribunal appeal. That was before they knew that the hearing would spill over to a second day. Or even, may only have been what they had invoiced in advance...
I tell you what (I can say this now). The LLDC barrister was quite fit. And she played the part, would have looked at home in a New York courtroom drama. When I read up on her before the hearing I was gulping in trepidation. Looks like she has just been made a 'silk' too
A QC can cost well over £1k an hour. £17k is the legal fees for the day then not including any preparation time. Disingenuous.
And I am pleased to read that the silent assassin is very succinct and will go far. Eminent legal personnel have got into trouble for commenting on the photos attached to colleagues LinkedIn profiles so best not to say any more.
Just picked this up, Richard - a truly great result and a testament to your skill, drive and huge commitment to get this particular ball over the line. Well done, too, to Dippenhall and others who have supported you throughout this very long and convoluted process.
Difficult to see how they can find a point of law to appeal and we shall look forward to full and proper disclosure of just how dismal a job the LDDC did in negotiating this deal.
According to that report Boris says the LDDC were right to lodge their (failed) appeal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a little while ago Boris said they should release all the information didn't he?
You are right and we will be on his case. I think I even have it on video, when we went to the GLA assembly in September. If anyone else can dig out this reference (it was a day or two after the ICO announced their decision) we'd be much obliged.
Edit. Coalition forces have already found the transcript. You slimey backsliding fat toad, Johnson. Pass the shampoo :-)
To be fair to Johnson @PragueAddick ...this hasn't changed my opinion of him one bit!!
How very dare anyone accuse the cheeky rascal Boris of duplicity!
Must agree that the £17,000 figure quoted by the LLDC sound absurd. I and business associates had to pay that over a party wall dispute which came down to a few cracked tiles on the adjacent property. Yes the neighbours were mentalists but still
Must agree that the £17,000 figure quoted by the LLDC sound absurd. I and business associates had to pay that over a party wall dispute which came down to a few cracked tiles on the adjacent property. Yes the neighbours were mentalists but still
Should have told us taxpayers, we'd have all chipped in!
Brilliant work by all concerned and by Richard in particular. Why is it that this country has inept and/or corrupt local politicians? Why can they not be transparent in their dealings? I favour that they are just inept and easily manipulated by smarter businessmen but maybe this is incorrect.Any ideas?
I've been thinking about this, a lot. I would say, I think it is the same everywhere, and that power corrupts, everywhere. Conversely, here are the four GLA assembly members who have given the most vocal support to our campaign
Andrew Boff (special honourable mention) Caroline Pidgeon (Mayoral Candidate) Murad Qureshi Jenny Jones
And the remarkable thing is, they represent four different parties. Power and cronyism is politically neutral. As is integrity. I've never voted Tory, but if Andrew Boff is ever a candidate I can vote for, he's got my vote.
The good thing is, that Britain still has processes, and a legal structure, which allows citizens to hold those in power to account. That Tribunal was rigorous, fair, and populated by people deserving of our respect and admiration (including the barrister representing the LLDC, and indeed the hapless Finance Director of the LLDC, who must have gone through a personal hell those two days). Until the email with the result came through, I had no idea how it would turn out. Just as 26 years ago next month, when we turned up at Woolwich Town Hall, we had no idea whether the Valley Party would be humiliated or what.
I think Britain is possibly the only country in the world where we could have got this far in both cases. Funny that I live abroad so long now, but I have never felt more proud to be British.
Second bottle of shampoo chilling :-))))
I'd absolutely go for this, I was born in Chicago where local politics is incredibly corrupt. John Oliver was just highlighting a case in Alabama where a man convicted of something was prosecuting the Governor for having sex in his office while the judge was formerly removed from office because he refused to move the big fuck off statue of the ten commandments he'd placed in the court. Alabama!!!
It should also be noted that our politicians on the national level are corrupt as well, though less so than the heyday of the 60s and 70s.
FOI laws are great, and why they didn't want this information public boggles my mind (well, it doesn't really).
Comments
I don't have a deep knowledge of the FOI law but in my experience it's very difficult to challenge on a point of law when those laws have been considered in full.
They may seek, and I'm reading between the lines of their response, to challenge on an interpretation of ongoing commercial competitiveness and that the tribunal incorrectly interpreted the law in this regard.
I'm not familiar with the legal text so don't know whether this is feasible.
A great and comprehensive victory in this round though @PragueAddick. Couldn't have done better.
£17k legal fees is a lie.
Andrew Boff (special honourable mention)
Caroline Pidgeon (Mayoral Candidate)
Murad Qureshi
Jenny Jones
And the remarkable thing is, they represent four different parties. Power and cronyism is politically neutral. As is integrity. I've never voted Tory, but if Andrew Boff is ever a candidate I can vote for, he's got my vote.
The good thing is, that Britain still has processes, and a legal structure, which allows citizens to hold those in power to account. That Tribunal was rigorous, fair, and populated by people deserving of our respect and admiration (including the barrister representing the LLDC, and indeed the hapless Finance Director of the LLDC, who must have gone through a personal hell those two days). Until the email with the result came through, I had no idea how it would turn out. Just as 26 years ago next month, when we turned up at Woolwich Town Hall, we had no idea whether the Valley Party would be humiliated or what.
I think Britain is possibly the only country in the world where we could have got this far in both cases. Funny that I live abroad so long now, but I have never felt more proud to be British.
Second bottle of shampoo chilling :-))))
If they've got it for £17k, I'll need to find out who their lawyers are.
I got the distinct impression that the LLDC were effectively trying to argue for a new exemption/exception in this case - commercial confidentiality would have been more likely if they were going to engage in (substantially) the same negotiations in 5 years, but 99 was just taking the piss.
All said and done, really good work.
http://www.london.gov.uk/moderngov/documents/b13068/Minutes - Appendices 1 2 - Transcripts Wednesday 16-Sep-2015 10.00 London Assembly Mayors Ques.pdf?T=9
Page 35 half way down and 36
Blames West Ham on not releasing "They may be trying to take legal action"
Edit:
I am very happy to release all the details. It is the Club themselves that are not happy to do this. They are proposing at the moment to take legal action to protect their right to privacy on that point. Frankly, I rather agree with you. It should be a matter of public record.
Exactly. And Doug Harper from Orient Trust, Owen Gibson from the Graun, and I were there in person to see and hear him say it.
Someone could ask them how much their own staff time cost, to deal with the request in total - a nice little FOI query and, as it would not be broken down by hourly rates for staff involved, unlikely to engage an exemption (IMO).
The 17k is only what they told the GLA they were spending on the Tribunal appeal. That was before they knew that the hearing would spill over to a second day. Or even, may only have been what they had invoiced in advance...
I tell you what (I can say this now). The LLDC barrister was quite fit. And she played the part, would have looked at home in a New York courtroom drama. When I read up on her before the hearing I was gulping in trepidation. Looks like she has just been made a 'silk' too
But the ICO's quiet assassin won the day.
And I am pleased to read that the silent assassin is very succinct and will go far. Eminent legal personnel have got into trouble for commenting on the photos attached to colleagues LinkedIn profiles so best not to say any more.
Difficult to see how they can find a point of law to appeal and we shall look forward to full and proper disclosure of just how dismal a job the LDDC did in negotiating this deal.
Congratulations Prague, that's an amazing achievement and reward for your tenacity and doggedness. Proud of you mate.
Right, this calls for a celebrationary song song. Allllll together now
Knees up muva braaan
Knees up muva braaan....
Well done Prague, fantastic news.
Got a nice congratulation text from Steve Parish (who has been quietly fuming about the deal)
Asked him if he didn't fancy buying us. Told him we'd all prefer him to RD.
I accept I may have overstepped the mark and beg your forgiveness on a special day.
As I'm the other side of the world does anyone know of a link where I can see Richard's interview. Thanks in advance.
It should also be noted that our politicians on the national level are corrupt as well, though less so than the heyday of the 60s and 70s.
FOI laws are great, and why they didn't want this information public boggles my mind (well, it doesn't really).