Share |
The truths they don't want you to read....

Friday, April 15, 2011

Pairc - hellos and vigilantes

Pairc Trust refute "accusations and lies"

Actually the truth of the press statement is that "Pairc Trust deny 'accusations and lies'".

If the Pairc Trust need to rebut the allegations by providing the evidence to prove that the claims by Barry Lomas are wrong, by simply producing the evidence that his claims are wrong.

Many of the claims on this blog are scandalous (if they are wrong)  but they need to be addressed and rebutted - rather than denied - by Pairc Trust.  If they don't rebut them now, they the Minister amend the funders will expect them to do so, and community will never, ever, be united and supportive of the bid unless these matters are put to bed.

Of course, they can also actually be refuted, which requires the Trust to demonstrate that the comments are fundamentally wrong, which they have not done.

I carry no flame for the landlord, but if he has made libellous statements about the directors, then sue, and prove them wrong.  It should be easy according to the Trust press release, and I'll be happy to support the Trust by telling their solicitors about what is being said by the community and what needs to be addressed.

As I said before, if this goes wrong then the rest of Scotland will suffer the backlash.  This is very serious high-risk game by both parties who have all to lose and all to gain.  The trouble is, I know which side is smarter and has laid the best ground for their claims.

Principles are going to be set in law, and the entire community want to have the best possible case put forward and not some factually inaccurate case that will be picked apart in court.

I'm butying shares in solicitors....


Anonymous said...

Not awaiting a sudden beam of light to come shining from Pairc anytime soon. They've allowed themselves to be divided, exploited by the landowner. If it goes wrong for PT it is a shame - and not just on the landowner.

Anonymous said...

How can anyone agree with this publicly funded buyout. Why on earth should tennants of a legally owned estates be given assistance from the public purse to buy the land.
What is the diference from the tennants of a multi storey flat in the middle of a city,being given money to buy their rented property.
And that is as likely as the Conservatives winning the election.

Better still the pairc trust want everybody else to come up with the money to meet the shortfall.
Are they sending out begging letters to the winners of the lottery jackpots.

Mind you the biggest Lottery winners will be Pairc Trust if they are successfull.

Pairc Trust complain of the current Landlord doing nothing to Generate employment in the area yet the Trust can only do that through public funding which the current owner is not entitled to.

The whole Land Reform Right to buy stinks. Mugabee has been doing the same thing for years ( Granted no buying takes place only land grabbing )in Africa.

Is that going to be the future for Scottish land owners, waiting for some group or other to come and take from them what they have worked hard for to get and to keep.

I do not know Lomas or what he does or for that matter any owner of Lewis Estates BUT the key point is He does own the Land and has not broken any law in doing so.

SO why the hell is he being forced to sell to some self empowered group such as Pairc Trust.

Anonymous said...

With one of the Pairc buy-out driving force being a former Register General, with clear and influential political contacts in Auld Reekie, you would think they would be much more savy than this.

In saying that he did move to the islands and built a castle overlooking the pesants that he wishes to control.

Anonymous said...

Well Done.

Looks like your offer to release your bloggers info to solicitors has done the Pairc Trusts job for them and suppressed further comment on the subject at this point.

On the latter point are you aware a third of the South Lochs Community Council have resigned? Their letters appearing in the Democratic Services Department of CNES this week.

Apparently two of them cite intimidation by the Pairc Trust Directors as their direct reasons to leave.

Time for someone in authority to take their head out of the sand on this issue and investigate what is really going on in South Lochs.

Anonymous said...

People in authority have been told what is going on in South Lochs.

Interestingly, in his visit to the island many moons ago, Mike Russell talked about buy-outs and how they now had some community landlords behaving worse than than private landlords ever did. However no-one would dare air this dirty underbelly to land reform publicly, and with no recourse, who wants to stick their head above the heather and be bullied out of their home ?

Until the buy-out no-one had a problem with Barry Lomas. He was completely absent, said yes to everything and everyone in Pairc just got on with their business. The buy-out only really came up because of the prospect of gaining more money from the windfarm. And be clear 9.21 it wasn't the landlord who split the community, it was the windfarm and the way Pairc Windfarm Liaison Group and later Pairc Trust went on the defensive.

Impartial Observer said...

I don't think this right to buy thing was properly thought out. Assynt seems to have been quite successful, but Storas Uibhist are in deep doo-doos and Pairc seem to be heading the same way.

A monopoly is still a monopoly even if it superficially democratic and I think the concept of a monopoly landowner in the role of developer has some inherent flaws. When the office-bearers / directors of these organisations stand to benefit directly or indirectly from their actions things can become very dirty indeed.

I believe some thought should be given to separating the landowner / estate manager function from the development arm (always provided it is not just the same people) This would be one way of introducing some modicum of fairness, balance and transparency.

10.56pm asks what is the difference between these community buyouts and a group of tenants buying their city centre flats. There is one very important difference. In the city they would not have the monopoly of all the buildings and all the land, and they would not be everybody's landlord.

I suppose we should not be surprised when the boards of community buyouts start to behave in the same way as some bad landlords. Anybody who has read Animal Farm could have seem it coming. As soon as the pigs start living in the farmhouse they behave just as badly (and in some cases worse) than the old farmer. Ce la change....