Author Topic: Hartlepool vs nuclear waste  (Read 997 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Inspector Knacker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5295
  • Karma: +368/-23
  • The Dumpling Dictator’s legacy.
Re: Hartlepool vs nuclear waste
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2021, 01: PM »
I’m staggered that the idea is getting favourable views from some people, this project should be kicked out.
If it’s such a brilliant project, why haven’t the developers tried siting it near one of those lovely South coast resorts, surely Bournemouth or Torquay would welcome it with open arms? .... because Hartlepool is regarded as a soft touch....there’s nothing in it for the local people, just a legacy of being classed as dummies.
What disturbs me is the hesitation on behalf of certain ‘politicians’.... are they so detached from reality they can see no further than the end of their noses.....?
Will it be marketed as some woke stroke to tick a few boxes.
What can be asserted without proof,
can be dismissed without proof.

Lucy Lass-Tick

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2009
  • Karma: +101/-4
Re: Hartlepool vs nuclear waste
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2021, 01: PM »
A piece from 'Hartlepool Today'. If correct, this is quite something.

'Shoving gold bars down their mouths.
Concerns over a local charities involvement in “secret meetings” with local councillors took a new twist yesterday, after it emerged that the charity at the centre of the scandal stood to gain a significant financial boost if plans were even considered for a Nuclear Disposal Facility in Hartlepool in a clandestine way to boost its charity income.
The Wharton Trust in Hartlepool were said to have been acting as the “interested party” to explore with  the government plans for a Radioactive Waste Management site in Hartlepool (RWM) along with a number of other organisations pondering over whether Hartlepool would be a suitable place to set up operations for a Nuclear Disposal Facility.
In a letter sent by the charity to the Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen The trust claimed to be able to see the benefits a Nuclear Disposal Facility would bring to Hartlepool, taking into account the town already being home to a Nuclear Power Station, as well as the industry of the dismantling of a number of dangerous structures i.e oil rigs & the safe recycling of Dangerous Waste on sites such as Able UK.
However its now emerged that as the “interested party”, the Wharton Trust were actually the ones who stood to receive a substantial financial gain from the government if any of the proposals put forward were actually given the support by Hartlepool Councillors, with the charity standing to receive around a million pounds in funding from the government to undertake “consultations” with the community, with plenty more to follow depending on whether members of the public aired their support for the proposals.
The revelation once again puts the charity in the spotlight over its involvement with local councillors, including its motives for expressing its interest in proposals for a Nuclear Waste Facility to be built in Hartlepool, despite the charity having no links in that particular field of expertise, where its becoming increasingly evident that the motives for the Wharton Trust as a charity were purely financial, with the charity coming into contact with an income stream that was seemingly too irresistible to let go & very much eager to as test the water to see if councillors of a newly elected council had the appetite to bite into the charities clandestine financial plan.
How many of these “secret meetings” has there been ?
The other issue also surrounds just how many “secret meetings” with councillors have been conducted with other charitable organisations which have been done well behind closed doors & away from the public spotlight, with concerns that a number of similar meetings such as this have taken place in the past, with councillors failing to declare their attendances in their disclosure of interests to the unofficial "presentations" which in most cases will never see the light of day in the public domain, or even officially minuted to document just what went on when those meetings actually took place.
It also raises significant questions over councillors standards & conduct in the fact that if it hadn't been for the revelation brought by the Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen, its likely that the general public wouldn't have ever been aware that such a meeting took place, which could have potentially influenced any decisions being made at council level should those proposals have been secretly approved.
Tees Valley Mayor, claimed that the potential pay offs to organisations to petition residents over the proposals as "shoving gold bars down the mouths of organisations", with many local residents seemingly angry at the way both the Wharton Trust & local councillors have conducted themselves over the issue.
Deputy Leader of the Hartlepool Labour Group Jonothan Brash claims that the proposals for a Radioactive Waste Management site in Hartlepool was only briefly discussed at the meeting (some 10 minutes), with Labour councillors taking no decision to support the proposals.
HBC leader Independent Councillor Shane Moore also released a statement claiming that he would never support any such proposals for a RWM facility in Hartlepool, with the local conservatives eerily silent on the subject, with no official statement made on the proposals.
The whole saga though has brought into question the standards & conduct of Hartlepool councillors as a whole, in the fact that many local residents believe the shenanigans of the previously elected Labour Council are now coming back into the fold, just under a different political make up, with calls for councillors to publicly document for the record every unofficial presentation or meeting they have attended throughout their elected terms past & present either inside or outside their normal hours of work as an elected member, with claims from many that secret presentations or “meetings” such as these have already unduly influenced a number of decisions brought before the council, raising suspicions over whether councillors can now actually make a decision based solely on their own discretion, & not be unduly influenced by outside factors, seriously calling into question Hartlepool Councillors professional integrity & impartiality.'

Inspector Knacker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5295
  • Karma: +368/-23
  • The Dumpling Dictator’s legacy.
Re: Hartlepool vs nuclear waste
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2021, 09: AM »
A piece from 'Hartlepool Today'. If correct, this is quite something.

'Shoving gold bars down their mouths.
Concerns over a local charities involvement in “secret meetings” with local councillors took a new twist yesterday, after it emerged that the charity at the centre of the scandal stood to gain a significant financial boost if plans were even considered for a Nuclear Disposal Facility in Hartlepool in a clandestine way to boost its charity income.
The Wharton Trust in Hartlepool were said to have been acting as the “interested party” to explore with  the government plans for a Radioactive Waste Management site in Hartlepool (RWM) along with a number of other organisations pondering over whether Hartlepool would be a suitable place to set up operations for a Nuclear Disposal Facility.
In a letter sent by the charity to the Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen The trust claimed to be able to see the benefits a Nuclear Disposal Facility would bring to Hartlepool, taking into account the town already being home to a Nuclear Power Station, as well as the industry of the dismantling of a number of dangerous structures i.e oil rigs & the safe recycling of Dangerous Waste on sites such as Able UK.
However its now emerged that as the “interested party”, the Wharton Trust were actually the ones who stood to receive a substantial financial gain from the government if any of the proposals put forward were actually given the support by Hartlepool Councillors, with the charity standing to receive around a million pounds in funding from the government to undertake “consultations” with the community, with plenty more to follow depending on whether members of the public aired their support for the proposals.

Sacha Bedding has a few notable quotes in the Hartlepool Life trying to flog the beautiful benefits of becoming Toxic on Tees...really? He used the current buzz words popular with the gullible such as  the compulsory reference to climate change and pointing out that nuclear waste includes certain items of medical equipment but I thought his most outrageous quote in my humble opinion was ‘There is a moral obligation to find a permanent solution for spent nuclear fuel and Hartlepool and since Hartlepool is proven in the field......” er, no it isn’t since running a nuclear power station and clearing up the decommissioned mess are miles apart. Also what ‘moral obligation’ does Hartlepool have...,?
According to the people doing the project RWM, Steve Reece, ...” bringing thousands of jobs to multiple generations” and to me disturbingly adds”...as well as significant investment needed for supporting infrastructure in the area around the GDF”.... why?
 Meanwhile, Sacha says “ ... the opportunity to bring in 750 jobs over over 100 years and millions of pounds blah, blah, blah...” we won’t see the money and heard all this jobs bonanza carrot before, but over 100 years, ....seriously? my ribs are aching with laughter.

‘How many of these “secret meetings” has there been ?’
They make the KGB look like amateurs. It makes you wonder what else we should be told.


‘Deputy Leader of the Hartlepool Labour Group Jonothan Brash claims that the proposals for a Radioactive Waste Management site in Hartlepool was only briefly discussed at the meeting (some 10 minutes), with Labour councillors taking no decision to support the proposals....’
Imagine someone approaching you and saying they’d like cut the heads off everyone in the town and would like to do a presentation.... you’d scatter them. This is in the same league to me, it shouldn’t have even been ‘briefly discussed’, just rejected out of hand, it has no redeeming features whatsoever. I notice the Labour group haven’t rejected the proposals..... do they take us for fools?

The local Conservatives are eerily silent on most subjects, during Punch and Judy’s ‘reign’ of incompetence, they said nothing for years, bystanders, the opposition who never was.


« Last Edit: August 12, 2021, 09: AM by Inspector Knacker »
What can be asserted without proof,
can be dismissed without proof.

Lucy Lass-Tick

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2009
  • Karma: +101/-4
Re: Hartlepool vs nuclear waste
« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2021, 08: PM »
A statement from Ben Houchen. “It is hugely disappointing to hear that Mike Young has been trying to facilitate meetings and conversations about the disposal of nuclear waste in Hartlepool for an extensive period of time.
It’s equally concerning that his admission has only come following my bringing this to the attention of the public and after I have submitted an FOI request to the council asking for any and all correspondence from councillors regarding this matter.
“Since exposing these clandestine meetings, it has been brought to my attention that Mike Young may have deceitfully tried to misrepresent my position on this matter to a number of third parties to try and gather further support for this project.
Let me be clear, I have never and will never support the dumping of nuclear waste in Hartlepool and I will always put the people of Hartlepool ahead of party politics.
So I will continue to do all I can to uncover the truth and to expose anyone who has been involved in this whole sorry affair. It doesn’t matter to me which party they belong to.”

Inspector Knacker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5295
  • Karma: +368/-23
  • The Dumpling Dictator’s legacy.
Re: Hartlepool vs nuclear waste
« Reply #19 on: August 13, 2021, 06: AM »
What goes through these peoples minds, they appear to have the mindset of Victorian factory owners who didn’t give a hoot about the toxic consequences and just see the cash....but at least those Victorians had the excuse of unintended ignorance, these people don’t. ...unless they’re so dumb they shouldn’t be walking the streets alone.
It’s as though a fair proportion of Counciillors of the two major Party’s are willing to consider such a proposition which begs the question why? It has no redeeming features and will condemn us as a blighted area for years and not just tens of years. This is an abomination and reflects badly on both Party’s and their creepy silence.
Maybe this has always been Hartlepool’s problem, two major Party’s who look on the electorate as an  herd too thick to be consulted or informed....devious democracy is what is being revealed.
What can be asserted without proof,
can be dismissed without proof.

Lucy Lass-Tick

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2009
  • Karma: +101/-4
Re: Hartlepool vs nuclear waste
« Reply #20 on: August 13, 2021, 10: AM »
Reading between the lines, looks like a person(s) 'gone rogue' here. Ben Houchen, Jill Mortimer & Shane Moore have all declared a resounding 'No!!!' but a certain element's maybe trying to push it anyway. This'll end in tears.

diSme

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +49/-11
Re: Hartlepool vs nuclear waste
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2021, 08: PM »
This is evidently a s**t-show in the making....

One thing that bothers me, why does such a potentially dangerous waste disposal site need to be built so close to a town/city/urban area?

I understand that there needs to be travel links to such a facility, to transport workers and goods/waste. But given the amounts of money involved in setting up this kind of thing, would it not make more sense from a safety point of view to build the facility as far away from urban civilisation as possible???
I believe everything and nothing

Inspector Knacker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5295
  • Karma: +368/-23
  • The Dumpling Dictator’s legacy.
Re: Hartlepool vs nuclear waste
« Reply #22 on: August 18, 2021, 08: AM »
Our local politicians would appear to see it in a different light. How detached from reality can anyone become when they would even consider for a second the possibility of welcoming such a poison chalice into our town.
 Did the Labour Councillors who dithered about this ( and unbelievably appear to be still dithering) and the silent Tories, actually think for themselves or wait obediently to be told what they were going to think from the enlightened ones above...... ?
Goodbye Hospital and Courts, welcome toxic nuclear waste...... let’s see em sell that as a positive.
What can be asserted without proof,
can be dismissed without proof.

Lucy Lass-Tick

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2009
  • Karma: +101/-4
Re: Hartlepool vs nuclear waste
« Reply #23 on: August 18, 2021, 10: AM »
Mike Young's statement:

In recent weeks it has become clear I lack the support of more senior Conservatives in the region.
Having been approached with information from Wharton Trust and confirming that the information conformed with policies from Central Government, I engaged with the Government’s arm of Radioactive Waste Management.
The proposal included up to a ten-year consultation process ending in a binding vote made by the people of Hartlepool, who would have had the final say in the outcome.
As a town, we face losing the nuclear power station along with its jobs and income within a few short years.
It would have been remiss of me to disregard an opportunity that had the potential of creating hundreds of jobs along with the non-domestic rates that would match that lost from the power station’s closure.
It is more than apparent that local politics doesn't afford you the level of decision making that you'd have thought.
I, therefore, wish to tender my resignation from the Deputy Leader and Deputy Mayor positions of Hartlepool Borough Council with immediate effect.
I will continue in my other democratically elected roles and continue to strive to serve the electorate of the Rural West Ward as I have always tried to do.
Cllr Mike Young
Councillor for Rural West Ward

Lucy Lass-Tick

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2009
  • Karma: +101/-4

Inspector Knacker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5295
  • Karma: +368/-23
  • The Dumpling Dictator’s legacy.
Re: Hartlepool vs nuclear waste
« Reply #25 on: August 18, 2021, 11: AM »
Mike Young's statement:

In recent weeks it has become clear I lack the support of more senior Conservatives in the region.
Having been approached with information from Wharton Trust and confirming that the information conformed with policies from Central Government, I engaged with the Government’s arm of Radioactive Waste Management.
The proposal included up to a ten-year consultation process ending in a binding vote made by the people of Hartlepool, who would have had the final say in the outcome.
As a town, we face losing the nuclear power station along with its jobs and income within a few short years.
It would have been remiss of me to disregard an opportunity that had the potential of creating hundreds of jobs along with the non-domestic rates that would match that lost from the power station’s closure.
It is more than apparent that local politics doesn't afford you the level of decision making that you'd have thought.
I, therefore, wish to tender my resignation from the Deputy Leader and Deputy Mayor positions of Hartlepool Borough Council with immediate effect.
I will continue in my other democratically elected roles and continue to strive to serve the electorate of the Rural West Ward as I have always tried to do.
Cllr Mike Young
Councillor for Rural West Ward

I’m lost for words at the sheer naivety of the Councillor’s thought process. Blighted for eternity because all he could see was lost rates money and a couple of hundred jobs, really?
This is the sort of short sighted parish pump politics of both major Party’s in Hartlepool that holds this town back,
What can be asserted without proof,
can be dismissed without proof.

Inspector Knacker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5295
  • Karma: +368/-23
  • The Dumpling Dictator’s legacy.
Re: Hartlepool vs nuclear waste
« Reply #26 on: August 18, 2021, 01: PM »
Looks like Hartlepool's not the only potential location.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-57973015?fbclid=IwAR2qXgdaL476C1lbYO2vCudBj7HCXv9d0iK5QaBAZ3hGMI0ZAeRNXHgNREY
On reading this for the site in Lincolnshire, one of the residents said the site would be unmanned, how true this is I have no idea, but the same patter is emanating from RWM about no commitment just discussion......” come into my parlour said the spider to the fly”.
I wonder if there’ll be any sites south of Lincolnshire...Hamp stead Heath isn’t fully built on! ;)
What can be asserted without proof,
can be dismissed without proof.