Wednesday, June 28, 2006




The people of Rugby, have been PREJUDICED by this Agency, and the IPPC Consultation, (falsely called Tyre Burning Application), designed to turn the Cement plant into a CO-INCINERATOR.

The consultation has been proven to be a SHAM! What else will they hide? What lengths will they go to to disadvantage Rugby people and cover up what they have done? The Judges upheld the findings of unfairness, and breach of Common Law, against the Agency, and this is what they have done to Rugby people.

While we are disappointed in losing the Appeal we are pleased to see that the Judges also refused the Appeal of the Environment Agency, and upheld the Decision against them, and confirmed it :
"The Agency was found to be in breach of its common law duty of fairness to provide fully informed consultation, and the Judge was concerned about the apparent lack of frankness on the part of the Agency in not alerting the public much earlier to the implications of the AQMAU reports for possible contribution to environmental damage from low level emissions of dust."

The AQMAU Air Quality reports were hidden by the Agency, from RCCF, RBC, MP Andy King, and from the Council's air quality consultant Faber Maunsell, who all repeatedly asked for it, in order to help Rugby Residents with the decision making , and with the locating of the air quality monitors. The misleading, and hiding of crucial environmental information lead to an increased health risk for local Rugby residents, and meant the whole Consultation process was completely flawed, and in effect the whole Consultation was a complete waste of time and money, because of the Agency 's hiding of the essential information. What this FARCE cost Rugby people should be worked out by the AUDIT COMMISSION!

In this SHAM CONSULTATION the Agency have been aided and abetted by Rugby Borough Council who, although not part of this court case, deliberately misleadingly called the Consultation a "Tyre Burning Consultation", instead of an IPPC Consultation. This was after having previously already connived with the Agency to hide the prior IPC Consultation in July 1999, and to keep it off the Public register and to make no response to it, which led to the plant gaining an original UNLAWFUL IPC operating Permit. This plant then operated unlawfully from 1999 as a "cement plant", and then gained an unlawful IPPC Permit, after an expensive, time-consuming FARCE of public consultation, to become the Rugby C0-INCINERATOR , in which, from that point on ALL manner and quantities of WASTES could/can be burnt - regardless of any impact. The Agency NEVER refuses any permissions as it cannot, for fear of being sued by the cement industry.
ONE SIZE FITS ALL - as far as cement plants are concerned, and anything goes.

into tyre burning ; and tyres and petcoke ;
and the burning of London's household /commercial refuse .
After that - the sky is the limit - so here come Cemex and the Agency,
filling up Rugby air with toxic emissions.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Operating in a smoke-filled room?

What, Rugby Borough Council?
Surely you do not mean us?
Well actually YES you!

Last night's Cabinet meeting saw the presentation of the Annual Audit and Inspection Letter 2004/05 by KPMG on behalf of the Audit Commission. The Report is extremely critical of the Council in areas concerning Finances, Failure to have a meaningful plan, or to prioritise, and failure to engage the Community and Partners, and RBC was told to STOP "operating in a smoke-filled room!" Needless to say the Report has only gone out (in secret) to the few responsible for this mess - the Tory Cabinet itself. What have they learnt from this? Apparently only how to be even more secretive and devious?

Councillors: Humphrey (Chair and leader of the Council), Campbell, Lane, Pawsey, Poole, Robbins, (Chair RCCF and Environment portfolio holder!!),Timms and Wright.

And so then on 27th July they will host yet another quasi-secret, quasi-public, meeting to "ASSIST" Cemex with its plans to burn London's waste in down town Rugby. Better get your name on the list, so RBC/Cemex can get a list of "trouble makers", and they can know "who you are!"

"It is important that the general public are engaged and informed as far as possible. To this end it is proposed to hold a public consultation event along the lines of a "Question Time" debate on these issues towards the end of July. Jeremy Wright MP has provisionally agreed to moderate the debate involving a balanced panel of interested/experts. In order to manage the event it would be necessary, initially at least, to require interested parties to apply for tickets in advance with a limited number available for people to attend on the night. Key stakeholders would automatically receive a number of invitations, such as those groups on the RCCF, although the intention is to engage the general public.

This type of event will generate a range of issues, which could be collated and put to Cemex for them to address as part of the formal application on use of this fuel."




Question A

Question from Mrs L Pallikaropoulos

“At the "secret" Cemex Briefing, chaired by RBC officer Karen Stone in Rugby
Council Chamber on June 2nd, which only 15 of the 48 Rugby Borough Councillors attended, from which the public were barred, and no Agenda, Minutes, or attendance/invitee list were disclosed, Councillor Gordon Collett, failing to declare a pecuniary interest for his recent receipt of the keys to a £22,5000 Cemex minibus, the photo of which appeared both in the local press and also which graces the Cemex Newsletter, spoke out strongly in support of the Cemex plan to burn London's household refuse and commercial waste in the Rugby Co-incinerator plant, urging the people attending "not to get hysterical about this; we can be successful, we can get it through!" What IS the Rugby Borough Council Cabinet's OFFICIAL position towards this further environmental degradation of Rugby Town - is it the same as Councillor Gordon Collett's, or was he merely expressing his own "Cemex-influenced personal position", and possibly also the position of Warwickshire County Council?”

The Leader of the Council, Councillor Humphrey, to reply as follows:

“The precise question actually being asked is difficult to identify.

The meeting was not a secret meeting, it was, and has been communicated to the questioner on a number of occasions, a briefing to the those representatives of the key stakeholder groups that make up the Rugby Cement Community Forum and all members of the Borough Council. The purpose of the meeting was to give early additional information to key stakeholders and Councillors, including the questioner, on the company’s alternative fuel programme which it had made public a few days earlier.

A list of questions and answers was taken at the meeting; this list has been circulated to all those invited and published on the Councils Internet site.

As the Meeting was neither a formal meeting of the Council or the Rugby Cement Community Forum, there was no requirement for any councillor to make any declarations of interest, should this have actually been necessary. In the same way any comments by any individual or councillor were personal statements. Any interest which Councillor Collett had in the Village Link minibus was not a personal interest as defined by the Council’s Code of Conduct. He was acting on behalf of the Council in the ceremony referred to in the question.
With regard to the actual question of “what is this Cabinets official position on the proposal by Cemex to consult on the use of Climafuels?”. The answer is that we welcome the way that the company has and continues to try to engage the public on this issue and as a Council we are also seeking to do the same with the Public Question Time Debate on the 27th July, which will be chaired by Jeremy Wright MP.

This Cabinet will make its position known on this subject, when it has had the opportunity to carefully consider the details of the application and listen to the arguments that will come out during the consultation process. To do otherwise would be to prejudge the issues and to act prematurely.”

Friday, June 23, 2006


Find out at RBC Cabinet Meeting.
Monday June 26th at 5:30 pm.
Public Question time:

At the "secret" Cemex Briefing, chaired by RBC officer Karen Stone in Rugby Council Chamber on June 2nd, which only 15 of the 48 Rugby Borough Councillors attended, from which the public were barred, and no Agenda, Minutes, or attendance/invitee list were disclosed, Councillor Gordon Collett, failing to declare a pecuniary interest for his recent receipt of the keys to a £22,5000 Cemex minibus, the photo of which appeared both in the local press and also which graces the Cemex Newsletter, spoke out strongly in support of the Cemex plan to burn London's household refuse and commercial waste in the Rugby Co-incinerator plant, urging the people attending "not to get hysterical about this; we can be successful, we can get it through!"

What IS the Rugby Borough Council Cabinet's OFFICIAL position towards this further environmental degradation of Rugby Town - is it the same as Councillor Gordon Collett's, or was he merely expressing his own "Cemex-influenced personal position", and possibly also the position of Warwickshire County Council?

Sunday, June 18, 2006

Rugby In Plume Announce A New Plan





16th June to: Carol Bradford (legal), and ALL 48 Rugby Councillors
"Dear Mrs Bradford

Rugby in Plume permission to hold Secret Briefing in Council Chamber

Thank you very much for your very explicit email.

1. Then perhaps, as you rule out all and any type and auspices of "normal Council meetings" under which there is any applicable Code of Conduct, and Regulatory control, then you can inform Rugby people under exactly what "category of meeting" this June 2nd Cemex "informal" meeting was held?

2. How much did Cemex pay to make use of the Town Hall Council Chamber?

3. Rugby in Plume would like to hold a "Briefing" for the Councillors and other invitees, using the Town Hall Council Chamber. We are sorry for the short notice, but it is URGENT. Can you advise what process we need to go through to "obtain use of this facility" for our very important, secret, "Briefing", for which we will give no Agenda, nor list of invitees, nor background papers, nor attendance list, nor Minutes?

4. How many officers can we have to work at the meeting?

5. Can we take it that Karen Stone will chair it for us please?

6. Please advise, with the utmost urgency, of the earliest date you can make this suitably located, excellent, Publicly Funded Facility, available to us, on behalf of Rugby people.

I am sure we can rely on Rugby Borough Council officers, (whose wages we pay), to facilitate and help the people of Rugby with this important "plan we have for Rugby town", and if, in the words of Gordon Collett, you " do not get hysterical about this, we can be successful and we can get this through!"

Yours sincerely.
Rugby in Plume
From: Carol Bradford []
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 12:14 PM
Cc: Sean Lawson; Andrew Gabbitas
Subject: RE: complaint against RBC and various Councillors neglecting duty

Dear Mrs Pallikaropoulos,

Your email of 15th June addressed to Andrew Gabbitas has been passed through to me as he is away from the office today.

I would answer the points you make as follows, using your numbering throughout:

The meeting that you refer to (on 2nd June) was not a formal meeting of either the Council, Cabinet, a committee or a panel of the Council. There was no obligation on any member to attend and if some did not attend I do not consider that they have breached any Code of Conduct or other legal obligation that they might have. If you wish to complain to the Standards Board about a councillors’ failure to attend this meeting then you need to contact them direct. Their contact details are:

The Standards Board for England

1st Floor

Cottons Centre

Cottons Lane


Tel: 0845 078 8181


Please bear in mind that the Standards Board only investigates allegations that councillors have breached the Code of Conduct for Councillors.

Complaints about a councillor’s alleged failure to declare an interest should be addressed to the Standards Board. However, I should point out that as this was not a formal meeting of the Council, nor of the RCCF, there was no requirement to declare any interests and I do not think, on the face of it, that there has been any breach of the Code of Conduct.

See my answer to 2 above.

You say that you will be complaining about the misappropriation of funds and misuse of public money in facilitating this meeting. No doubt when you make this complaint, you will provide more information about why you consider that there has been a misappropriation of funds, preferably expanding on what legislation, code of guidance or other regulations the Council has failed to follow. As it stands at present, your allegation is too vague for me to investigate further.
Yours sincerely,

Carol Bradford

Head of Legal and Administration

Rugby Borough Council

tel: 01788 533510


Dear Mr Gabbitas

We have heard from two of the Councillors that they were away on school holidays, and one said he was not invited by RBC.

Any other excuses? It would seem that Rugby Councillors have a duty to the electorate, but failed in this duty, and appear to take the money from the people, without apparently earning it, and without carrying out their obligations.

1. I would like to make a Formal Complaint on behalf of Rugby in Plume and the People of Rugby, and to state that the Councillors are not attending properly to their civic duties, and not fulfilling the Contract they have entered into with Rugby people.

I would like to complain to the Standards Board about these Councillors who neither apologised, nor attended the Briefing on 2nd June.

2. I would also like to make a Formal Complaint about Gordon Collett who failed to declare a pecuniary interest, as he held his Cemex mini-bus keys, and spoke up heavily in favour of being "successful and getting this through". I believe he should not even have been at the meeting, much less spoken up in favour of turning Rugby into a waste incinerating centre for London's household and commercial waste.

3. Carolyn Robbins as (Chair of RCCF and Enironment Portfolio Holder) also failed to declare an interest as she should have.

Can you please help me with these complaints? What section do they come under?

4. I will also be complaining that RBC misappropriated funds, and mis-spent and squandered Public Money, and held a Secret meeting, to promote an incineration company, all at the residents' expense.

Thank you.

Lillian RIP

Friday, June 16, 2006



There is a growing clamour from Rugby residents to call a HALT to the DEGRADATION of Rugby Town.

Every week the local papers are full of cement plant stories of pollution and "events", and with letters to the local press pleading for a Knight in shining armour to rescue us.

Rugby Observer 15th June:

"As an ordinary member of the public I was told I could not attend the meeting at the Town Hall on June 2nd between Rugby cement (Cemex) and Rugby Borough Council but at the last minute a councillor friend asked me to stand in for him.

This meetings was arranged in haste by Cemex to which the council agreed, knowing too well it was half term and many councillors wouldn't be attending.

It was an ill-prepared meeting. I felt a sense of disquiet listening to Ian Southcott from Cemex reading from a prepared script, forgetting to move the diagrams on the monitoring screen along.

The people of Rugby are not mentioned, they don't enter into the equations. He went on to say they were asking permission to burn Climafuel. Of course once again its' perfectly safe although it contains plastics coming into Rugby from other parts of the UK. But this is just the start, the next thing is SLF (secondary Liquid Fuels) and PSP (processed Sewage pellets), together with tyres - a real witches brew.

A question they can't answer is the effects of the long term poisoning because no-one attending the meetings has been trained to know."

Margaret Smith

Bob Mead of Long Lawford says this:

"So Cemex or whomever owns the place this month and our beloved Department of the Environment have decided to foster a waste incinerator masquerading as a cement works upon the citizens of Rugby. Do they think by calling this waste by a nice cuddly environmentally sounding name will fool the public?

Of course there will be some public consultations which will be ignored in the usual fashion. It is time WE STOOD UP AND SAID ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

I do not want the health of my child to be under any risk from this plant. They have proven on more than one occasion they do not have the ability to control their emissions. Just take a moment you consider this plant is far too close to the town to be considered even fo the production of cement let alone the burning of hazardous waste.

Let's all have a REFERENDUM so we can decide democratically what should happen to this plant. I for one would like to SEE IT CLOSED!"

And he is not alone in this. Rugby in Plume WILL ask the Rugby people what they really think in a PROPER OPEN TRANSPARENT HONEST FULL CONSULTATION!

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Hot Off The Press

Freedom of the press is one thing; Truth is another!

Cemex claims to be "COURTEOUS", but that courtesy strangely does not extend to ANY of our 90,000 Rugby residents.

"These Accusations are Irrelevant Meeting was not a secret!"

That is according to Cemex, quoted at "hitting back" in today's Rugby Advertiser

No, not actually a secret, just they decided not to tell anyone?

And those they did tell had no notice, Agenda, background paperwork, and no Minutes.

All this fully funded by generous council tax payers - well paid up - gullible Rugbeians!

"The meeting was designed to be a briefing for key stakeholders, interested parties, and Councillors."

(These Councillors proved so very DISinterested that only 15 out of 48 bothered to turn up!)

"We invited them out of courtesy so they could advise their constituents and people they represent. The intention was always to be as transparent and helpful as possible."
A lot of use those 33 other Councillors will be then, and meanwhile Cemex proved how "helpful and transparent they are" by sending out a few Community does-not Matter Newsletters to people as far from the plant as possible.

There are plenty of people in Rugby who are fed up!

Cemex branded DISCOURTEOUS and WORSE, Susan Hollins Boughton Vale, in a letter to the Advertiser.

"Time to bite the bullet! Once again Cemex are causing misery to more Rugby residents. Our houses back on to Newton Manor Lane, where it seems all hell has broken out, with the digging up of roadside verges to put in large pipes. This so-called work was due to start in early February (see all the road signs) and we all received a letter from Cemex to apologise in advance for the disruption.

However it was weeks later before they began, and now we are constantly plagued by the most appalling noise and fumes from their equipment and also from the traffic lights installed to regulate the traffic. Consequently on some of the nicest days this year we are forced to sit inside with doors and windows tightly closed. If they had actually started on the date promised at least all this disruption would have been finished before the summer, but they don't care about our health or welfare do they?

This is admirably demonstrated with their filthy, ugly chimney that casts a black shadow over all the town, and threatens the welfare of us all with its dirty emissions.

WHEN, oh WHEN, will anybody on the Council bite the bullet and take some proactive measures to SAVE OUR TOWN from this BLIGHT, and all their broken promises?"

ANSWER: Sorry Susan, but they never will because most of the Councillors and Officers of this town have always worked, and are still working, together with Rugby Cement, WCC, and the misnamed Environment Agency, AGAINST Rugby people, and have DELIBERATELY and IN SECRET done this to us. What kind of a Council would do this to its residents - blight the environment, pollute and poison the air, and rip-off its residents? It is not only the 33 Councillors who did not even bother to turn up, in fact the ringleaders were actually in the front row of the meeting.

Hazel Bell thanking and scraping the ground Cemex walked on. Gordon Collett waving his mini-bus keys, and saying not to get hysterical, we can be successful, we can get this through!"

Worse, far worse is yet to come.

Friday, June 09, 2006

What Horror Lurks...

...Beneath This Veil Of Secrecy?


Only a few Councillors "bothered" to turn up on June 2nd to hear plans about Rugby Cement's Proposal to co-incinerate London's household refuse and Commercial waste. Why did your representatives not EVEN BOTHER to turn out? How much do they care about us?

Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 10:08 AM
To: ''; 'Barbara Young'; ''; ''; 'Cllr Craig Humphrey'; ''; ''; ''
Cc: ''; 'Patricia Wyatt'; ''
Subject: Community Matters Newsletters- DISCRIMINATORY

Dear Mrs Meyer-bell

At the "secret" Cemex Public Relations Propaganda briefing, from which ALL the public were excluded by both Cemex and by RBC, despite the public having funded this meeting, held at the Rugby Council Chamber on 2nd June, with only a few days notice, Mr Southcott stated that Cemex wished to be open and inclusive, and had circulated 13,000 Community Matter Leaflets to the town of Rugby.

We have asked many people in different areas, and they have NOT received any leaflets. In particular town centre areas close to the plant have been left out - either by design or by accident. Have 13,000 leaflets REALLY been sent out as claimed? We have asked Mr Southcott to say:

1. How many Community Matters Newsletters have ACTUALLY been sent out?
2. To which areas/streets?
3. How were these chosen:
A) Postcode lottery?
B) Dispersion modelling?
C) By lowest social class/education groupings, as revealed in the Census?
D) By some other means?

It seems that Cemex is trying to be divisive, and socially exclusive, leaving out great tracts of the town that are near to the plant, and down wind of it. This is, so I am told the third newsletter to be sent out. Mr Southcott refuses to answer any questions about it. Mr Handcock, and Carlos, and Eduardo, say they do not know why many areas of the town have been excluded, nor where the newsletters have been sent out, nor how chosen.

Could you please explain your policy on this and why the Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council are backing this divisive policy of "secrecy, social exclusion, and discrimination" to the detriment of Rugby residents. Surely if Cemex wishes to claim that it has consulted fully and openly it should be "seen to do so", and should not make this false claim, and must not only to pay lip service to this claim. It would appear that this discriminatory process is designed to leave out all the business community in Rugby Town Centre and Rugby School, and is, as usual, designed to go on through the summer when a lot of people are busy or away.

Many people are uncomfortable with this whole idea of a pre-application process as set up by the Agency as many people are truly afraid to write to Cemex and to give them a "data base" of people who object. The whole set up is designed to run on so long that the original people protesting give up, exhausted by the process itself.

Click link below..

Sunday, June 04, 2006

Rugby To Be London's Dump?


Regarding the Cemex proposal to burn CLIMAFUEL: household garbage, commercial waste, Profuel, RDF, Refuse-derived fuel at Rugby:

Cemex held a secret and private meeting under the auspices of Rugby Borough Council (including members of Warwickshire County Council?) for the "selected few", including the MP Jeremy Wright, and Director of Public Health Helen King, at Rugby Town Hall's Council Chamber on Friday 2nd June. Only a few days notice was given of this "urgent, secret, unscheduled meeting" to be held on a Friday night when most people were on half-term holiday, and they refused to give, even to Rugby people's own Councillors or reporters, any Agenda, or to have any Minutes. Both RBC and Cemex REFUSED to say what the meeting was about, or to provide a list of who had been invited. The Public and all journalists were barred and refused entry. Radio broadcasts that came on line on Thursday when the "news" broke, containing very limited detail about the waste burning intention, made it clear that this was a PRIVATE meeting and that the Public MUST STAY AWAY!

RBC failed to answer the criticisms contained in a lawyer's letter, sent on behalf of Rugby people, that requested that the secret meeting be cancelled and a proper PUBLIC MEETING be held at an appropriate time, with proper notice, with a proper agenda, and with proper minutes.

Why are these people so terrified of Public Opinion that they have to hold FURTIVE, SECRET meetings in the Council Chamber, at Public EXPENSE, from which the Public are barred and excluded? They are only prepared to face the Public at very carefully chosen venues where they can present very carefully and expensively PREPARED PRESENTATIONS, and can control and limit the number of members of the Public present.

If they REALLY want to learn the opinion of the Public in Rugby, the intention they claimed at the secret meeting being "to promote positive communication and dialogue" they should hold an OPEN PUBLIC meeting at a central venue, at a reasonable time, with reasonable notice, and be prepared to face questions and provide proper answers.

The current arrangements smack entirely of a DONE DEAL directed towards making RUGBY TOWN the CO-INCINERATING SERVICE for DISPOSAL of much of LONDON'S MUNICIPAL AND COMMERCIAL GARBAGE.

If these people are not prepared to undertake to do this the Public have this one and ONLY OPPORTUNITY, and should and MUST attend the meeting in PUBLIC of the Rugby Cement Community Forum, where they can SPEAK make their views known, and also hear the views of their MP Jeremy Wright, (member of the RCCF) and the views of everyone else who attends.


Meanwhile Cemex will man a little-advertised "exhibition" at RUGBY LIBRARY where they can engage the Public in one to one PRIVATE conversations, in attempt to make out you are being listened to, and to pretend they have "engaged with the Public!"

Tuesday 6th June: 0900-1200
Wednesday 7th June: 1300-1600
Thursday 8th June: 1700-2000
Friday 9th June: 1400-1700
Saturday 10th June: 0930-1300

Rugby residents will then have until 31st August to send in written replies to the sham consultation.

Friday, June 02, 2006

Deals On Wheels

We suggest a FAIR DEAL: Rugby residents to get the minibus, and Dunchurch to get the incinerator?
Tonight's SECRET MEETING heard:

How to get London's waste burnt in Rugby's giant co-incinerator?

Gordon Collett says "WE CAN GET THIS THROUGH!"

IF certain people stop being hysterical! (read : Lilian - ASBO)

Councillor Gordon Collett (hysterically funny, if you have that peculiar warped sense of humour) accepts the keys to a £22,500 minibus from Rugby Group Benevolent Fund in order to "help older and less able people living in rural communities to access shops and other services." I am sure ALL Rugby residents join in wishing the "rural elderly" MANY happy days out in the Rugby Cement bus, and all the very best! It's very tough in the Warwickshire outback!

How much the NHS and Social Services and Rugby townsfolk - older, younger, middle-aged and as yet unborn, in the deprived, polluted, disadvantaged and town centre areas of Rugby will have to PAY for this minibus remains to be seen, and calculated. (Which can be done, and this sort of calculation is being DONE worldwide - everywhere!) I would have thought that Cemex and WCC got away VERY lightly with twenty grand. Very lightly INDEED! Pick up the tab Rugby Council Tax payers, and national tax payers. How much do Cemex get paid an hour to burn this waste?

Exactly WHO are the WINNERS and WHO are the LOSERS?

13,000 Community Matters Cemex June newsletters will be delivered to Rugby Residents pleading with you all NOT to protest about the plans to burn "CLIMAFUEL" - household waste, and packaging, plastics and rubber-backed carpets (and industrial??) waste in order to SAVE RUGBY RESIDENTS from "running the RISK of picking up a HUGE bill."

Oh, and co-incidentally to save ALL Warwickshire from picking up a huge bill.
Oh, and I forgot to say to save all London from picking up a huge bill.
Oh, I forgot to say to save all the BLAIR GOVERNMENT from picking up a huge bill.

Waste planning - what is that? We do not believe in planning - only SPIN for us!

Rugby is to become the INCINERATOR CAPITAL of WARWICKSHIRE. Right?

Rugby is to become the WASTE CAPITAL of LONDON - NOW to burn the household
waste from LONDON to save THEM from picking up a big bill.

What do YOU say?
Shall we agree - say IF they give us an EXTRA MINIBUS?

NO! Dunchurch shall have the INCINERATOR, and Rugby's elderly the minibus.


Thursday, June 01, 2006

RBC Branded Disrespectful To Community

RBC and Cemex persist in holding a "secret meeting" at 5:30 pm Friday June 2nd at the Town Hall. They insist that the PUBLIC are to be EXCLUDED and must not attend in any circumstances.

RBC and Cemex have both persistently and stubbornly refused to disclose to the very concerned Councillors, and members of the Rugby Cement Forum and Tyre Burning Review group, what this is all about, until they had actually advertised it in the local press today Thursday.

Lawyers have written to RBC's brand new Chief Executive asking why all the secrecy, why no proper notice period, and why no agenda, and decrying the conduct of this Council, and questioning the Council's backing for the "publicity exercise by Cemex".

"RBC claims that it is facilitating this meetings at Cemex's request in the interests of "dialogue and discussion." But no agenda or background paper has been provided. In other words there is no basis for MEANINGFUL dialogue or discussion.

It is not even the case that the briefing is aimed at the general public. It is expressly aimed at members of the RCCF (albeit others are invited) yet the rules for the RCCF are not being observed, and members of the public are being told they cannot attend.

This is a disrespectful and unacceptable way for RBC and Cemex to be behaving towards the Community. It is all the more so given the particular circumstances relating to Rugby Cement works, with RBC and the works' history of past failures in relation to public consultation.

While of course we would encourage RBC and Cemex to facilitate dialogue and discussion with the community, we would expect RBC to do all it can to ensure it is meaningful. We suggest RBC reconsiders holding this meeting. Surely it would be better to have it once RCCF had had an opportunity to be properly invited, consider the agenda, etc Presently the meeting strikes us and those we represent in Rugby as RBC allowing itself to be used as a PR agent for Cemex at public expense yet not effectively involving the community. Please advise BY RETURN what is going on."

Now Cemex have admitted they wish to trial a new WASTE, a mixture of packaging materials - but still they have not provided any data from last year's trials of tyres, and petcoke, and until this month have with held ALL the mandatory Monthly Returns and Emissions data from the Public Register.