REFERRING to letter from Dan Redsull, “Mr Rock v The Council”, this is the only case of its kind ever brought to court in the UK, and this accordingly makes it news, which has also been covered in the national press and on BBC television.
Mr Redsull says that ‘allotments are a scarce resource’. Not since the councils tactics have been brought to light by this coverage, it would seem. What was hundreds waiting is now down to one figure of five.
It is easy to dismiss this battle as a frivolous thing, but gladly the Observer has not taken this route, perhaps realizing that agreements form the basis of our society. The council has admitted that its contract in question needed rewriting, and it has spent considerable sums of our money actually rewriting it. That speaks for itself.
The honourable thing for it to have done after conceding this point, as indeed it did, would have been to leave Mr Rock to grow his trees. Instead it has forced this new contract on all allotment holders, and hounded Mr Rock to leave, along with many others who refused to sign it (which have not been reported on).
It is no wonder that demand for allotments has dropped dramatically. Who would willingly subject themselves to such a regime? Whatever happens here, much has been exposed on what might happen to you if you disagree with the council, and the length they will go to to get their way beyond any honourable action.
The Observer has exposed that the council in Hastings only honours contacts if they feel like it. Is this how you wish to be represented?
There is a good reason why this story is important, and the Observer is doing well to cover it. Like so many things in life, people often only detect unfairness when it is heaped on them.
Will the next contract the council rips up and replace at will be one that affects you and your rights? Let’s see.
FATHER ALBERT GORDON