OR ELSE!
PUBLIC to SPEAK OUT IN RUGBY: ARE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY CLAIMS TRUE OR FALSE?
The RUGBY ADVERTISER reported 24th July that: QUOTE: "The Environment Agency believes Lilian Pallikaropoulos is the ONLY person interested in pursuing legal action, and that the public should not pick up the bill.
Mrs Pallikaropoulos argued in the high Court and House of Lords earlier this year that the Environment Agency has hidden vital information from the public when they gave Rugby Cement permission to burn tyres in Rugby.
And although the House of Lords said the EA showed "real shortcomings" they ultimately sided with the EA, and disagreed that the plant in Lawford Road Rugby should stop burning the alternative fuel, and even close down. The EA have this week said Mrs Pallikaropoulos should pay all its legal costs on her own.
Mrs Pallikaropoulos told the Advertiser: "It is grossly unfair, and totally untrue, what the Agency has done to me by saying that I am the only person in Rugby who cares." The case against the EA had originally been brought to the court under the name of Rugby resident David Edwards with the backing of legal aid. But the EA argued that this was just a smokescreen so Mrs Pallikaropoulos could bring her own "private campaign" to court, and not pay the costs.
60,000 RUGBY RESIDENTS INVISIBLE TO AGENCY?
In a report by the EA lawyers it stated: "No one who actually lives near the works appears willing to continue the proceedings. In fact local residents other than Mrs Pallikaropoulos have failed to display any continuing interest in operations at the Rugby Cement works. In essence these proceedings constitute one relatively affluent and "committed" individual's own private campaign."
UNQUOTE
WE HAVE WAYS OF MAKING YOU TALK! AND IF YOU DON'T, WE WILL SAY THAT YOU DID!
TAKE PART IN OUR TRUE OR FALSE?
1. "Mrs P sought out David Edwards as a claimant."
The Agency quotes newspaper cuttings as 'proof and evidence' that I have 'most definitely' done this 'seeking out'.
2. She says she was "acting ostensibly on behalf of Rugby residents. Those residents were concerned about the likely impact of emissions from the plant. Those concerns cannot easily be equated with the public interest issues...."
3. However even if residents' concerns can be equated to "the public interest" the extent of those concerns in the present case is questionable."
4. The appellant says "that the permit in question aroused very substantial concern and controversy from residents and public bodies including Rugby Borough Council, and that she was acting in an almost entirely altruistic fashion so the matter could come before the courts". However there is no evidence of widespread public support of the case in Rugby or elsewhere."
5. It is respectfully submitted that the public's lack of response to consultations on more recent Agency determinations is more indicative of actual levels of actual interest."
6. Mrs P "put up the claimant David Edwards to secure funding"... and "in essence these proceedings constitute one relatively affluent and committed individual's private campaign."
7. In her submission she 'says' she has funded her costs before the Lords out of a legacy and that she will be put to serious hardship if she also has to pay the Respondents' costs.
8. Mrs P claims this is a "serious deterrent to access to justice".
Mrs P argues that the Respondenst should be denied their 'reasonable costs' and that these should fall instead upon the tax payer.
9. As regards the EU Directive as regards costs 2003/35/EC provides that any such procedure should be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.
10. Mrs P says the UK has failed to properly implement the requirements of the directive and this will be disputed by the government. The cost of litigating environmental issues in the UK is "minimised by inter alia" the availability of legal aid, and of the protective costs orders. The fact that in any event these were not available to Mrs P in the circumstances of this particular appeal does not undermine the Government's position in that regard."
11. Mrs P decided to take over the case from Mr Edwards and she was well aware of the risks that this involved. It can hardly be said that the costs would be a serious deterrent to access to justice.
12. The only part of the case where she has succeeded is in "the simple procedural irregularity by the Agency." and this is 'ONLY a breach of the common law rules of fairness' by the Agency in failing to disclose the AQMAU reports.
13. SO, in other words, deceiving the public, misleading and failing to disclose the MOST DAMGING DATA about the emissions and health impact is all right by us!
No comments:
Post a Comment