UKC

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

The date says Weds 27th, but I gather it should say Weds 28th.

In reply to gingerkate:

all references and new image updated

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
I hate to tell you this, but when I click on that pic it still says 27th?

ps Mick, the date on the pic in the article is right, the date on the pic that goes with this thread is still wrong.

In reply to gingerkate:

Empty your cache or reload the page. Everything should have been changed.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Oh yeah, cheers, sorry, never struck me that it'd not show unless I emptied my cache.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Will be there tomorrow. It'll be interesting to see how many regulars here show up.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Any news on how the final day at the inquiry went?

In reply to dominictaylor:

Well, Gordon was there!! Fair contingent from the BMC, Dave Turnbull, Grimer, Guy and of course the ever-present Henry Folkard. The man has given two weeks of his life to that Inquiry. Sir, I salute you. Deepsoup was also present but that was about it from the climbing community. What can I say about the final day? Suitably slippery summing up from Harpley's QC, a man who wears his superiority with pride. Made it sound as though Bleaklow Industries was just a poor little family firm struggling against the evil empire of the Peak Park. Argument seemed to come down to the semantics of the original permission, so we're all doomed. Inspector expects to deliver his findings before May 18th. I can't wait!

jh

In reply to john horscroft:

I am quite a lot more optimistic about it, John, than you are, I believe. Yes, Harpley's QC (Kingstone) was very impressive in his masterly legal way, but at the end of the day, it'll all come down to the power of the arguments - the very detailed submissions on paper, that the inspector has now got to mull over. The key being just how the original 1952 permission is interpreted/has been abused. That gives me cause for optimism. My feeling is that at least the enquiry has been done thoroughly and well, in an unhurried, painstaking way, with all opinions thoroughly and clearly expressed, and I believe only a nutter would, as a result, find for the appellants (the quarry companies Bleaklow Industries and MMC). So I am quietly optimistic.

I am going to try and organise it tomorrow that the BMC put Henry Folkard's superb presentation on behalf of the BMC on line asap, because that is by far the best summary of the case I've read for those who don't know much or anything about it.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Yes, sorry Gordon. I was being a grumpy old git there wasn't I? SHould have gone for a pint with you and Andy, might have cheered me up. You're right. It comes down to the Inspectors ability to ignore the appelants sophistry. However, if it does go tits up, what then?

Cheers
jh

In reply to john horscroft:

Then the implications are absolutely appalling. Really making a mockery of the whole concept of a National Park. I think the likeliest result is that the inspector will either decide in favour of the Park or will have so many provisos (I hadn't realised until Andy told me, that the inspector does not have to give a clear yes/no answer) that it will have to go to a higher court of appeal. Actually, either way I think that'll happen, because if the inspector comes out against the quarry owner/operator then they'll appeal. Bad news for the immediate problem of continuing quarrying, but good news for the whole issue in the long run. Because then it will all become highly political, at a national/Westminster level, esp. in the run up to the General Election. There is no way that Cameron, for example - having tried to convince us how Green he is - will be able to do anything but come out against it. I think the law as expressed in the '1952 agreement' will eventually be revoked in some way.

But then I could easily be horribly wrong.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Eeerrr. Shouldnt thqat be the PeakS district?

I hope Al Evans reads this.

In reply to willhunt:

No, we're not talking about thqat.