Well, if not, here’s another letter from a member of the public he’s threatened – entitled ‘I think you should go back to law school’! – to remind him what an oaf he is and that nobody takes him seriously and nobody believes him (with the dishonorable exception of our gormless councillors who seem to believe every word he says!)
From: Phil@pandrews.com
To: sanjay.prashar@bristol.gov.uk
CC:
Subject: Sanjay Prashar – I think you should go back to law school!
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 12:00:46 +0000
Dear Sanjay, firstly, thanks for all the hilarity we had when we read your amateurish scare tactic letter last week, and secondly when the news was out that you sent it to a member of the public in error! I presume this letter was “legally privileged information”, so perhaps you had better send a threatening letter to yourself now, since you are probably in breach of some law or other!
Anyway, I think I would have a case against you for libel and defamation, since you have accused me of a dishonest & criminal act, and you’ve published it by sending it to a member of the public – inadvertently – you are quite simply incompetent!
Anyway, since I actually have a reputation to tarnish, unlike you or Cllr Hopkins, I think I might have a much stronger case against you, than the one you allege against me in one of your missives.
By the way, you identify me merely as “Phil” in your e-mail to Cllrs. – as should have been clear from the signature block at the bottom of the e-mail, I am the Philip Andrews that lives in Bath, that co-owns the Jane Austen Centre, that owns the 35 year old (I started it by the way in 1978) legendary Moles Club, and also the Chapel Arts Centre.
You can call on me (in person) any time you like and I’ll give you a serious piece of my mind about what a bunch of jerks the council employs in it’s Environmental Health Dept and Legal Services Dept, and exactly why they should be resigning and taking a very long walk off a very short pier!
Re your odious letter – I have done a little checking, and it seems that your letter is wrong, and it’s not covered, but I’m off to see a top QC – (not Errina Foley-Fisher!) to get chapter and verse.
In any case as is clear, in the extract below, 2-4 allows information disclosed or mentioned in court to be disclosed in any manner the defendant sees fit. As all the key pieces of information were mentioned in court, for the time being I’m going to refer to them in that way.
Oh, and be a good sport and send me the freedom of information forms so in the meantime, I can order the minutes of the secret ASBO meetings please?
Section 17 provides as follows.
Confidentiality of disclosed information.
(1)If the accused is given or allowed to inspect a document or other object under—
(a)section 3, 4, [F17A]F1 , 14 or 15, or
(b)an order under section 8,
then, subject to subsections (2) to (4), he must not use or disclose it or any information recorded in it.
(2)The accused may use or disclose the object or information—
(a)in connection with the proceedings for whose purposes he was given the object or allowed to inspect it,
(b)with a view to the taking of further criminal proceedings (for instance, by way of appeal) with regard to the matter giving rise to the proceedings mentioned in paragraph (a), or
(c)in connection with the proceedings first mentioned in paragraph (b).
(3)The accused may use or disclose—
(a)the object to the extent that it has been displayed to the public in open court, or
(b)the information to the extent that it has been communicated to the public in open court;
but the preceding provisions of this subsection do not apply if the object is displayed or the information is communicated in proceedings to deal with a contempt of court under section 18.
(4)If—
(a)the accused applies to the court for an order granting permission to use or disclose the object or information, and
(b)the court makes such an order,
the accused may use or disclose the object or information for the purpose and to the extent specified by the court.
Kind regards Philip
