Steve Starlord's photostream on Flickr.
Photo Tameside Advertiser - ASN432016a06.
Starlord (49), in his back garden, Chester Ave, Dukinfield, Tameside, 18 October 2006. Photograph taken by Harry Potts of the Tameside Advertiser & duly published 26 October 2006 in their paper. The start of my successful battle and media campaign against my fascist Resident Social Landlord, New Charter Housing Trust Limited. They sought an injunction to force me to 'tidy' my allegedly untidy garden. They failed. I was victorious.
The dispute had been 'raging' since about 2000 shortly after gaining ownership of all remaining Council Housing in Tameside.
In the latest eruption in 2006 I reasonably complied to the extent that I removed all Ivy from the rear wall of the property, but I refused to remove it from the shed and my back garden. I am a green-environmental activist and had a wildlife garden. The only green my landlord could possibly grasp would be the verdigris streaming down one of the imagined bronze busts they sorely crave.
I received 2 free hours of advice from a solicitor but had otherwise to fight my case alone as litigant in person because no legal aid was forthcoming. An injustice. It seems my chances of victory were considered low. It is the likelihood of success that is the determining factor when it comes to accessing legal aid and not Justice!
My landlord finally backed down on all injunctive points just before the court hearing itself. However, the action had been brought and had to be settled in or out of court. My solicitor advised that I sign the toothless climb down for the judge would otherwise likely find against me if he judged my action in the circumstances to be unreasonable since a settlement could have been agreed out of court. It was an issue of cost and not one of Justice!
There is an evident injustice here when a party can irresponsibly seek a court injunction and not be held accountable and not be required to sign anything. The one taken to court must sign even if they consider themselves not guilty and want Justice, for doing otherwise may well be seen as wasting court time! So though they failed to obtain any of their injunctive points I signed rather than suffer the possible consequences of being seen as unreasonable in court. Ridiculous! So if I forced the issue into court after my landlord had acceded to all my demands the case could go against me. I therefore chose to sign an injunction that required me to do nothing.
The scales of Justice tipped against me on the grounds of reasonableness and not Justice because my landlord had acquiesced to my demands.
So I signed. After all they had achieved nothing save bad publicity for themselves. My solicitor further informed me that this was not an admission of guilt because done outside of court. Further, the injunction would last for 1 year only.
Love, Light & Laughter
Starlord
(Written on Flickr 10th May 2011)
The dispute had been 'raging' since about 2000 shortly after gaining ownership of all remaining Council Housing in Tameside.
In the latest eruption in 2006 I reasonably complied to the extent that I removed all Ivy from the rear wall of the property, but I refused to remove it from the shed and my back garden. I am a green-environmental activist and had a wildlife garden. The only green my landlord could possibly grasp would be the verdigris streaming down one of the imagined bronze busts they sorely crave.
I received 2 free hours of advice from a solicitor but had otherwise to fight my case alone as litigant in person because no legal aid was forthcoming. An injustice. It seems my chances of victory were considered low. It is the likelihood of success that is the determining factor when it comes to accessing legal aid and not Justice!
My landlord finally backed down on all injunctive points just before the court hearing itself. However, the action had been brought and had to be settled in or out of court. My solicitor advised that I sign the toothless climb down for the judge would otherwise likely find against me if he judged my action in the circumstances to be unreasonable since a settlement could have been agreed out of court. It was an issue of cost and not one of Justice!
There is an evident injustice here when a party can irresponsibly seek a court injunction and not be held accountable and not be required to sign anything. The one taken to court must sign even if they consider themselves not guilty and want Justice, for doing otherwise may well be seen as wasting court time! So though they failed to obtain any of their injunctive points I signed rather than suffer the possible consequences of being seen as unreasonable in court. Ridiculous! So if I forced the issue into court after my landlord had acceded to all my demands the case could go against me. I therefore chose to sign an injunction that required me to do nothing.
The scales of Justice tipped against me on the grounds of reasonableness and not Justice because my landlord had acquiesced to my demands.
So I signed. After all they had achieved nothing save bad publicity for themselves. My solicitor further informed me that this was not an admission of guilt because done outside of court. Further, the injunction would last for 1 year only.
Love, Light & Laughter
Starlord
(Written on Flickr 10th May 2011)
