Re: Re: Dartmouth Square Disgrace
the hawk: you may well be correct in a narrowly legalistic sense, but this is essentially a ‘small government’ (not exactly flavour of the month) or ‘there is no such thing as society’ view; at the very least, the current owner should not allow his ‘gardenng’ to deteriorate – the function of a public (or ‘private-public’) garden is to present at a certain level of maintenance. That cannot be squirmed out of.
My first point is not irrelevant and the second follows directly on from it. A spiv is not public-spirited and is essentially a con-artist.