This is instead about a planned walk (approximately 4.5 miles – 7 kilometres – mainly along footpaths and C roads, but also using a bridle path and a stretch of a B road)  in Brightling, East Sussex, to view the various follies, etc, of Mad Jack Fuller – and to have a pub lunch afterwards.

Take a look at the map of the route of the walk, which takes in all the Mad Jack Fuller follies I can trace.  If you know of any more, please let me know in the comments or by email. If you’d like to join us on Friday 07 September 2012 at the Swan at Wood’s Corner at 9am for the walk, you’ll be welcome.  If you want to reserve a place there for lunch, either do so direct or let me know in the comments or by email by 4pm on Friday 31 August 2012.

The relevant OS Explorer Map is number 124 (Hastings & Bexhill, Battle & Robertsbridge), with the start and finish point (the Swan Inn, Woods Corner, Dallington) at OS reference TQ667194

Let’s hope the weather is favourable!

EDIT: By all means, bring non-aggressive dogs

EDIT (after the walk): This is the route we in fact took on the day: Actual route of Mad Jack Fuller walk – photos here -

Left to right: back row: Justin, Martin, Phil. Front row: Mousse (in the shadows), Bertie, Craig

I was slightly wrong-footed at the outset: though originally entitled “A Vision for Tenterden”, the opening slide had the title “Visioning Tenterden’s Future”. Swallowing my distaste, I settled down to listen.

“Change is hard, but inevitable”

Sir Terry first, firmly made the point that “change is hard, but inevitable”. There is no point at all in trying to prevent change – all a community can do is try to guide it, so that it has a positive, not a negative, effect.  He also suggested that the driver for change should be “bottom up” – driven by market forces and individual landowners’ wishes, more than by top-down planning; that said, he accepts the need for a level of planning is needed, if only so that we can “agree which way is up”.

From his introductory remarks and illustrations, he is a great supported of pedestrians and is passionate about High Streets. In addition to his various flagship projects, he also has considerable experience in small town planning and neighbourhood planning, including in Ashford and Folkestone. As a resident of Rolvenden Layne, he has a particular affection for Tenterden and is keen that it should preserve its character.

10 Principles

Sir Terry offered 10 principles for growing existing communities –
1. The landscape should be the primary infrastructure
2. New buildings must fit in to the existing streetscape
3. Plans for change should begin with what is already there
4. Disaggregation should be preferred to mass housing
5. Phasing is important – each phase should be complete in itself
6. Sustainability should be fundamental
7. Architectural quality is important
8. We should minimise the impact of cars
9. Social mix is important: we should build a balanced society
10. Planning should engage with the community

Sir Terry spent time expanding on all of these points, before turning specifically to Tenterden’s expected growth.  He emphasised that Tenterden has grown and will continue to grow – “growth is inexorable”. He suggests that the community has to “allow” for it, by way of having a clear idea as to how growth should be implemented, but not by imposing a restrictive plan.  He pointed out that cars have had a huge effect on town development, and suggested that effect should be minimised by (for example) disaggregating car parks, and slowing the speed of traffic along the High Street.

The Vision

Sir Terry’s vision for Tenterden involves five principles –
1. Start by mending the historic core
2. Grow the life of the town down the lanes
3. Continue the pattern of historic growth
4. Keep the strong links with the countryside
5. Create a car parking strategy and make walking routes to the town centre as short as possible

As far as Sir Terry is concerned, “the lanes are the key lifeblood of the town centre” and he therefore proposed “mini master plans” for them –

• Bridewell Lane
• Six Fields Path
• Recreation Ground Road (with a “mini town centre” at the leisure centre end)
• Church Road (and the station complex)

etc, making the lanes well-lit and safe and consolidating development along the lanes themselves, in the same way that the development of the High Street has been consolidated

He also feels it is vital to manage the traffic: pedestrians are more important than cars, so make the traffic go slower – don’t give the car an easy time!

Value the High Street

His final thought of his main presentation was that, as a community, we should value the High Street, especially the shops – without a vibrant High Street, Tenterden will not be the town we love.

Questions and comments

Sir Terry then took questions from members of the audience – most seemed to agree with his thoughts, though an appreciable part of the audience felt they had no say in how the town grows, and that it is all down to Ashford Borough Council’s whims; one even commented that “a big dormitory of detached houses dumped on a field south of Tenterden is what we are told is planned”.  This is far from the truth, as can be seen from the Development Plan Document, which is in line with Sir Terry’s suggestion that we should “look at infill [between the High Street and any large scheme to the south] and develop to the north of the High Street as well.”

All in all, a very thought-provoking presentation – thank you to Sir Terry Farrell!

PS (11 January 2012):  Parking

I see I omitted to mention the “decked parking” that Sir Terry recommended. This is not multi-storey car parks as commonly known, but a way of squeezing in two levels of car parking – one slightly below ground level, the other slightly above. This (nearly) doubles the car parking availability, while not significantly raising the height of it and not increasing the land used at all – a very useful suggestion in an era when traffic tries to dominate everything

We set off from a cold, grey, drizzly morning in Tenterden and, after a very convial lunch, returned through autumnal sunshine highlighting the delights of the Weald of Kent – rightly an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Mind you, on arrival in Tenterden, we had to scamper back to the office to deal with completions and mortgage redemptions before the CHAPS cut-off time of 3.30pm: we just made it, and are feeling quite pleased with ourselves

Not true, I think: the recent Peppermint survey indicates that so-called old-fashioned values and approaches are still appreciated by clients: aspects such as getting the job done and keeping the client informed are far more important than the means of delivery. Indeed, I reckon that client would prefer to be kept informed of progress by means of emails, texts and phone calls from their lawyers, rather than having to log onto a website, enter a password and check up on the current position for themselves. I think it is called “being proactive” – telling the clients what is going on, rather than expecting them to find out for themselves.

Certainly, we at Nelsons try hard to update clients before they have to ask: if they have to ask, we are not providing the excellent service we want to provide.

So, I don’t think it is important to clients that their lawyers should be at the cutting (bleeding?) edge of technology or social media. It is much more important that they act professionally – with covers both being efficient and providing a good service, including keeping clients informed.

However, it does grieve me to find so many lawyers are not adhering to “old-fashioned standards” but are simply out of date: this prompted by a letter from lawyers acting for a seller client, telling me that they will adopt the National Conveyancing Protocol “except that you should carry out your own searches” – it is many years since the Protocol, in a misguided attempt (repeated by the Home Information Packs fiasco) suggested sellers should supply pre-contract search results with the draft contract papers. That suggestion was so uniformly ignored that the Protocol was soon updated to remove it; that was years ago, but it seems some lawyers – and these today are by no means alone have not caught up yet – astonishing!

Sometimes, this is mere bullying. Perhaps the client has watched too many Hollywood films, and thinks shouting at subordinates is the way to motivate them – “I want [this impossible thing] done by close of business or you are fired!” In those cases, all I can say is, “Good riddance!”

Other times, the “Just do it” attitude is due to a genuine lack of understanding of what is involved and what options are possible. The remedy for that is education – if a client does not understand what is involved, you need to tell them, so the remedy is in your own hands

Occasionally, the “Just do it” attitude is the result of a touching but misplaced faith in the lawyer’s ability to change facts: the debtor who wants the lawyer to get him out of his existing obligation to pay a debt, as a simple example.

A more complex, classic example is the neighbour dispute, where the neighbours have been warring for years, usually over trivialities, and one side or the other – pushed beyond endurance – does something silly like erecting a fence on their neighbour’s land. This gives the now-aggrieved party a stick to beat their neighbour with and, boy! are they going to use it. Off they trot to their lawyer, who rubs his or her hands, and sends a stiff letter to the fence owner: “Get orff my (client’s) land!”

The fence owner then takes legal advice, and perhaps gets a surveyor to check – as far as possible – where the boundary in fact is. Discovering that they are, indeed, in the wrong, they look to their lawyer to magic a way out of the situation.

In those circumstances, the best the lawyer can do is set out the available options; sometimes the best option is to concede the point and re-locate the fence. The client feels defeated and dissatisfied, but lawyers cannot change facts (only present them in the best way for their clients …)

We do our best, but sometimes miracles and magic are just beyond us

I was never really sure why the advent of the fax meant it was important to put this sort of disclaimer on messages. After all, snail mail gets miss-delivered, too. I suppose it is because snail mail is encased in an envelope, so the contents are only visible if the envelope is opened, which should only be done by the addressee

So, as faxes are open to all eyes, senders of faxes would incorporate more or less aggressive messages, warning anyone who was not the addressee not to read or act on it and instructing them to inform the sender and destroy the fax – as though the sender had either the right or the power to insist on an innocent recipient rectifying the sender’s own error.

I include my own version, which I hope is at least polite and reasonable:

THIS FAX IS CONFIDENTIAL
If you receive it by mistake, I apologise for my error:
Please telephone me to tell me and please then destroy this fax

Whether the disclaimer is of any use in this circumstances is open to debate. I think that the only time when it can be enforced is when one side in litigation mistakenly sends to the other side a document not intended for them; I understand that in those circumstances the court will prevent the recipient making use of the information it had received in error. In normal circumstances, though, I fear the disclaimer is a forlorn intent to “un-ring the bell”.

The disease of the lengthy (and often aggressive) disclaimer has, inevitably, spread to emails, with the added problem that there is no cost to the sender – though there is to the recipient – whatever the length or turgidity of the message. Lawyers being lawyers, and trying to cover all the possibilities, the disclaimers get ever longer, and the disease is caught by commercial organisations, too. A couple of examples:

A typical example from HSBC (made more poignant by the instruction to “Think before you print”) -

—————————————– SAVE PAPER – THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.

Another one – anonymous to protect client confidentiality -

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and for the use of the addressee only. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. XYZ Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they are virus free and no responsibility is accepted by XYZ Limited for any loss or damage from receipt or use thereof.

Both place the responsibility – and, almost, the blame – on the recipient, accepting none themselves

The most egregious example I can find at present is -

XYZ plc (company number 0123456) is a company registered in England and Wales and has its registered office at [address]. Telephone [tel], FAX [fax]. Please note that telephone calls made to numbers operated by XYZ plcs may be recorded for quality and training purposes.

The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and therefore do not necessarily reflect those of XYZ plc or any member of the XYZ group of companies. XYZplc or any member of the XYZ group of companies does not take any responsibility or liability whatsoever for the views of the author.

This email message is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient you should not read, copy, distribute, disclose or otherwise use the information in this email, but should contact Enterprise Inns plc immediately and delete the message from your system. You should not use, print, copy the message or disclose its contents to anyone. XYZ plc and any member of the XYZ group of companies has the right lawfully to monitor and inspect messages between its employees and any third party

E-mail is subject to possible data corruption, is not secure, and its content does not necessarily represent the opinion of XYZplc group of companies.

No representation or warranty is made as to the accuracy or completeness of the information and no liability can be accepted for any loss arising from its use.

This e-mail and any attachments are not guaranteed to be free from so-called computer viruses and it is recommended that you check for such viruses before down-loading it to your computer equipment and no liability can be accepted in relation to such viruses. The XYZ plc group of companies does not accept liability for any corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses occurring to this message in transit.

Can you offer any better (ie: worse) examples?

PS: Mind you, there is one disclaimer, by Ben Goldacre, that I think is great:

READ CAREFULLY. By reading this email, you agree, on behalf of your
employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from
any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service,
shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure,
non-compete and acceptable use policies (“BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have
entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and
assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and
privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release
me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer. If you
are anything other than a friend or an institutional professional colleague and
you are writing to me about Bad Science stuff then it is reasonable to assume
that I might quote our discussion in my writing, usually anonymously.

A prime candidate seems to be BT – reliable, trustworthy, customer-friendly, value for money? Not in my experience!

Can you suggest other candidates for the NEIN list?

What a depressing visit to Waitrose, Tenterden, this evening: not a single bottle-conditioned beer on the shelves.

The stocks of Brakspear Triple had been steadily diminishing over the last few days, but I expected them to be topped up – wrong! Looking for an alternative, it was disappointing to see that neither Hopdaemon Skrimshander or Hog’s Back TEA is bottle-conditioned any more.

There seems to be a retreat from bottle-conditioned beer in supermarkets – most disappointingly when Waitrose in Tenterden stopped stocking Fuller’s 1845 a few months ago. I do not (yet) know whether this is a decision by the supermarkets – why would stocking b-c beer be a problem for them? – or the breweries – who should, surely, be promoting the real thing? – but I intend to try to find out

If you have any insight, please share it in the comments section – thanks!

Why “Abaddon”? Abaddon is/was the angel of the bottomless pit. I often feel I am treated as a bottomless pit – of money by my children, and of instant advice and magic solutions by my clients (and of free advice from potential clients, sometimes). Also, I am an unreconstructed Emerson Lake & Palmer fan, and still occasionally enjoy listening on high volume through headphones to Abaddon’s Bolero!

This arose because one of my followers felt it inappropriate for a solicitor to be Tweeting about (in this case) pub quizzes. I had thought doing this showed that I was not just a solicitor, but had a life outside work – albeit, if that life is merely taking part in pub quizzes, a very limited life outside work! I felt this was a Good Thing: solicitors generally tend to be perceived as aloof and stuffy, and I want to show that I, at least, am not.

My challenger modified her comment to, “If I already had a solicitor, I’d think it was cool but if I was looking for one, I’d think it was tacky”

Horror! I don’t want to seem aloof or stuffy, but to appear tacky would be even worse!  Also, bearing in mind that the marketing purpose of my Tweets is to reach out to new potential clients and engage in conversations with them, this seemed disastrous: far from drawing in potential clients, was I repelling them by being “tacky”?

To be fair, the suggested solution was to have two Twitter accounts: one for work and one for play; but that gets us back to being stuffy on the work account – and, worse, being perceived as constantly selling – while the social account risks being lightweight and pointless. I had hoped to achieve a balance between work and play in one Twitter account, showing me as a (reasonably) rounded human who happens also to be a good lawyer and an approachable one.

I genuinely believe that it is not wrong to Tweet the way I do – that the question is not “To Tweet or not”, but only whether I should split by Tweets (which I would prefer not to do) – but that may just be wishful thinking.

What do you think? Is it a forlorn effort? Should I have separate work and social Twitter streams? Is it “tacky” for a lawyer (qua lawyer) to Tweet about non-lawyerly things – or to Tweet at all? Let me know in the comments – or by Tweeting me, if you prefer: twitter.com/JustinNelson_