Update From Friends Of The IW Library Service

This in from the Friends Of The IW Library Service, in their own words – Ed

High CourtIt is with much regret that we have to inform you that we were defeated in our application for a Judicial Review.

We are obviously very disappointed at the outcome of yesterday’s hearing. His Honour Judge Pearl was sympathetic but he refused to accept that the LSC delays had caused us to be 13 days out of time. His later comments saying that even if he gave us the time extension he would still have refused our JR were not quoted in full.

Equality Impact Assessments
What none of the comments have said is that on the aspect of the Equality Impact Assessments he felt that we had a very valid point.

The Judge applied the law as he saw it, and one should assume that a High Court Judge knows the law better than us mere mortals. He did comment that he felt the council had listened to the views of those who replied to the consultation because they had decided to save 4 of the original 9 that were earmarked for closure.

(Note the IWC QC stated that the 4 libraries were saved from closure in order to comply with Section 7 of the 194 Act – he specifically said “Saved” and not “Saved for the foreseeable future”. That should mean that Cowes, Sandown, Ventnor and Freshwater should be safe when the council next look for services to cut).

Top QC
We were very surprised when we arrived at court to see that the IW Council who had claimed that they had no case to answer had in fact, employed the services of one of the top QCs in the country, plus a second barrister and a lawyer, we in turn had one barrister being funded by very limited means from legal aid. Not exactly a level playing field.

However we feel we must comment that the efforts made by the solicitors of Leigh Day and Co and the extremely impressive performance by our barrister, who spent well over an hour pleading our case, were brilliant. We must add that much of the work done by the solicitors was not charged for, particularly during the period when legal aid was cancelled.

Thanks for the support
We would like to thank all those who have supported us over these past months and for all the work done by those who sent us letters, emails, and submissions. Also the statements from residents submitted as evidence that the councils proposals were totally flawed. Unfortunately much of your efforts may never be heard in open court, however, all the original material is still with the DCMS and if enough of the other cases are successful, the Secretary of State may still be forced to intervene. If this is the case, you will all be the first to know.

The community groups, in particular Brighstone and Bembridge have been 100% behind us, having stated the same belief that drives us – libraries should be run by the IW Council with a paid member of staff for each library, supplemented by volunteers.

Despite adverse comments made in the media, we are not and never have been anti-volunteer and congratulate those who are prepared to take on the job and its associated onerous commitments.

Greater burden
As result of the refusal of a judicial review there will be more responsibility and financial burden than was necessary placed upon local residents who have formed the steering groups. However, in the words of the council “they do not seek to rely on communities to run the libraries” they have never fully explained what the other alternative (closure) does to their statutory duty under the 1964 Act.

We were also saddened by the fact that before we had even got back to the Island, Cllr Abrahams was gloating, making statements that he was “delighted with the outcome” showing no thoughts for those loyal and dedicated library staff who, in some cases had given many years of service to the profession, whom he had forced to take totally unnecessary redundancy. Cllr Abrahams along with his other Tory friends in County Hall should hang their heads in shame.

We are very sad and sorry for failing all of you who have pinned your hopes on us. We have let you down and apologise for that.

Possible further action
Just as a final comment there are two things we are contemplating, the first is a formal complaint against the LSC for their bungled handling of our legal aid, the second is the possibility of taking the matter to appeal which we have been told is a genuine possibility if we can raise funding!

Grateful thanks to all

Dave, Serena & Heidi
Friends of the IW Library Service

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
30 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
susan pamela mawhood
26, June 2014 8:23 pm

Thank you so much Seb,I love living on our beautiful island and your vidio confirms its stunning beauty

John Nash
26, June 2014 8:25 pm

A good proportion of the lovely views in this video will be wrecked if the Navitus Bay proposal is given consent. Of more than two thousand eight hundred “representions” made to the Planning Inspectorate, who will be examining the scheme, only about 6 are from Island residents. The rest are from Dorset residents. Why the disparity? Are Islanders simply Holier than Thou, gullible, apathetic, or just plain… Read more »

yjciow
27, June 2014 2:21 pm

@John Nash. Your comment is totally 100% accurate (naive, gullible and apathetic) ((I’m allowed to say that as I am an islander and have first hand experience of all three!)). The Isle of Wight will be wrecked by Navitus Bay – so many people In the West Wight do not realise that they will have their peace shattered. Bournemouth Council have been very active against this proposal… Read more »

bigEars
27, June 2014 6:17 pm

You have to wonder why anybody would seriously consider putting up a silly alternative energy wind farm when we can get all the energy we need by fracking the hell out of the Island instead. Better still, we could cover the Island in solar cells. Or how about a nice nuclear power station? Or a tidal wave barrier (obviously as long as it doesn’t effect the local… Read more »

Caconym
28, June 2014 11:19 am

When a wind farm story appears on the IWCP website, the comments soon fill with anti wind power comments, the authors of which reply in the most obnoxious and objectionable ways should anyone dare to suggest that they don’t really mind wind turbines (not even “support”, merely not object). It is gratifying to see the down-votes awarded to John Nash who, like those on the IWCP, resorts… Read more »

John Nash
Reply to  Caconym
28, June 2014 4:46 pm

My “just plain stupid” remark was, to be sure,ill-tempered and unkind, and was prompted by my sheer disbelief at the lack of submissions (both for and against Navitus Bay) to the Planning Inspectorate. I will not retract my other remarks because they can be shown to be true. And I would add “naive” and ill-informed” to that list. It is no good trumpeting how beautiful the Island… Read more »

kevin1746
Reply to  John Nash
28, June 2014 5:07 pm

Your essentials are not the same as others essentials…I like my lights to go on when I throw the switch and I would like to be responsible for the power that I use, not siphon it off from someone else. I completely support wind farms, Navitus Bay, Tidal and wave generators, thermal and geo thermal and even Nucleur. We have to have alternatives now and no matter… Read more »

Cynic
Reply to  kevin1746
29, June 2014 11:51 am

…. and fracking as well Kevin?

Steve Goodman
Reply to  John Nash
29, June 2014 11:02 am

JN – Where were you & your friends during the decade of decay at Frank James? Could you even have been around when the E.Cowes Castle home of the real John Nash was neglected & demolished? Do you litter pick, or beach clean? Do you clear Himalayan balsam & other invaders? Do you cut back growth spreading on to our foot & cycle paths? Do you plant… Read more »

John Nash
Reply to  Steve Goodman
29, June 2014 1:22 pm

As far as I know I am real. I do not hide behind a pseudonym. Some of my “environmental” credentials are as follows: 1. I have never owned or driven a car or any other motorised vehicle. 2. Since a very young age I have detested rampant consumerism. I regard this as a perversion of the human spirit. 3. I have only ever flown on a long… Read more »

Steve Goodman
Reply to  John Nash
30, June 2014 11:21 am

John; looking at what you wrote, we have a lot in common, & I’m sorry that we are currently unable to agree on the need to allow temporary or permanent wind turbines in places we value. I am also sorry that the wording I used didn’t allow for the possibility that you hadn’t used as a pseudonym the name of the famous former island resident. Coincidentally, I… Read more »

Caconym
Reply to  John Nash
29, June 2014 12:00 pm

You think the best way to convince the undecided and ambivalent over to your point of view is to hurl insults at them?

Generally the opposite is true. Tell someone who is sitting on the fence that they are “stupid” and “naive” because they don’t believe as you do and they will almost always come out in complete opposition to you.

Tanja Rebel
29, June 2014 11:34 am

I think we can all agree that energy conservation needs to be the Island’s top priority. In conjunction with that we need good renewable energy sources and I think that the Isle of Wight is ideally placed for solar and tidal energy schemes. With regards to off-shore wind, if this is put in a responsible position then it can contribute too. The currently proposed position is too… Read more »

Tanja Rebel
30, June 2014 6:41 pm

The wind farm will be far less of a threat to our Coastal Heritage if it is put further out to sea. The Developers had that option, but chose the spot nearest to the coast. This is understandable from a cost-perspective, but – as stated – we need to balance our insatiable thirst for ever more energy against the (timeless) value of our Heritage. If we put… Read more »

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined