I have just attempted to read the full Judgement in the case as mentioned in the previous post and the Judgement is very detailed as it outlines the relationship that a particular family has had with planning issues.
What interests me however is presented in one single paragraph of the judgement:
11 Her postings are all highly critical of the Council. The Council and Mr James do not, of course, suggest that there is anything unlawful about Mrs Thompson maintaining a blog which is critical of the Council. Everyone is entitled to publish to the world opinions that they honestly hold about matters of public interest. Everyone is entitled to state facts which are true.
Now I still find the statements in the paragraph above very confusing and I still find things very scary. I do not have a planning or legal background and I find it very difficult to write good, 'lean' pieces for the blog; sometimes I go into so much complex planning detail that readers (if I still have any left) must surely fall asleep. I still (obviously) wholeheartedly believe in the objectives of APT and that development should be in the public interest. I cannot help but highlight, despite a lack of support and training, where I believe the planning system and its operation is falling short of the ideals of planning that should be upheld in order to engender public support and confidence.
What worries me is that I feel too inhibited by the fear of any challenge (however unlikely that may be) to reasonably express things which deserve to reach a wider audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment