Important news in the world of hand knitting yarns

On 10th May, the Harris Tweed Authority served a writ on Harris Tweed Textiles Ltd; on two other related companies, and on Coats (UK) Ltd, trading as Rowan Yarns.

The two other related companies are HTT (Manufacturing) Ltd and Harris Yarns Ltd.

For details see the Harris Tweed Authority website www.harristweed.org

Specific page http://www.harristweed.org/latestnews.asp?id=57

On 11th May Derek Donald Reid - one of the shareholders of Harris Tweed Textiles Ltd - commenced an intense public relations campaign to try and wriggle out of the items listed in the writ by publicly rubbishing the Harris Tweed Authority and their Chief Executive. He also adopted another significant wriggling tactic: he informed a reporter at the BBC that Alice Starmore's company was also riding on the back of the Harris Tweed trademark. The reporter immediately checked my company and its products and found that Reid's allegation was manifestly false. He then contacted me for my comments, which I provided. My statement to him contained some, but by no means all, of what I know to be true about Reid's companies and their activities.

On 13th May, the BBC journalist informed Reid of my statement. Reid's reaction? I quote the BBC reporter: "he went ballistic". I quote further from the reporter's records:

"I think the BBC should be careful ... she has had to withdraw a legal action against us before ... she is in breach of an agreement ... we will sue if she goes public ..."

The BBC reporter was in for a very interesting Friday 13th. With the "ballistic" Reid off the phone, he was then contacted from out of the blue by another irate individual: one Di Gilpin. She was extremely angry, and went on and on at length. She told the reporter that my statement was "complete rubbish". She also said to the BBC reporter (again I quote from the records):

"Derek Reid just told me that she (Alice Starmore) is taking a court case against me."

The reporter was bemused by this, as my statement contained no mention of Gilpin whatsoever and he had no idea who she was. He informed her of this and her reaction was: "... but I am implicated". The reporter still had no idea of what she was talking about and naturally asked her how she was implicated. She changed tack at this point and said the reporter should contact her partner, who is a barrister.

The reporter immediately contacted the said barrister boyfriend, who got quickly off the phone but was soon back to the reporter. Barrister boyfriend claimed that my statement was untrue, as could easily be proven. He urged great caution in running the story. When asked about the legal action I had allegedly withdrawn he said, "She had not instituted an action." When asked about the agreement of which I was allegedly in breach he said, "I am not aware of any agreement."

I was also unaware - blissfully unaware - that any of this was going on. It was a glorious afternoon and I was out on the beach. Because of this, the reporter could not get in touch with me for my comments. My comments, when I managed to make them, were:

• Through my legal representative, I have had legal correspondence with Reid's companies but have never started proceedings against them, although I certainly reserve the right to do so, as is clear from said correspondence. Reid's claim is untrue.
• I have never entered into any agreement - of any kind - with Reid and his companies. Reid's claim is again untrue.
• I have never threatened Gilpin with any legal action whatsoever. I have never met her or communicated with her in any way. I have never uttered or written a single word about her until here and now. The woman is either suffering from delusions or has been grievously misinformed by Reid.
• I stand by my statement to the BBC and can prove its substance.

My comments came too late for the gist of my statement to be aired on BBC Radio's Gaelic news at 6pm on Friday 13th May. It mattered not: it went nationwide in the Glasgow Herald the next morning. I will be hearing from Reid's lawyers apparently. I presume that they are aware that their client thinks nothing of making false allegations to reporters at the BBC.

The remarkable and extra-ordinary outbursts of Reid and Gilpin make it necessary for me to state what facts I know about Harris Tweed Textiles Ltd and its related companies. It is a long tale, and you will find it unfolding here over the next few weeks. I think I will call it A Harris Yarn. It seems an appropriate title.

Meanwhile, read what our local press makes of the issue. The West Highland Free Press is long-established on the Isle of Skye and serves the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Click the links for the relevant editorial and articles.

OTHER NEWS

Carloway Mill Company Guilty of Environmental Pollution

On their website, the Carloway Mill companies proudly state that they have a pro-active environmental policy.

That pro-active environmental policy was clarified in Stornoway Sheriff Court on Tuesday 20th September when a Carloway Mill company pleaded guilty to pro-actively polluting and endangering the environment, and was fined three-and-a-half thousand pounds. Here are the details of the story.

On 23rd June 2004, a member of the public alerted the local fire brigade to a moorland fire on the west side of the Isle of Lewis: moorland that is part of Shawbost Common Grazings. About twenty sacks of wool were burning uncontrolled and unattended. Burning wool was blowing about the moor, endangering the entire area. The brigade extinguished the fire and the police were called.

The wool and the sacks came from Carloway Mill. Investigations at the mill revealed that a director had instructed an employee to take the wool to the moor and burn it.

The incident, was pursued by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). Wool is defined as controlled waste and has to be disposed of properly and under licence. It cannot be disposed of by setting fire to it on the moor and walking away.

SEPA brought two charges against the Carloway Mill Company, Harris Tweed Textiles Ltd: depositing controlled waste, and disposal of controlled waste by burning.

They appeared in Stornoway Sheriff Court on 7th February 2005 with their barrister (barrister boyfriend, as mentioned above) and continued without plea or declaration. To fly a barrister all the way up to Stornoway just to continue without plea or declaration is very unusual I am told, and this caused legal tongues to wag from Stornoway to the capital.

They continued without plea or declaration until 7th March 2005, when a Not Guilty plea was entered. On this day, Stornoway Sheriff Court set the trial date for 13th June 2005. On 1st June 2005, barrister boyfriend - through a local solicitor - put forward a defence motion to have the trial adjourned. The case was scheduled to be heard in Stornoway Sheriff Court on 20th September 2005, with an intermediate diet taking place on 5th September to ensure that they were ready to go to trial. The intermediate diet did indeed take place on that date, but then continued on the 6th as their local solicitor wished to make "further investigations". Then their plea was changed to Guilty.

In Stornoway Sheriff Court on the 20th September, the Procurator Fiscal (the Scottish equivalent of a Crown Prosecutor or a District Attorney) read the charges and described the burning wool blowing about the moor, which, the month being June, was in danger of catching fire. He stated that Carloway Mill had no waste management licence and no authorised means of disposal. By dumping the wool they were effectively "fly tipping" and avoiding payment of disposal costs.

Then came the defence statement, made by a local solicitor acting as sole mouthpiece for Carloway Mill. The heady days of barrister representation appeared to be over, as BB was not in evidence. The main thrust of the defence was to "put on the poor mouth" and I suppose this is hard to do credibly if you are being represented by a barrister. The Poor Mouth ploy is a cunning but hammy strategy, known in Gaelic as Am Bheul Bochd, and there are many old Highland proverbs on the subject. eg. Tha neach ann a leigeas air a bhith bochd. There is such that pretends to be poor!

Carloway Mill's Poor Mouthpiece hammed it up to the rafters. The Carloway Mill was a poor investment m'lud, he said to the Sheriff. They had substantial losses from trading m'lud. There was little demand for Harris Tweed m'lud. They were a poor and struggling company that had only been going for a couple of years. Their chosen method of disposal allowed them to make financial savings m'lud. They would struggle to pay a substantial fine. Oh m'lordy, m'lordy! You almost expected to hear the strains of mournful violins in the background

Then came several extra-ordinary statements from the Poor Mouthpiece. Firstly he claimed that wool cannot be recycled. Then he said it was traditional to take waste wool to the moor to burn. Then he said that the Carloway Mill had tried to give away the wool for use as loft insulation, but the person who agreed to take it failed to turn up. Finally he said that the company had learned their lesson and would never illegally dispose of wool again.

Sheriff Robert Anthony fined the company three-and-a-half thousand pounds.

Comment

While waiting in court for the case to come up, it was unexpected and depressing to have to witness a sad parade of drunk-drivers, child-molesters, wife-beaters, and sundry other miscreants, and hear their sob-stories. That is all best forgotten. However, the sob-story told by Carloway Mill's Poor Mouthpiece is well worthy of examination and comment.

So wool cannot be recycled? Anybody who knows anything about wool knows that it assuredly can be recycled. There have been industries based on this very activity for centuries. To stand up and say with a straight face that you can't recycle wool is a huge joke, and one which I hope Rowan gets a good laugh out of.

So it is traditional to take waste wool to the moor and burn it? Not that I have ever heard of. It is certainly not traditional for mills to go setting fire to the moor with their waste. A competently-run mill will not produce all that much waste wool. Competent mill-owners regard wool as a precious raw material and turn it into saleable product: they do not destroy it. In the season preceding the criminal disposal - that is November 2003 to April 2004 - Carloway Mill produced 5,043 metres of Harris Tweed. That amount is miniscule and amounts to only 59 tweeds: a mere 28 weeks' work for one lone hand-weaver. What everybody in the know in the Lewis textile industry is asking is - how the heck did those Carloway clowns manage to produce so much waste and so little product? The informed local opinion is that they didn't know what they were doing: they were blundering about desperately trying to dye fleece for Rowan, failed dismally, and hastily disposed of their mess by illegal means. Baa-baa black sheep, have you any wool? Yes m'lud, yes m'lud, twenty sacks full.

So here we have it. The pollution crew of Carloway Mill - those sensitive, caring souls with their pro-active environmental policy - claim to be inspired by the beauty of moor and mountain. Yet what do they do? They go out to the moor near the mountain called Beinn Bhragair, on the summit of which Golden Eagles nest, and not only do they pollute it with their burning mess, they also endanger the entire local flora and fauna: the Calluna and Erica; the Golden Plover and other breeding birds. And then they simply walk away, leaving their filth and fire behind them. What a bunch of barbarians.

The Carloway Mill companies finally caved in to all demands made in the writ served on them by the Harris Tweed Authority (HTA). In particular, they gave an undertaking that they would cease using the Harris Tweed trademark in order to promote their products. However, the Carloway Mill companies refused to pay the HTA's legal expenses, and so court proceedings ensued.

In the Edinburgh Court of Session on Friday 30th September 2005, Lord Nimmo Smith found against the Carloway Mill companies, and granted the HTA an award of all expenses involved in the writ, plus additional extra-ordinary costs.

In justifying their refusal to pay costs, counsel for the Carloway Mill companies claimed that the HTA had refused to sit around the table with them for discussion of the issues in the writ. Counsel for the HTA stated that the serving of the writ was preceded by copious correspondence, in which the Carloway Mill companies had showed intransigence and no appetite for discussion whatsoever. The hearing went on to consider events leading up to the commencement of proceedings, including a review of all correspondence between the parties and their agents.

During this review, Lord Nimmo Smith noted that the HTA and its agents had taken all the required steps in their correspondence with the Carloway Mill companies, while in contrast, the responses received had on occasion been intemperate. He commented:

• It appears there was no sign of any ground being yielded by the respondents. In the correspondence there is no sign of any compromise.
• I expect if Mr (Stephen) Mackay had found independent legal advice, he might have handled the matter differently.
• I have the impression that the respondents and Mr Mackay have sought to sail as close to the wind as they can do.
• I am satisfied that the respondents were on notice of all relevant matters and there was no attempt whatsoever to make a conciliatory response to the petitioners. In the absence of making any offers to the petitioners they knew that proceedings were coming, and accordingly the petitioners are entitled to their expenses.

COMMENT

Lord Nimmo Smith certainly hit the nail on the head when he said that the Carloway crew sailed close to the wind. They seem to have made a career out of it.

The other interesting point that Lord Nimmo Smith raised in court was the fact that Mackay and cohorts might have behaved differently, and presumably with more temperance, if they had taken independent legal advice. So it is clear that they took their legal advice from within. As far as I know from the records of Companies House, there are only two shareholders who are members of the legal profession. One is Barrister Boyfriend. The other is the Wilmington Bain. Mackay recently bragged that Bain was their new financial backer: a big American lawyer who was going to sort out both me and the HTA. From Lord Nimmo Smith's comments, I assume that either Bain or BB must have made some serious errors of judgement.

So it is all over bar the shouting. The Carloway Mill companies have backed down and are rightly saddled with a hefty bill for the HTA's legal expenses. Having observed the behaviour of this Carloway crew for two years now, and having noted their propensity to wriggle and squirm at every turn, it would not surprise me in the least if they have a few wriggles left in them, and they try to duck out of paying the HTA. I await with interest to see what wriggling tactic they adopt this time. Will it be a variant of the Poor Mouth defence that they employed at their pollution trial? Who knows. I just feel it in my bones that where this case is concerned, the fat lady has not yet sung.