OBVIOUS DELAYING TACTICS

RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL AND THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY :
PARTNERS IN ENVIRONMENTAL CRIME?

LATEST UNBELIEVABLE DEVELOPMENTS

RBC REFUSE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS:
ABOUT UNLAWFUL PROCESS OF 1999 IPC PERMIT AND WANT ASBO TO GAG.

RBC COUNCILLORS STANDBY HELPLESS TO INTERVENE AND TO OBTAIN THE TRUTH.

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY FINALLY ADMIT THAT CEMEX £400,000 FINE FOR POLLUTING RUGBY WAS DURING TYRE TRIALS! MORE OR LESS!

Regarding the EA: well SUDDENLY out of the blue on 8th November they come up with this cock and bull story: The incident of 14th October 2005 was during the Tyre Trials, which started on 11th October 2005, BUT we at the EA do not NOW count that as part of the "formal" tyre trials, and now we have just decided to say to all gullible people that that was just a TEN DAY "pre-trial trial" - know what I mean - just pretending, just practising, - yes that's it, that's the story! Yes! that ten day period in October 2005 is now NOT considered to be part of the Formal Tyre Trial - even though we never told anyone this for a WHOLE YEAR, despite endless meetings with Rugby residents at the Cement Forum, and the Tyre Burning Review Group, and officers at RBC, nor do we have any paperwork to show that, but now we have just now today decided to say that. Got it?

WHY THIS SUDDEN STUNNING VERSION OF EVENTS?
Could it just possibly be that this "new version of events" has occurred because a little bird had just told them, on that very day, 8th November, that the Rugby residents fight for ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE had moved up the ladder with the Petition proceeding to the next stage in the House of Lords? Surely not?

Regarding RBC : what can possibly have rattled their cages so much? Could it just be the distinct possibility that they might now have FINALLY to tell the WHOLE TRUTH? About WHY and HOW and WHO DUNNIT? Who are the OFFICERS at RBC that made the decision to collude with the Environment Agency to give the Rugby Cement plant the UNLAWFUL IPC operating permit in September 1999, IN SECRET behind the backs of the unsuspecting public, and trusting gullible councillors.

WE WILL ACCEPT NO QUESTIONS:
NOR FROM A PARISH COUNCILLOR - WHO ALSO SUBMITTED POLITE QUESTIONS:

Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:24 PM
Dear Mrs Pallikaropoulos,

After consultation with the Leader of the Council and reference to Council Standing Orders, your questions to Cabinet on 13th November are rejected.

This is on the grounds that:

a. The questions are offensive and possibly defamatory.
b. They relate to legal proceedings.
c. They relate to individuals employed by the Council.
d. They relate to your own personal circumstances.

Simon Warren
Chief Executive

WHAT IS HE ON ABOUT?
A. The questions can in no way be considered "offensive or possibly defamatory" to any open, honest, transparent, proper record-keeping, democratic, law-abiding, and procedurally correct Council. They could appear to be offensive to any Council more concerned with protecting its reputation, and concealing the facts and evidence of maladministration.

B. What legal proceedings is RBC involved in? Unless it is involving itself in trying to cover-up for the Environment Agency in the House of Lords Petition and Judicial Review brought by Rugby residents against the Agency for malpractice, and failing to comply with UK and EU Law. I would comment that RBC's repeated refusal to answer the questions over this last year could be viewed as a blatant attempt to PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, and to damage Rugby residents further than this Council has already done.

C. Of course the questions relate to officers employed by the Council, because they are employed by this Council because (presumably) they are "trained" in their jobs, and it is those people who have advised Councillors and made Decisions to do this to Rugby people, in secret, and who have been party to this environmental crime, and allegedly acted and colluded to obtain the grant of an unlawful IPC operating permit. Officers are supposed to advise the Councillors who are supposed to make the
decisions in an open, transparent way. This is not to go on behind closed doors, with no records, and no witnesses. If they would only tell the truth we might all know more.

D. They are not "my personal circumstances" but circumstances this Council has put on me. I have merely asked the questions and told the truth, and for this the officers and 48 Councillors have colluded (January 9th meeting) to take many "operational tactics against me" and considered putting an ASBO on me with no justification.
Naturally I want to know why.

The questions were relating to:

# The RBC's dereliction of duty in failing to respond to the June 1999 IPC application, the failure to ensure that the public were consulted, the failure to place it on the Public Register, and the failure to keep any files at all about who made the decision/s, and how they did so. There is apparently NO PAPERWORK at all. After months of insisting that she has "no memory" of the events, the Chief of the EHO department suddenly regained her memory and told the Rugby Times October 31st 2006: "Paperwork relating to the decisions may be hard to find, and SOME of those decisions were made by people who had retired or died". We merely asked for the names of these "dead and retired" decision makers, who kept no files at all? The RBC microfiche of Committee Meetings and Minutes reveals endless reports into every minutiae of environmental crime in Rugby, such as the heinous crime of "DOG FOULING", but surprise there is no mention at all of a NEW massively polluting CEMENT PLANT PERMIT.

# The EA's copy of the IPC Application sent to RBC on 24th June 1999 allowed 28 DAYS for consultation and appears to contain a "gagging clause", about the application. What did RBC do to CHALLENGE this gagging clause?
Again there is no paperwork about what happened.

# Assuming the RBC officers' have some formal training in IPC and IPPC applications, then why did they not ensure the public were consulted as they had to be by LAW, and why did they collude in hiding the application - and from the councillors?

# Why has RBC accused me of wasting £50,000 in Freedom of Information costs when all I have done is ask for copies of the records. Their problem is that they do not like the questions, they have no records, dare not reveal the TRUTH, and clearly "making up answers" takes a whole lot more of officers' time than just photocopying old files. They have even gone to the lengths of taking legal advice on how to "shut me up" and considered an ASBO. That would be just great - the first person in the UK to get an ASBO for:
# "telling the truth"
# "asking questions"
# "trying to protect the environment and health of 90,000 Rugby residents!"

Instead of answering the questions, and being truthful, open and transparent, RBC seek to tie me up in the "mess of their making", and to waste more of my time, and money, and to delay the inevitable MOMENT OF TRUTH when all will be revealed. RBC write and tell me to get their own Council and Councillors investigated. Can there be an investigation by the Standards Board into the behaviour of 48 Councillors who have just stood by and refused to ask for the TRUTH? COMPLAIN they say COMPLAIN:

# "GO TO THE OMBUDSMAN" about the maladministration.
# "GO TO THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER" about our refusal to answer
questions and supply information.
# "GO TO THE STANDARDS BOARD ABOUT THE COUNCILLORS" who refuse to help and work for Rugby residents despite being paid about £1,000, 000 a year from our Council taxes.

It is the DUTY of the WARD COUNCILLORS to help the residents in their own patch to make these formal complaints. Watch this space for futher updates on the response my request for HELP will get.

YET MORE OFFENSIVE QUESTIONS??
YOU BE THE JUDGE!

FROM A LONG-STANDING PARISH AND EX-BOROUGH COUNCILLOR:

RBC REFUSES TO ACCEPT :

To: Patricia Wyatt
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:23 PM
Subject: RE: Questions for Cabinet 13.11.06

Dear Mrs Wyatt,

After consultation with the Leader of the Council and reference to Council Standing Orders, your questions to Cabinet on 13th November are rejected. This is on the grounds that:

a. The questions are offensive and possibly defamatory.
b. They relate to legal proceedings.
c. They relate to individuals employed by the Council.
d. They relate to a particular application.

Yours sincerely

Simon Warren
Chief Executive
Rugby Borough Council
01788 533532

From: Patricia Wyatt [mailto:wyattwyvern@talkgas.net]
Sent: 10 November 2006 01:50
To: Simon Warren
Subject: Questions for Cabinet 13.11.06
Importance: High

For the attn of the Chief Executive - Mr. Simon Warren.

Please accept the following questions for Members of the Cabinet to answer during their meeting to be held on the 13th. November 2006.

With particular reference to the Question I raised on the 18th. October 2005 with the Council and the answer given by Cllr. Craig Humphrey - Conservative Leader of the Council regarding a request to be considered to hold a Full Environmental Impact Assessment into the Rugby Cement Works, Lawford Road. His answer was not acceptable as true at the time and has since been proven as untrue. He said the Council had carried out an assessment and that to carry out another would be a waste of resources and time. Therefore:-

1. Will this Council undertake A FULL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT INTO THE CEMEX/RUGBY GROUP CEMENT WORKS WITH FULL PUBLIC CONSULTATION?

2. Will this Council undertake every ACT and APPLY ITS FULL LEGISLATIVE POWERS to this Lawford Road cement plant immediately, as laid out in the letter from Richard Buxton - Solicitor dated 25th. October 2006 regarding IPC Authorisation and IPPC Application appertaining to AP8314? as the people of Rugby and Long Lawford expect NO LESS!!!

3. When will Rugby Borough Council accept it's full responsibilities to the residents of Rugby, including myself, and fulfil it's duties to FULLY PROTECT OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT?

4. Who is and was responsible on behalf of Rugby Borough Council for making the decision, as a Statutory Consultee, not to make a formal response to the Permit consultation? (see letter 16.05.06 signed Head of Legal and Administration - RBC)

5. Given the same chances/opportunities and with hindsight, would this Council still choose not to respond to such a massive and important issue?

Yours faithfully,

Patricia Wyatt

Mrs. Patricia Wyatt.

Click to read letter...