IN response to the epic letter from Mick Knights (Observer, December 6), to say ‘allotments are not a right’ is not to say that allotment holders have no rights.
When Mr Knights expresses the view that I had no intention to cultivate my plot, he is making clear his misunderstanding. If what Mr Knights is saying is true, then the judge would not have found in my favour.
Had Mr Knight attended trial, (as the Observer did), or at least read pleadings, then he’d have a basis for his pronouncements about the case and my intentions. As it stands, he’s like the critic who reviews a play without seeing it.
Referring to my victory in inverted commas, as he does, only shows contempt for the court’s decision, which he no doubt would be using as vindication, had it gone the other way.
In this case, the council got it wrong. It tried to evict me for breaking rules which were not in the contract, rules which it has now added in a new contract, which was presented on a ‘don’t sign, lose your plot’ basis.
Aren’t you curious as to what gives the council the right to just tear up a legal contract and impose a new one, when we as citizens are bound by the agreements we make?
On this point, it makes no difference just how much consultation took place to create this document, the fact is, if you had to sign it to keep your plot, and your failure to sign would have you evicted, then you signed under duress.
The fact that I’m apparently the only one objecting to this, does not make the fact any less true and will not stop a judge from ruling against this process, if the council cares to waste more tax money to test its validity in court.
I’m honouring the original contract, and so should the council.
If it cares to test this on me, I’m perfectly poised for that, but frankly I’d rather just be left to grow my fruit trees in peace.