Councillor Clare pointed out that the Council's 'bible' promise to us, its clients, said that they would not build an incinerator -'unless there was a need'. By putting it that way they have already admitted its a dangerous and debatable thing to have. From my notes at his lecture, and also from other sources I have read, here are a few 'extras' to Dr Steen's precis of his lecture which is attached for you as PDF file:.... As well as the depression and suicides being higher and GCSE scores being lower, downwind of pollution from incinerators, the knock on effect of that, naturally, is more violence and crime than in less polluted areas. It really does poison all of you, body and mind, no separation. We know our council cheat. They already opened a new incinerator at the hospital without planning consent and without public consultation - behind closed doors.
The point is that although that more recent hospital incinerator might be better than the one they closed down, its old chimney is still being used, and that is lined with highly toxic stuff now being freed up by the new incinerator's heat to poison us, at below PM.4 which they are NOT containing although equipment IS available to do it, and they are NOT even acknowledging, because they only monitor the PMs above .4 which are NOT the most dangerous particulates to us.
We therefore have to show that there is no need, for this new incineraor at Harlescott, or anywhere else. Then they have no excuse not to keep their promise of not building one.
If we spent the money that's allotted for Veolia's toxic outdated technology on refining, enlarging and improving our recycling of everything, we would not need an incinerator. An autoclaver to sterilise things would improve the workers' environment as well as ours.
[]
We therefore have to show that there is no need, for this new incineraor at Harlescott, or anywhere else. Then they have no excuse not to keep their promise of not building one.
If we spent the money that's allotted for Veolia's toxic outdated technology on refining, enlarging and improving our recycling of everything, we would not need an incinerator. An autoclaver to sterilise things would improve the workers' environment as well as ours.
[]
We are supposed to be saving materials, so lets speed that up instead of struggling to meet the government targets which are in any case too slow, and help it by improving recycling with this money. Much better sorting and separating of plastics, the really toxic offenders, is vital, and ditto awareness of metals and oils.
The facts that any incinerator will destroy valuable materials for recycling at the same times as poisoning us, and will draw other areas' waste to be burned in our yard, to keep it going, are further blatantly obvious reasons why this thing should never have been agreed to, and I'd like to know whose pockets would be lined by it ?.
If we do have an incinerator of any kind, then obviously the plasma gasification which gives us electricity, gas and gravel for construction and NO poisons, is the ONLY acceptable investment. And the argument - bound to be attempted - that it costs too much to build, is completely outweighed and negated by the much lower long-term running costs and its production of in-any-case-needed fuel resources.
The fact that it costs less than half what the incinerator would cost to run once in place speaks for itself and the products it gives us that we need anyway and save mining, generation and transport from elsewhere, are another eco-plus.
Our MP said he would table readings and hearings of objections in the commons. He well knows as Paul Marsden told us, that anything that has a profit tag or a bribery and corruption tag, gets very deliberately tabled right near the end of a session so it cant get a second hearing before a break and therefore gets out of time by the next session and therefore is passed as they intend. Democracy and laws are being eroded and remade by the day, to this effect.
Friends of the earth spokesman and another gentleman said, “ we only had a hope by challenging this at appeal and planning.” Since Veolia claim they have never lost an appeal and the planning permission is going to be given the same councillors that signed the contract already - having been misled and lied to by Veolia, []
The councillors who signed that contract must all read the full facts of Dr.Van Steens' research [ ] they must call another meeting and go backwards and revoke the contract.
The so-called argument that breaking the contract will lead to an increase of council tax to pay the fine for breaking the contract is unbelievable blinkeredness, acceptance and fear. It is blackmail.
Is the councils money theirs, ours, or the banks or the judges????. Can the judge and the banks move 'our' money around if we and the councilors say 'NO', - this is wrong, - it IS murder, and abuse and we don't want it and we are not accepting it?
Surely a judge of any breach of contract hearing cannot confiscate the Council treasury's credit card ? can it?.
I don't want to hear anyone saying “If this goes through” or “What if we cant prevent it” – they have already given in and committed us to it, by those words. Those words are banned and people finding themselves saying them need to examine their own fear and programming into acceptance of the chicken boxes of divide and conquer we are being increasingly subjected to. We need to be aware of the WHOLE reptilian agenda. This is not just ONE issue and we need to say “You are sussed and we are not afraid and not buying it.”
I for one would not pay an increase of council tax to fund that fine. So would the bailiff's break into my house and steal from me to get the extra council tax from selling my relatively worthless second hand stuff, or would I be evicted or WHAT???,- we have to stick together on this.
What we need, are a few actually honest people, who have nothing to lose!? - as the final stage of the court case + extra council tax scenario would be that you're not really told the reason for the tax increase as the pie chart is manipulated to make it seem as though the increase is somewhere else unavoidable and not from canceling the Incinerator contract 'fine', and that way they say you have no justification for not paying the tax increase. Any council employed moles amongst us ! ? to tunnel a labyrinthal, enmazed route through to the light, truth and love at the end of the dark tunnels of red tape, bureaucracy, profit, kudos, status, ego, power and greed?
Our MP said he would table readings and hearings of objections in the commons. He well knows as Paul Marsden told us, that anything that has a profit tag or a bribery and corruption tag, gets very deliberately tabled right near the end of a session so it cant get a second hearing before a break and therefore gets out of time by the next session and therefore is passed as they intend. Democracy and laws are being eroded and remade by the day, to this effect.
Friends of the earth spokesman and another gentleman said, “ we only had a hope by challenging this at appeal and planning.” Since Veolia claim they have never lost an appeal and the planning permission is going to be given the same councillors that signed the contract already - having been misled and lied to by Veolia, []
The councillors who signed that contract must all read the full facts of Dr.Van Steens' research [ ] they must call another meeting and go backwards and revoke the contract.
The so-called argument that breaking the contract will lead to an increase of council tax to pay the fine for breaking the contract is unbelievable blinkeredness, acceptance and fear. It is blackmail.
Is the councils money theirs, ours, or the banks or the judges????. Can the judge and the banks move 'our' money around if we and the councilors say 'NO', - this is wrong, - it IS murder, and abuse and we don't want it and we are not accepting it?
Surely a judge of any breach of contract hearing cannot confiscate the Council treasury's credit card ? can it?.
I don't want to hear anyone saying “If this goes through” or “What if we cant prevent it” – they have already given in and committed us to it, by those words. Those words are banned and people finding themselves saying them need to examine their own fear and programming into acceptance of the chicken boxes of divide and conquer we are being increasingly subjected to. We need to be aware of the WHOLE reptilian agenda. This is not just ONE issue and we need to say “You are sussed and we are not afraid and not buying it.”
I for one would not pay an increase of council tax to fund that fine. So would the bailiff's break into my house and steal from me to get the extra council tax from selling my relatively worthless second hand stuff, or would I be evicted or WHAT???,- we have to stick together on this.
What we need, are a few actually honest people, who have nothing to lose!? - as the final stage of the court case + extra council tax scenario would be that you're not really told the reason for the tax increase as the pie chart is manipulated to make it seem as though the increase is somewhere else unavoidable and not from canceling the Incinerator contract 'fine', and that way they say you have no justification for not paying the tax increase. Any council employed moles amongst us ! ? to tunnel a labyrinthal, enmazed route through to the light, truth and love at the end of the dark tunnels of red tape, bureaucracy, profit, kudos, status, ego, power and greed?
No comments:
Post a Comment