uk.people.disability

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:48:23 +0100, pete wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:35:07 GMT, "Leeloominaï Lekatariba Lamina Tchaï
>Ekbat De Sebat" wrote:
>
>>
>>"pete" wrote in message
>>news:lqvbd3dkvoaj7jgfis98qnlpfbvnhvilne@ ...
>>>>
>>>>I suspect the IDA is a private Act of Parliament, however. You have the
>>>>following hurdles:
>>>>
>>>>1. Is the IDA still law?
>>>>2. Have its provisions been breached?
>>>>3. By whom?
>>>>4. Are they a legal entity within the jurisdiction?
>>>>5. Is the breach remediable?
>>>>
>>>>If all conditions are met, you need to write to them pointing out the
>>>>breach
>>>>and asking
>>>>them to remedy it. If they refuse, you need to apply to the High Court for
>>>>a
>>>>prerogative
>>>>order compelling them to remedy. This is expensive and discretionary.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, I forgot
>>>>
>>>>6. Do you feel lucky?
>>>
>>> Distinctly unlucky unfortunately. However I am grateful for your
>>> reply. The IDA is quoted by ABP and the LA. Its provisions have
>>> definitely been breached. The breach is by ABP who have erected gates
>>> and as Port Operator has failed to keep the carriageway clear. ABP are
>>> still a legal entity and are within the jurisdiction. The breach is
>>> remediable.
>>>
>>> I will read a bit more then if I find no bar I will do as you advise.
>>> Thank you for you advice.
>>
>>Sorry, I also forgot:
>>
>>5a. Do you have locus standi, . are you a person or one of a class of
>>persons
>>directly affected by the breach? This is what gives you the right to
>>complain &
>>take proceedings. And the effect on you has to be more than mere
>>inconvenience
>>but harmful in some way. If, OTOH, you are speaking as a member of the
>>public, without suffering any special damage yourself, you may find you will
>>need the consent of the Attorney-General to take court proceedings. Look up
>>"relator action".
>
>Ah yes that is where I came unstuck recently. The Judge refused to
>accept I was acting only on my own behalf and struck the application
>out. I wrote the Statement of Claim pointing out a Right of Way was
>being blocked. I stated quite truthfully the unlawful gate had been
>closed when I was inside and I was unlawfully imprisioned. She was
>correct of course as I was using my personal experience to open a
>Public Right of Way. Back to square one:-(
>pete
> /
> /photos/ipswich


Surely you mean she was right when she realised that she had a fuckwit
and time-waster before her?