Author: Simon Perry
Seat-Gate: Possible Source Of The Leak
Friday, 20th November, 2009 at 6:28 pm, Isle of Wight
Environment, Green Issues, Island-wide, Isle of Wight Council, News, Opinion Piece
Since yesterday, a lead has come up as to where the leak of the information to ThWART might have originated.
We’ve learnt that IW councillors were sent an email on Monday that told them the date and time of the planning meeting and where it would be held – Carrisbrooke High School – “owing to the large amount of interest in this item.”
ThWART sent out the email with these details on Wednesday afternoon.
We spoke to IW Council earlier today and they assured us that none of the council staff had any intention of giving an advantage to either the supporters or those opposing.
What could have happened
With a planning application as controversial as this, it would have made more sense to have released the information publicly to the Island’s residents as soon as the council had realised that ThWART had themselves distributed the leaked information.
Not doing this made the playing field uneven for all of those that wanted to attend the wind turbine planning meeting.
Related posts:
- Seat-Gate: Queues Outside County Hall Early This Morning
We're told there were queues outside County Hall today.... - Gribbles As Fuel Source In The News Again
ShareThe story of the Gribble and the hope that it... - Wight Source Music Courses
ShareMany in Ventnor will already know Andy Jones (aka Randy... - Sewage Leak in Solent Reported in Southern Daily Echo
ShareThanks to VentnorBlog reader, Al, who forwarded news of a... - Harry Rees Wins Ventnor East Seat
Local businessman wins seat...
Yes I absolutely agree. At the very least the emails to Councillors should have been marked private and confidential, which would have prevented any of them leaking the information or if they did there would be recourse to an investigation.The other worry thing about this is that you could reserve up to 5 seats. To ensure a fair distribution of seats I hope that the planning officers will not just allocate the seats without checking who it is they give them to first.
Offensive comment?
Simon – did IWC say if the email sent to the councillors was private and confidential?
If so, I would have thought IWC would have given the appropriate person/people a telling off, as they went against the P+C and probably distributed the details via IWC email (which they will be able to track).
Offensive comment?
Being as ThWART knew about the meeting before anyone else, they’re simply going to have to disregard most speaking requests made before the official release of the meeting’s date/location, or else it’s going to turn into a real NIMBY fest.
Offensive comment?
Jackie and Adam – I saw the emails this evening and they do not have private and confidential on them.
Offensive comment?
Also Adam – if the details were passed on with intent to give ThWART the advantage, I doubt the councillor in question would have sent it via their council email account as they would know more than anyone the recourse if they were found out.
Problem is – there won’t be any proof of who did it (if indeed anyone did) and thus it will be difficult to catch the NIMBY in the midst ;)
Offensive comment?
Thanks Kerri – I would hope the councillor(s) in question didn’t send it from their IWC email address, but even if they did, it is ok now, as it is IWC’s own fault for not putting P+C on the email.
I think they should get their tombola raffle drum out to pick the final seating!
Offensive comment?
This is where IOW Radio misses the phone in
Offensive comment?
Isle of Wight radio no longer have anyone who could do the phone-in.
Offensive comment?
This is such a mess that the Council must re-schedule the meeting and try to get it right next time. Otherwise there could be ‘problems’ at the venue once we all know where and when the meeting happens.
Furthermore, whatever views are expressed at the proposed meeting will be invalid because of the coup that THWART have brought about.
Consultation is often the main weakness of this Council, but the politicians are not stupid and they consult in a way that suits them best, not us.
Offensive comment?
I hope that the person who leaked this gets found out and disiplined, although the chances are remote. However if we complain on mass then an investigation will have to take place. How thorough is another matter.
Offensive comment?
Why complain. Is it because your ‘global warming’ arguments for these ugly steel monstrosities been found out as nonsense?
How do you get to attend the meeting, the iwc website doesn’t make it clear (what a surprise!)
Offensive comment?
Why does every anti wind-turbine argument always have:
“I don’t like the way they look”
at the heart of it?
I’m not aware that any of the ‘global warming’ arguments have been found to be a nonsense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
There are plenty of arguments you can make against wind turbines (expensive, inefficient, can’t store power etc), but even the chap who’ll make most of them for you (James Lovelock) reckons we’re in for a period of “homeostatic positive feedback” (global warming to the layman) unless we reverse the “negative feedbacks” (the damage we’ve done to atmosphere and biodiversity) as soon as possible.
Offensive comment?
OK shooba, you don’t like “these ugly steel monstrosities” so let’s have an attractive nuclear power station at Newtown instead.
Offensive comment?
or be forced to have sufficient solar panels on your roof to power your home..at your own expense.
Just had ours done…120 tubes
Offensive comment?
How much did it cost (approx) out of interest? Hope to save up for some!
Offensive comment?
Bring on the nukes! They don’t worry me. And better a handful of those around the barren UK coastline than thousands of inefficient madly subsidised ugly windmills. You greenies need to do a lot better. Especially as your scientists have been economical with the actualite when presenting their ‘we’re all doomed’ case. What was it they said ‘use the same trick’. Nice, very scientific language.
Offensive comment?
I am aghast ! We move from ‘ugly steel monstrosities’ to ‘barren coastlines’. I would think that the Newtown estuary is an example of one of the most fertile areas on the planet.
Offensive comment?
You cannot seriously be questioning that there is climate change are you?
Have a look out of the window and you might notice that there is a more than normal amount of rain falling over the UK, with those on the news saying it is down to … climate change.
Offensive comment?
Let’s be completely clear:
Climate change has been occurring ever since we had a climate. This is normal. We’ve had heavy rain before, and we have had droughts before.
What the greenies seem to be doing is calling everything climate change, when actually they should qualify this as being ‘anthropogenic climate change’, i.e. man-made. The difference is crucial. Personally I feel ‘the news’ favour leaving out the qualifying ‘man-made’ moniker. By doing this, they are gradually brain-washing people who believe what they say on the news, i.e. that all climate change is man-made.
In my humble opinion, that is.
Offensive comment?
sigh…..the oft repeated fantasy as noted elsewhere.
Whether climate change is man made or not won’t matter a tot when half the Island is under water.
And whether its manmade or not doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to put it right.
Offensive comment?
O and nuclear power stations are so much more attractive aren’t they!!! Where would you propose the nuclear waste be stored shooba? Governments are struggling now to find places to store it, so much so that last year they put tenders out to local councils in a bid to find storage for it, and as an incentive councils would be paid to store it.
Nuclear is dirty energy and dangerous.
Offensive comment?
Tell you what Shobba, you might just be right. It is possible that we are having little effect on the climate. The odds, of course, are not in your favour, but it must be acknowledged, you may be right. So let’s just sit back, do nothing and see what happens shall we. Even if the odds are 50:50 that you are right, that’s a one-in-two chance humanity is going to have an ‘oo-er-missus’ moment in the next fifty years. Do you have children? They will be spitting on our graves.
Offensive comment?
Hear hear!
Offensive comment?
Am amazed to read these comments by a near enough “namesake”. Here is a post by Mark, who was moved to write this after our youngest daughter wept after watching Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”.
http://web.mac.com/mark.middleton/markm/Blog/Entries/2007/1/27_Rights_of_a_child.html
Offensive comment?
Thing is, it’s not even anywhere near a 50:50 split now – after the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement in 2007, NO remaining scientific body of national or international standing rejects the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.
Either EVERY scientist is involved in some sort of conspiracy theory or the American Association of Petroleum Geologists USED to be right (I’d really hope Shooba didn’t take advice from the tobacco industry prior to the 1980s RE: the health benefits of smoking!)
I posted a link detailing most scientific bodies positions (which I doubt was viewed), and even pointed out that the leading scientist cited by most anti wind-turbine campaigners (and whose Gaia theory was often manipulated by Petroleum companies for their own ends) is now in complete agreement human activity is contributing to the climate in a negative way.
You can’t really do much more than that, but unfortunately some will cling to opinions rather than reviewing/revising in the light of new evidence. That’s how science works – it’s constantly reviewing/revising and will continue to do so.
That we’ve contributed to climate change will always be a theory in the same way that gravity and evolution remain theories.
It is of course ‘possible’ that the current global warming trend has nothing to do with human activity in the same way Russell’s teapot is ‘possible’. It’s also a fact that, regardless of where we apportion blame, it is within our capabilities to reverse it.
Surely we owe the next generation that?
Offensive comment?
not when certain members of the community are hell bent on maintaining their BMW’s, On Road 4X4′s, their fantastic views and their narrow minds.
I still think we should give these ostriches an opt out clause..that they would not benefit from any energy manufactured by Island wind farms (should they ever be allowed)
Offensive comment?
For the record Mr T I was not suggesting that the probability was a 50:50 split, I was merely making a point.
To make a point, I will run the argument the other way: Imagine the governments of the world are aware that an asteroid is heading toward earth. The estimated result of it’s impact will be broadly similar to climate change; in other words, starvation and disease on an unprecedented scale, terrible resource wars, tens or hundreds of millions of deaths globally, poverty and loss of possessions and displacement being common around the planet, including here, in Britain.
At what point would we demand the government takes all possible action – when the estimated probability of impact is 1%, or 10%, or perhaps 50%, or do we just hope it goes away because it’s going to be ‘a bit expensive’ to take mitigating action and the defences don’t look quiet right in the countryside and anyway, Jezzer Clarkson says it’s all a conspiracy?
Offensive comment?
Dear dear, some of you really are brainwashed, lost causes. Yes, climate change is a fact of life on this small planet and yes, we should minimise our impact on the environment. But only because that’s clearly a sensible thing to do.
The revelation that scientists are over egging the pudding didn’t surprise me. Most of you are willing to believe any old tosh it seems.
But, wind turbines will never be the answer. They don’t generate much power very often and they cost too much. Until something better comes along, I place my faith in nukes. ‘The barren landscape’ best chosen for these power stations has already been selected around the UK coast. Fawley aint pretty, why not build one here? After all, our closest nukes are already just over the water in France. If they go wrong, you’ll soon be in the front line, you can’t hide behind your wind turbine.
Al Gore’s film was fake, wrong, an embarassment meant to shock. It’s been discredited.
My conviction is that’climate change’ as you all understand it, is all about tax raising. You really have fallen for it. At best sensible science has human activity being a small percentage responsible.
As for the present rains, we always get a drenching in November! Up until recently you may recall ‘climate change’ was ‘global warming.’ Once they realised this was, er, wrong, they renamed it ‘climate change.’ People, open your eyes, relax, it’ll all be OK.
Offensive comment?
Thanks for putting all us daft folk right, Shobba. You really are clever.
Offensive comment?
Oh alright then! I can’t believe how silly we’ve all been.
Offensive comment?
I guess Shobba has probably gone off to run up a few food miles in the Range Rover.
Offensive comment?
Cumbrias worst floods in recorded history are just normal Autumn Showers hahahah
we have a new comdeian in our midst.
Offensive comment?
Just what I was thinking! “We always get a drenching in November…” That must be what they’re saying in Cumbria as they look at the holes where the bridges used to be.
Offensive comment?
OK – enough cat fighting! Lets lay the cards on teh table
Fact: The intergovernmental Panell on Climate Change, of the United Nations (not greenies) ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change said in 1990 that ‘they are certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface’. Things have been furthe rproved since then. The Stern Review in 2006, headed by Sir Nicholas Stern, a leading economist (not a greenie) among othe things stated that
# The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs.
# The scientific evidence points to increasing risks of serious, irreversible impacts from climate change associated with business-as-usual (BAU) paths for emissions.
# Climate change threatens the basic elements of life for people around the world — access to water, food production, health, and use of land and the environment.
Artic ice is shrinking – in 2009 it was 25% below the 1979 – 2000 average – 25% – that’s a quarter!! Nasa studies have also shown that the Artic ice has thinned by 40% since 2004 – that’s nearly half in just 5 years. We keep going at this rate then scientists (not greenies) say that it is likely that we will lose the summer Artic ice completely within decades, possibly even one decade down the line. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/15/arctic-survey-ice-melting
So let’s not dispute the issue of global warming due to human activity – look at the facts, not the gossip.
As for nulcear power V’s renewables – OK let’s once again look at the facts
Nuclear pwoer will only contribute 4% of the UK’s energy needs, and costs 10 times the amount it would cost to use renewables and decentralised power hubs, not just due to building costs, but due to decomissioning costs and disposal of nuclear waste (there still isnt a solution decates on from the first nuclear power stations)
AND there is the ever ready threat of terrorism (so security costs will be higher) AND uranium is a finite resource, same as coal and gas – wind will never run out.
Offensive comment?
Ok – enough cat fighting – lets look at the facts…
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (made up of top scientists around the world and commissioned by the UN, NOT greenies) said back in 1990 that ‘they are certain that emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gases, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface’
Sir Nicholas Stern (a top government financial advisor) headed the Stern review in 2006 on the financial implications of climate change stated that “our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, later in this century and in the next, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes. Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the longer term and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries.”
The Arctic ice cap, recognised by scientists (not greenies) to be a good indicator of global temperature changes has thinned by 40% since 2004 and is predicted to disappear completely in the summer within the next few decades, something that has not occurred in 700,000 years. with the disappearance of arctic ice puts whole ecosystems at terminal risk – from those who use the top of the ice (polar bears, ) to the small invertebrates that feed on the bottom of the ice which feed the whales, not to mention the chances of the oceanic pumps shutting down completely (no ice means no cold water means no movement) – bang goes the Gulf stream – and our warmer winters.
As for the nuclear V’s renewables debate
Uranium is a FINITE resource, same as coal, gas, oil and will run out one day
we still don’t have a strategy for dealing with toxic nuclear waste, decades on from the first commissioned power stations, there is already 10,000 tonnes in storage at Sellafield with no solution for final disposal on the table yet.
the cost installing, using and decommissioning nuclear power stations is TEN TIMES that of using renewables
Nuclear power will provide less than 10% of the UK’s energy needs – are you prepared to take the risk of nuclear terrorism and have nuclear power stations and waste in your neighbourhood for that amount?
Nuclear is just storing up HUGE problems for future generations – renewables are not
If you went to a doctor because you were feeling ‘under the weather’ and, being the expert (not a quack) , ran a series of tests and checked you over and concluded that you had an illness that needed treating or you would get progressively worse – would you believe him?? Just because you are not a doctor or lab technician yourself does not mean you ignore the results.
Come on, Isle of Wight -
Offensive comment?
At the risk of repeating myself, you lot are all certifiably brainwashed. You’re wasting your breath. Ecomentalists are like junkies. You all need a regular fix of doom and gloom to feel better about riding on buses or spending thousands covering your houses in pointless solar panels. I’d do this too, if I lived in Arizona.
Do your giant steel turbines not also present an opportunity to terrorists? This argument is patent nonsense.
The Cumbria floods are indeed a random bit of bad luck. It happens. This small planet had at least one ice age before humans ever existed. We’re at the mercy of nature. Always have been, always will be. You plant some trees and drive your electric scooters if you must and if doing that makes you feel better. Me, I’ll carry on much as before. I’ll waste little but carry on; eating meat, heating,(or cooling) my home, driving my comfortable car, flying long distance, blah blah. I remain to be convinced of your ‘scientific evidence’ I certainly don’t intend making it my new religion.
Offensive comment?
terorism threat to turbines??? Am I reading you right? Do you really think that terrorists would bother attacking muiltiple wind turbines, doing no more damage than to the turbine itself, or one nuclear power station (think Chernobyl) – get real, Shobba!
Offensive comment?
PS Good news about Waitrose!
Offensive comment?
I think that this shooba is a sad bitter person who has got nothing better to do than to antagonise others. The last comment proves that I think.
Offensive comment?
Sad, bitter? Is this what you resort to when you lose an argument? Name calling.
My dear lady, it’s you lot who are sad and bitter.
750 of the worlds top scientists say human caused climate change is an elaborate cynical hoax. Its purpose – to allow governments to tax more and reduce consumption.
I suspect most serious anti-airport angry ecomentalists are in fact unemployable beardy pierced scroungers, in need of a damn good wash. These people probably once dreamed of careers, exotic long haul holidays, owning a decent home and a yes, maybe even a Range Rover. Finding their own lives to be unfulfilled and uneventful, they’ve latched onto the green issue. In reality for them it’s really a communist far left cause. That’s why the same grubby people are seen hurling bottles at G7/8 meetings.
Youu’ll never convince me. I am not denying human cause climate change – there’s nothing to deny!
Offensive comment?
sorry, your not David Pugh…you are Jeremy Clarkson
(well at least you think you are)
750 of the worlds top scientists..hahahahhahahah and your source is.
and even if true, its a miniscule number compared to the real scientists not employed by America who prove climate change.
I like you shooba…you are very entertaining (in a TopGear kind of way)
Offensive comment?
It’s not my intention to amuse. I simply don’t understand the hysteria around the cause that unites you. Sadly I’m not Mr Clarkson, thou I wouldn’t mind his money.
I was listening to a radio programme about the 1956 Suez crisis this morning. It was used as an excuse by UK government to add 30% to the cost of petrol overnight. In reality, Britain was bankrupt after the war and needed more tax revenues.
As now, our inept incompetent government had promised the hoi-polloi more than could be delivered. Health, education, pensions, defence. (Spooky eh?) The solution, cut services or tax more. They ,like now, chose the higher taxes option. Short term it works, long term you strangle the economy and create more unemployment.
I hate to disappoint. But there IS absolutely positively no conclusive proof for human cause climated change. ‘Global warming’ became ‘global cooling’ before ‘climate change.’ This is the best evidence that no-one on our little planet really understands the weather. If they did, our local forecasts would be accurate.
Example; The past 24hrs should have seen up to 2 inches of rain on the island. It didn’t happen. Anyone who prepared for it wasted time and energy.
The brilliant boffins at the Met Office saw it coming – but it passed us by.
My advice? Enjoy your life, don’t let it worry you and believe, (as I do) that technology will provide the solution to any future problems weather and energy related. My children and grandchildren are very bright. I trust them to solve mankinds problems as I and my forefathers did.
Offensive comment?
No proof of human cause….can you not read the dozens of posts that constantly remind the ostriches that that is a completely irrelevent point, and one that the ostriches repeat again and again when they run out of any proof.
Once again (just for you) climate change is a fact..no matter what the cause, but we have a slim chance of doing something about about…we may not be the cause, but we could be part of the cure…(well some of us)
I hope you children and grandchildren are stockpiling wellies hahahah
Offensive comment?
“750 of the worlds top scientists say human caused climate change is an elaborate cynical hoax.”
Name them or at least provide a link to a source that does.
That’s an enormous number so shouldn’t prove difficult.
I don’t much see the point in lots of arguing – best thing to do is to provide your sources/evidence and let other people have a look at them for themselves Shobba.
I’ve provided links myself, and as far as I know no scientific body now disagrees human activity has contributed to climate change, but I’m happy to be corrected by up to date sources.
Offensive comment?