Biomass referendum costs escalate (From Daily Echo)

Ok then the Council should go the other way to hold a referendum, A letter to each voter it concerns, and to be return to the local housing office by a certain date.
Come Williams use your brain over the matter.

I'll be voting yes for the biomass plant as I like using electricity. I'll also be voting for Michael Mates as Police Commissioner- there we go, that's saved the Council a load of cash for starters.

Why if this is something that's going to cost us all as tax payers aren't we all getting a vote?
why is it only being done in the NIMBY's stronghold?
why are we paying for no more than a PR stunt?
Why won't Labour do the same thing on Oaklands Pool
" A Tory call for a referendum on Oaklands pool in the spirit of local democracy was rejected by Labour."
WHY? would this show that the people want this pool?
is it because Labour are trying to gain votes to oust Moulton in Freemantle?

For £45k I'll walk round the houses and ask the residents what they want! 45k, yeah right! for a couple of 20' 'containers' for a day? Use the facilities that are there like a LIBRARY or a SCHOOL. No wonder there's no money for anything!

Condor Man wrote:
I'll be voting yes for the biomass plant as I like using electricity. I'll also be voting for Michael Mates as Police Commissioner- there we go, that's saved the Council a load of cash for starters.

But you dont live in Millbrook or Freemantle re Biomass.
.
.... and you would vote for Michael Mates ........ Well there is a surprise

well said loosehead.williams why dont you ask the people of lordshill if they would like a referendum on the closing of oaklands swimming pool.and to you all out there i repeat i am not a ex tory councillor.im just a bit of scruff from lordshill who cares about his community unlike the scumbag low lives at the civic.don thomas you are a legend.SAVE OAKLANDS SWIMMING POOL

How can this cost 45K?

Have people hand deliver the paperwork rather than use postage and use Public buildings.

45k is almost 3 annual salaries.

Surely it's in the interests of all residents to find alternate ways to reduce this cost.

I'm sure Pizza companies don't pay 45k every Friday to blitz entire Southampton with leaflets.

IronLady2010 wrote:
How can this cost 45K?

Have people hand deliver the paperwork rather than use postage and use Public buildings.

45k is almost 3 annual salaries.

Surely it's in the interests of all residents to find alternate ways to reduce this cost.

I'm sure Pizza companies don't pay 45k every Friday to blitz entire Southampton with leaflets.

Ironlady I received £34 for delivering 1,600 leaflets.
for the campaign not to shut the pool I did 400 houses for free.
surely if these people are so against the Bio Mass they would print the questionnaires & deliver them.
as this is a power source for the whole city I'll ask again why this No campaign PR stunt?
Surely they should be doing this?
people who actually agree with Bio Mass will be expected to pay for this NO PR stunt how's that fair?
The Tories asked for the same thing to be done for Oaklands Pool the Labour Party that's shutting it said NO but did you see Williams on TV going on about empowering the people with this preferendum?
Looks to me as if Labour are saying not all people are equal?

lordshill loyal wrote:
well said loosehead.williams why dont you ask the people of lordshill if they would like a referendum on the closing of oaklands swimming pool.and to you all out there i repeat i am not a ex tory councillor.im just a bit of scruff from lordshill who cares about his community unlike the scumbag low lives at the civic.don thomas you are a legend.SAVE OAKLANDS SWIMMING POOL

Maybe he's sending out a message to us the residents of Lordshill?
GOT your vote so tough?
Or your opinion don't matter as much as Freemantle & (original) Millbrook's does?
I wonder what lies he'll tell us near to the next local elections?
Where's Whitehead? No general Election? Exactly what does he think of this?

loosehead wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
How can this cost 45K?

Have people hand deliver the paperwork rather than use postage and use Public buildings.

45k is almost 3 annual salaries.

Surely it's in the interests of all residents to find alternate ways to reduce this cost.

I'm sure Pizza companies don't pay 45k every Friday to blitz entire Southampton with leaflets.

Ironlady I received £34 for delivering 1,600 leaflets.
for the campaign not to shut the pool I did 400 houses for free.
surely if these people are so against the Bio Mass they would print the questionnaires & deliver them.
as this is a power source for the whole city I'll ask again why this No campaign PR stunt?
Surely they should be doing this?
people who actually agree with Bio Mass will be expected to pay for this NO PR stunt how's that fair?
The Tories asked for the same thing to be done for Oaklands Pool the Labour Party that's shutting it said NO but did you see Williams on TV going on about empowering the people with this preferendum?
Looks to me as if Labour are saying not all people are equal?

Out of interest don't the Voters Registration Forms get delivered by hand which I received over the weekend saving massive costs in postage.

I can't see how the costs jump from £5K to £45K.

Hang on, this is Labour who have no idea on Maths. Spend spend spend and then hand over to someone else to fix everything.

Maybe in the same envelope they can ask numerous questions, not just the Biomass issue, but also wether we feel the Council are competent enough to run this City.

I was fair to this new Council and eagerly awaited something positive to come from them. So far it's mess after mess. I do appreciate it will take a while for them to get stuck in, but let's be honest, everywhere they turn is a disaster to date. Not even their own members agree with them, kind of tells us something.

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
I'll be voting yes for the biomass plant as I like using electricity. I'll also be voting for Michael Mates as Police Commissioner- there we go, that's saved the Council a load of cash for starters.

But you dont live in Millbrook or Freemantle re Biomass.
.
.... and you would vote for Michael Mates ........ Well there is a surprise

A lot of people were in favour of the Dibden Bay development but lived miles away from it, that wasn't a surprise.

Why its wrong to hold referendum over Oaklands in Coxford but right to do so in Millbrook regarding Bio Mass?

NuLabourites know they will lose in Coxford but win in Millbrook.

Same reason why NuLabour Government did not hold referendum promised on EU after Lisbon.

Doesn't NuLabourites giving wrong figure on cost of this expensive public relations exercise in the Council amount to misleading the Council and through it us the people, just like they did over Keith Morrell quitting Dear Leader's cabinet?

And why neither Dear Leader nor his fat controler Deputy is telling us the whole truth on that mess? Could it be because apart from Keith and Dear Leader there is somebody else also involved and could to tell the lie was in fact idea cooked by that person? Is that why Cllr. Rayment got rattled under questioning from opposition at last Council meeting?

I am glad I did not vote NuLabour which under flip flopping Dear Leader Williams is turning out to be worse than the Tories.

Hardly surprising the tyrants have turned upon our decent ward Councillor Don Thomas for voting against cuts and are trying to make mine meat of Keith for the same reason.

Why cant they just say if you want to vote you have to come to the civic centre.Anyway it affects all of the city so we should all get a a vote.

In that case we can't have a referendum, the city cannnot afford it (even though I'm one of the residents who would be voting in it, I can see that those costs are ridiculous), it's just not viable in this climate sadly. this is the trouble with the tories and these bright ideas, they know that no-one will be able to afford it so it's hot air policy....
Condor Man you live nowhere near here so why do you think you'd be able to vote then? you don't read properly do you....

We will have to think of other ways of showing how residents feel about it, and moreover the depth of feeling against it!

lordshill loyal wrote:
well said loosehead.williams why dont you ask the people of lordshill if they would like a referendum on the closing of oaklands swimming pool.and to you all out there i repeat i am not a ex tory councillor.im just a bit of scruff from lordshill who cares about his community unlike the scumbag low lives at the civic.don thomas you are a legend.SAVE OAKLANDS SWIMMING POOL

Its all ready been said a few times about a referendum on Oaklands swimming I said it 4 times my self on pass posts.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Why its wrong to hold referendum over Oaklands in Coxford but right to do so in Millbrook regarding Bio Mass?

NuLabourites know they will lose in Coxford but win in Millbrook.

Same reason why NuLabour Government did not hold referendum promised on EU after Lisbon.

Doesn't NuLabourites giving wrong figure on cost of this expensive public relations exercise in the Council amount to misleading the Council and through it us the people, just like they did over Keith Morrell quitting Dear Leader's cabinet?

And why neither Dear Leader nor his fat controler Deputy is telling us the whole truth on that mess? Could it be because apart from Keith and Dear Leader there is somebody else also involved and could to tell the lie was in fact idea cooked by that person? Is that why Cllr. Rayment got rattled under questioning from opposition at last Council meeting?

I am glad I did not vote NuLabour which under flip flopping Dear Leader Williams is turning out to be worse than the Tories.

Hardly surprising the tyrants have turned upon our decent ward Councillor Don Thomas for voting against cuts and are trying to make mine meat of Keith for the same reason.

The reason why Parami is that if a referendum on the Bio mass happens the result do not matter, because in the end it will not be the local council or the people of west southampton will have the final say.
Where as a referendum on Oaklands would mean the council would have to apply to the people wishes.

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
In that case we can't have a referendum, the city cannnot afford it (even though I'm one of the residents who would be voting in it, I can see that those costs are ridiculous), it's just not viable in this climate sadly. this is the trouble with the tories and these bright ideas, they know that no-one will be able to afford it so it's hot air policy....
Condor Man you live nowhere near here so why do you think you'd be able to vote then? you don't read properly do you....

We will have to think of other ways of showing how residents feel about it, and moreover the depth of feeling against it!

Have you forgotten that demand for this referendum was raised by your NuLabourite friends in the Council?

While anybody blaming Those nasty Tories for everything that is wrong with this world may be music to my ears, as a socialist I have to be fair, which obviously is not part of your beloved NuLabour's DNA...

Hypocrisy is.

People of the area have already confirmed their opposition to this ugly eyesore fire hazard, why did your people wanted to indulge in this referendum thing unless whole object of the exercise is to conduct an expensive public relations gimmick to make a party walking upon banana skins with public money?

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
In that case we can't have a referendum, the city cannnot afford it (even though I'm one of the residents who would be voting in it, I can see that those costs are ridiculous), it's just not viable in this climate sadly. this is the trouble with the tories and these bright ideas, they know that no-one will be able to afford it so it's hot air policy....
Condor Man you live nowhere near here so why do you think you'd be able to vote then? you don't read properly do you....

We will have to think of other ways of showing how residents feel about it, and moreover the depth of feeling against it!

Have you forgotten that demand for this referendum was raised by your NuLabourite friends in the Council?

While anybody blaming Those nasty Tories for everything that is wrong with this world may be music to my ears, as a socialist I have to be fair, which obviously is not part of your beloved NuLabour's DNA...

Hypocrisy is.

People of the area have already confirmed their opposition to this ugly eyesore fire hazard, why did your people wanted to indulge in this referendum thing unless whole object of the exercise is to conduct an expensive public relations gimmick to make a party walking upon banana skins with public money?

I think a few of you ought to read the article properly instead of using it to play the blame game. It is the Council's lawyers who have made the statement
Quote But they have been told by council lawyers that under existing laws the authority would have to set up separate polling stations in Freemantle and Millbrook, costing around £45,000. unquote
The lawyers are employed to advise and that is what they have done. Referendums are not just a case of shoving letters into people's letterboxes or a setting up a cardboard box in a school room, as per the way some of you are talking. There are strict, totally uncompromising, legal and security requirements which have to be adhered to, and obeyed.
I am opposed to all referendums, anyway. They are a waste of time and money and are tied up with legal red tape. I don't vote for a councillor or an MP and then expect said councillor /MP to ask me to make the decisions for him or her. If I wanted to do that, I would stand as a candidate myself.

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
In that case we can't have a referendum, the city cannnot afford it (even though I'm one of the residents who would be voting in it, I can see that those costs are ridiculous), it's just not viable in this climate sadly. this is the trouble with the tories and these bright ideas, they know that no-one will be able to afford it so it's hot air policy....
Condor Man you live nowhere near here so why do you think you'd be able to vote then? you don't read properly do you....

We will have to think of other ways of showing how residents feel about it, and moreover the depth of feeling against it!

Have you forgotten that demand for this referendum was raised by your NuLabourite friends in the Council?

While anybody blaming Those nasty Tories for everything that is wrong with this world may be music to my ears, as a socialist I have to be fair, which obviously is not part of your beloved NuLabour's DNA...

Hypocrisy is.

People of the area have already confirmed their opposition to this ugly eyesore fire hazard, why did your people wanted to indulge in this referendum thing unless whole object of the exercise is to conduct an expensive public relations gimmick to make a party walking upon banana skins with public money?

Actually it's this TORY-led government that passed the Localism Bill as I think you'll find! The Council obviously didn't realise (and all parties were in favour of a referendum until the costs were escalated by the Lawyer's advice).

Well said Vonnie, I was in favour at first but having given some serious thought you are absolutely spot on!

loosehead you might be right about it being a PR stunt, but remember that the Tory's at first was all for this Bio-Mass even Moulton was for it at first untill they got the public reaction to it. Which it don't surprise me that the Torys was all for it at first seeing that Royston sits on the Southampton docks Quango at the time (he still might be).

Vonnie wrote:
I think a few of you ought to read the article properly instead of using it to play the blame game. It is the Council's lawyers who have made the statement
Quote But they have been told by council lawyers that under existing laws the authority would have to set up separate polling stations in Freemantle and Millbrook, costing around £45,000. unquote
The lawyers are employed to advise and that is what they have done. Referendums are not just a case of shoving letters into people's letterboxes or a setting up a cardboard box in a school room, as per the way some of you are talking. There are strict, totally uncompromising, legal and security requirements which have to be adhered to, and obeyed.
I am opposed to all referendums, anyway. They are a waste of time and money and are tied up with legal red tape. I don't vote for a councillor or an MP and then expect said councillor /MP to ask me to make the decisions for him or her. If I wanted to do that, I would stand as a candidate myself.

That cost only applys if they go down the road of using a 1 day vote on a referendum.
As I said on another post Williams need to use his head and think about it, he do have a choice which way to do the referendum, He can use the PO free of cost to have the referndum polling cards deliveried, he can run it over a number of days and use the local housing office for people to put there choice in a box in office hours, doing it this way would only mean having the cost of the counters.

Vonnie wrote:
I think a few of you ought to read the article properly instead of using it to play the blame game. It is the Council's lawyers who have made the statement
Quote But they have been told by council lawyers that under existing laws the authority would have to set up separate polling stations in Freemantle and Millbrook, costing around £45,000. unquote
The lawyers are employed to advise and that is what they have done. Referendums are not just a case of shoving letters into people's letterboxes or a setting up a cardboard box in a school room, as per the way some of you are talking. There are strict, totally uncompromising, legal and security requirements which have to be adhered to, and obeyed.
I am opposed to all referendums, anyway. They are a waste of time and money and are tied up with legal red tape. I don't vote for a councillor or an MP and then expect said councillor /MP to ask me to make the decisions for him or her. If I wanted to do that, I would stand as a candidate myself.

Many thanks for flying the flag of sanity.

You are spot on; legal requirements on how the vote is conducted must be met. Otherwise we can all start inventing processes of our own, to suit our egos, which won't be democracy but a form of anarchy.

In fairness to Southy, his reasons why NuLabour led by Dear Leader is hell bent on wasting this public money, over Bio Mass, so they could start looking good while permanently sliding on banana skins, are convincing.

His logic that Millbrook referendum will not be binding on Council where as over Oaklands could put them in very difficult position is correct.

Obviously these days while positioning themselves on the political right of Tories; these NuLabourites are using the dishonest tricks from Lib-Dem’s manual.

And another thread has devolved into an argument about left wing vs right wing politics. Despite the Echo's best efforts to make it about generic outrage at public money being spent on something the public itself demanded.

Brilliant.

Georgem wrote:
And another thread has devolved into an argument about left wing vs right wing politics. Despite the Echo's best efforts to make it about generic outrage at public money being spent on something the public itself demanded.

Brilliant.

Georgem if its not what the Echo wants or you step over the line, the Echo Web Master will send you a E-Mail telling you to stop.
So if the E-mails have not gone out from the web master you can safely say, what is going on is what the Echo wants to go on, A bebate going down all avenues

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
In that case we can't have a referendum, the city cannnot afford it (even though I'm one of the residents who would be voting in it, I can see that those costs are ridiculous), it's just not viable in this climate sadly. this is the trouble with the tories and these bright ideas, they know that no-one will be able to afford it so it's hot air policy....
Condor Man you live nowhere near here so why do you think you'd be able to vote then? you don't read properly do you....

We will have to think of other ways of showing how residents feel about it, and moreover the depth of feeling against it!

Have you forgotten that demand for this referendum was raised by your NuLabourite friends in the Council?

While anybody blaming Those nasty Tories for everything that is wrong with this world may be music to my ears, as a socialist I have to be fair, which obviously is not part of your beloved NuLabour's DNA...

Hypocrisy is.

People of the area have already confirmed their opposition to this ugly eyesore fire hazard, why did your people wanted to indulge in this referendum thing unless whole object of the exercise is to conduct an expensive public relations gimmick to make a party walking upon banana skins with public money?

Actually it's this TORY-led government that passed the Localism Bill as I think you'll find! The Council obviously didn't realise (and all parties were in favour of a referendum until the costs were escalated by the Lawyer's advice).

Well said Vonnie, I was in favour at first but having given some serious thought you are absolutely spot on!

As you know I am only an ordinary lay person not a lawyer, so please excuse me to be under the impression that the law passed by Tories does not demand that a referendum must be held.

Surely that decision is left to local councillors, is that not so? If I am wrong I will have to apologise.

Yes you are right all parties in the Council voted for Dave's motion on referendum.

Surely that kind of united front from our Council against this monstrosity could have carried the same weight as predictable result from this super expensive exercise. That is exactly the argument of Vonnie, with which both you and I are in agreement i.e. in our democratic system we elect representatives for making decisions and authorise them what they should be doing through elections. But under Swiss constitution situation is different, but we are in the UK not Switzerland. By starting to ape them our political class has made a dog’s dinner of our system.

On a different subject, since you are friends of John Denham, could you please have a word with him so he may use his position as senior member of the party to knock few heads of local Group together. Because way they are going they will make Tories popular once again. Yes I disagree with John on many things but have never ever questioned his ability and dedication to help people. Dear Leader Williams may be very nice chap, but not fit for this job. I try not to say anything on Rayment, bar her performance at last council meeting was worse of the lot. Tories got her rattled like hell.

Kind regards

Parami
You are spot on; legal requirements on how the vote is conducted must be met. Otherwise we can all start inventing processes of our own, to suit our egos, which won't be democracy but a form of anarchy.

The City Lawers gave avice on the way Williams suggested to the referendum, there are more than one way to hold a referndum.

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:
And another thread has devolved into an argument about left wing vs right wing politics. Despite the Echo's best efforts to make it about generic outrage at public money being spent on something the public itself demanded.

Brilliant.

Georgem if its not what the Echo wants or you step over the line, the Echo Web Master will send you a E-Mail telling you to stop.
So if the E-mails have not gone out from the web master you can safely say, what is going on is what the Echo wants to go on, A bebate going down all avenues

Nonsense. As long as abuse isn't being reported, or blatantly obvious, nobody at the Echo cares that you and your friend hijack every single threat and turn it into a soapbox. You moaning about "The Torys (sic)" constantly isn't a debate. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:
And another thread has devolved into an argument about left wing vs right wing politics. Despite the Echo's best efforts to make it about generic outrage at public money being spent on something the public itself demanded.

Brilliant.

Georgem if its not what the Echo wants or you step over the line, the Echo Web Master will send you a E-Mail telling you to stop.
So if the E-mails have not gone out from the web master you can safely say, what is going on is what the Echo wants to go on, A bebate going down all avenues

Nonsense. As long as abuse isn't being reported, or blatantly obvious, nobody at the Echo cares that you and your friend hijack every single threat and turn it into a soapbox. You moaning about "The Torys (sic)" constantly isn't a debate. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

No it is watch, we don't moan about the Torys we just point out facts about them and that go's Labour to.

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:
And another thread has devolved into an argument about left wing vs right wing politics. Despite the Echo's best efforts to make it about generic outrage at public money being spent on something the public itself demanded.

Brilliant.

Georgem if its not what the Echo wants or you step over the line, the Echo Web Master will send you a E-Mail telling you to stop.
So if the E-mails have not gone out from the web master you can safely say, what is going on is what the Echo wants to go on, A bebate going down all avenues

Nonsense. As long as abuse isn't being reported, or blatantly obvious, nobody at the Echo cares that you and your friend hijack every single threat and turn it into a soapbox. You moaning about "The Torys (sic)" constantly isn't a debate. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

No it is watch, we don't moan about the Torys we just point out facts about them and that go's Labour to.

Tit-for-tat criticism. Not a debate.

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:
And another thread has devolved into an argument about left wing vs right wing politics. Despite the Echo's best efforts to make it about generic outrage at public money being spent on something the public itself demanded.

Brilliant.

Georgem if its not what the Echo wants or you step over the line, the Echo Web Master will send you a E-Mail telling you to stop.
So if the E-mails have not gone out from the web master you can safely say, what is going on is what the Echo wants to go on, A bebate going down all avenues

Nonsense. As long as abuse isn't being reported, or blatantly obvious, nobody at the Echo cares that you and your friend hijack every single threat and turn it into a soapbox. You moaning about "The Torys (sic)" constantly isn't a debate. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

No it is watch, we don't moan about the Torys we just point out facts about them and that go's Labour to.

Tit-for-tat criticism. Not a debate.

How do you think debates starts or ends, it is tit-for-tat

bigfella777 wrote:
Why cant they just say if you want to vote you have to come to the civic centre.Anyway it affects all of the city so we should all get a a vote.

Too right bigfella it affects all of Southampton

-

It will have the same imposing effect as Salisbury cathedral's spire has on Salisbury ( @404 ft the tallest in the UK) but in a bad way.. with pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead.

I'm not right up close to the £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports but I'll see chimney stack from my garden like most of Southampton.

So when I vote No I'll thinking of The West Quay, Bitterne and Lords Hill views from around Southampton.. a nightmare view in the making.

-

reading comments.. must be a few Pompey fans here looking forward renaming the Saints The Wooden Tops?

bigfella777 wrote:
Why cant they just say if you want to vote you have to come to the civic centre.Anyway it affects all of the city so we should all get a a vote.

Too right bigfella it affects all of Southampton

-

It will have the same imposing effect as Salisbury cathedral's spire has on Salisbury ( @404 ft the tallest in the UK) but in a bad way.. with pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead.

I'm not right up close to the £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports but I'll see the chimney stack from my garden like most of Southampton.

So when I vote No I'll be thinking of The West Quay, Bitterne and Lords Hill views from around Southampton.. a nightmare view in the making.

-

reading comments.. must be a few Pompey fans here looking forward to renaming the Saints The Wooden Tops?

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Paramjit Bahia wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
In that case we can't have a referendum, the city cannnot afford it (even though I'm one of the residents who would be voting in it, I can see that those costs are ridiculous), it's just not viable in this climate sadly. this is the trouble with the tories and these bright ideas, they know that no-one will be able to afford it so it's hot air policy....
Condor Man you live nowhere near here so why do you think you'd be able to vote then? you don't read properly do you....

We will have to think of other ways of showing how residents feel about it, and moreover the depth of feeling against it!

Have you forgotten that demand for this referendum was raised by your NuLabourite friends in the Council?

While anybody blaming Those nasty Tories for everything that is wrong with this world may be music to my ears, as a socialist I have to be fair, which obviously is not part of your beloved NuLabour's DNA...

Hypocrisy is.

People of the area have already confirmed their opposition to this ugly eyesore fire hazard, why did your people wanted to indulge in this referendum thing unless whole object of the exercise is to conduct an expensive public relations gimmick to make a party walking upon banana skins with public money?

Actually it's this TORY-led government that passed the Localism Bill as I think you'll find! The Council obviously didn't realise (and all parties were in favour of a referendum until the costs were escalated by the Lawyer's advice).

Well said Vonnie, I was in favour at first but having given some serious thought you are absolutely spot on!

I bet it doesn't say anything about having referendums to prove the area's full of NIMBY's does it? did you not see you're beloved leader say it was the local Labour council giving power to the people the same people he won't let vote on the Oaklands swimming Pool?

This is one of the differences between the Tory Party ( locally) & the Labour Party.
I leaflet & support the Tory Party but recently I received a text advising me the Tory party backed the NO campaign I said I didn't & we would have to agree to disagree.
No threats against me,still talking to me.
in all political parties there are difference of opinions.
In Southampton if you're Labour you can't think for yourself or stand by your people ( voters) or stand by your principles if Williams disagrees & you get disciplined exactly who is a democratic party?

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:
And another thread has devolved into an argument about left wing vs right wing politics. Despite the Echo's best efforts to make it about generic outrage at public money being spent on something the public itself demanded.

Brilliant.

Georgem if its not what the Echo wants or you step over the line, the Echo Web Master will send you a E-Mail telling you to stop.
So if the E-mails have not gone out from the web master you can safely say, what is going on is what the Echo wants to go on, A bebate going down all avenues

Nonsense. As long as abuse isn't being reported, or blatantly obvious, nobody at the Echo cares that you and your friend hijack every single threat and turn it into a soapbox. You moaning about "The Torys (sic)" constantly isn't a debate. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

No it is watch, we don't moan about the Torys we just point out facts about them and that go's Labour to.

Tit-for-tat criticism. Not a debate.

How do you think debates starts or ends, it is tit-for-tat

I'm not getting into yet another discussion on what 'debate' means with you, southy. You have proven, countless times, that you think it means browbeating your opponent until they stop arguing. You've even used the actual words "you don't need evidence if you know history".

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:
And another thread has devolved into an argument about left wing vs right wing politics. Despite the Echo's best efforts to make it about generic outrage at public money being spent on something the public itself demanded.

Brilliant.

Georgem if its not what the Echo wants or you step over the line, the Echo Web Master will send you a E-Mail telling you to stop.
So if the E-mails have not gone out from the web master you can safely say, what is going on is what the Echo wants to go on, A bebate going down all avenues

Nonsense. As long as abuse isn't being reported, or blatantly obvious, nobody at the Echo cares that you and your friend hijack every single threat and turn it into a soapbox. You moaning about "The Torys (sic)" constantly isn't a debate. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

No it is watch, we don't moan about the Torys we just point out facts about them and that go's Labour to.

Tit-for-tat criticism. Not a debate.

How do you think debates starts or ends, it is tit-for-tat

Debating generally implies that there are 2 sides listening to each other.

You only listen to what you want to hear.

I could be mistaken but this skill would be useful to anyone who had aspiration of becoming a Councillor one day.

So it's not something I would waste time trying to learn if I were you.

Dan Soton wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Why cant they just say if you want to vote you have to come to the civic centre.Anyway it affects all of the city so we should all get a a vote.

Too right bigfella it affects all of Southampton

-

It will have the same imposing effect as Salisbury cathedral's spire has on Salisbury ( @404 ft the tallest in the UK) but in a bad way.. with pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead.

I'm not right up close to the £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports but I'll see the chimney stack from my garden like most of Southampton.

So when I vote No I'll be thinking of The West Quay, Bitterne and Lords Hill views from around Southampton.. a nightmare view in the making.

-

reading comments.. must be a few Pompey fans here looking forward to renaming the Saints The Wooden Tops?

You don't think that the prevailing south westerly wind will have any effect on the
"pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead"?

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:
And another thread has devolved into an argument about left wing vs right wing politics. Despite the Echo's best efforts to make it about generic outrage at public money being spent on something the public itself demanded.

Brilliant.

Georgem if its not what the Echo wants or you step over the line, the Echo Web Master will send you a E-Mail telling you to stop.
So if the E-mails have not gone out from the web master you can safely say, what is going on is what the Echo wants to go on, A bebate going down all avenues

Nonsense. As long as abuse isn't being reported, or blatantly obvious, nobody at the Echo cares that you and your friend hijack every single threat and turn it into a soapbox. You moaning about "The Torys (sic)" constantly isn't a debate. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

No it is watch, we don't moan about the Torys we just point out facts about them and that go's Labour to.

Tit-for-tat criticism. Not a debate.

How do you think debates starts or ends, it is tit-for-tat

I'm not getting into yet another discussion on what 'debate' means with you, southy. You have proven, countless times, that you think it means browbeating your opponent until they stop arguing. You've even used the actual words "you don't need evidence if you know history".

.. oh, and: -

“real debaters do not quote their sources only weak ones do, weak ones can not stand there ground, and stand by there commitment they need a escape clause. to hide behind.” – southy, 12 January 2011

freefinker wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:
And another thread has devolved into an argument about left wing vs right wing politics. Despite the Echo's best efforts to make it about generic outrage at public money being spent on something the public itself demanded.

Brilliant.

Georgem if its not what the Echo wants or you step over the line, the Echo Web Master will send you a E-Mail telling you to stop.
So if the E-mails have not gone out from the web master you can safely say, what is going on is what the Echo wants to go on, A bebate going down all avenues

Nonsense. As long as abuse isn't being reported, or blatantly obvious, nobody at the Echo cares that you and your friend hijack every single threat and turn it into a soapbox. You moaning about "The Torys (sic)" constantly isn't a debate. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

No it is watch, we don't moan about the Torys we just point out facts about them and that go's Labour to.

Tit-for-tat criticism. Not a debate.

How do you think debates starts or ends, it is tit-for-tat

I'm not getting into yet another discussion on what 'debate' means with you, southy. You have proven, countless times, that you think it means browbeating your opponent until they stop arguing. You've even used the actual words "you don't need evidence if you know history".

.. oh, and: -

“real debaters do not quote their sources only weak ones do, weak ones can not stand there ground, and stand by there commitment they need a escape clause. to hide behind.” – southy, 12 January 2011

When you make it up as you go along it's not easy to offer yourself as the source.

I'm still struggling to add up how it can jump from £5K to £45K just because they need to add another polling station.

Surely if the original polling station was budgeted at £5K how can an additional one cost the extra £40K?

I need to return to school and study maths again.

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
I'll be voting yes for the biomass plant as I like using electricity. I'll also be voting for Michael Mates as Police Commissioner- there we go, that's saved the Council a load of cash for starters.

But you dont live in Millbrook or Freemantle re Biomass.
.
.... and you would vote for Michael Mates ........ Well there is a surprise

that's right, I live close to all the Champagne Socialists- Williams, Denham and Whitehead.

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Why cant they just say if you want to vote you have to come to the civic centre.Anyway it affects all of the city so we should all get a a vote.

Too right bigfella it affects all of Southampton

-

It will have the same imposing effect as Salisbury cathedral's spire has on Salisbury ( @404 ft the tallest in the UK) but in a bad way.. with pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead.

I'm not right up close to the £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports but I'll see the chimney stack from my garden like most of Southampton.

So when I vote No I'll be thinking of The West Quay, Bitterne and Lords Hill views from around Southampton.. a nightmare view in the making.

-

reading comments.. must be a few Pompey fans here looking forward to renaming the Saints The Wooden Tops?

You don't think that the prevailing south westerly wind will have any effect on the
"pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead"?

Torchie, if a south westerly wind prevailed ( any wind, any reasonable length of time ) all the time I'd put up a wind turbine to catch it.. wouldn't you ?

-

You know we can go for weeks without as much as breath of wind, probably a contributing factor in making ( according to all government figures ) Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road UK pollution hot spots.

-


Daily Echo.. Revealed: Our six pollution hot spots.

Wednesday, 4 August 2004.

Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road, Bevois Valley Road and Bitterne Road are the worst hit, according to Simon Hartill at Southampton City Council environmental health.

Fumes emitted in these areas have contributed to a 300 per cent rise in harmful pollutants in Southampton during the last year, according to the latest government figures. It all spells very bad news for our health.

The latest air quality statistics were released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in its annual quality of life report. They show that Southampton suffered poor air quality more often than Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle during the past year. The report revealed that air pollution in Southampton was "moderate or higher" on 48 days last year.

That figure is up from just 11 days in 2002 - a hike of 336 per cent.

-

http://tinyurl.com/d
27z6e5


-


so what's your real gripe?

IronLady2010 wrote:
I'm still struggling to add up how it can jump from £5K to £45K just because they need to add another polling station.

Surely if the original polling station was budgeted at £5K how can an additional one cost the extra £40K?

I need to return to school and study maths again.

You're failing to take into account the endless paperwork and meetings that led to that extra expenditure. Public sector red tape costs an absolute fortune. Example: to replace a £3 computer mouse, once all the requisitioning and authorisation is done, costs about £127.

freefinker wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:

southy wrote:

Georgem wrote:
And another thread has devolved into an argument about left wing vs right wing politics. Despite the Echo's best efforts to make it about generic outrage at public money being spent on something the public itself demanded.

Brilliant.

Georgem if its not what the Echo wants or you step over the line, the Echo Web Master will send you a E-Mail telling you to stop.
So if the E-mails have not gone out from the web master you can safely say, what is going on is what the Echo wants to go on, A bebate going down all avenues

Nonsense. As long as abuse isn't being reported, or blatantly obvious, nobody at the Echo cares that you and your friend hijack every single threat and turn it into a soapbox. You moaning about "The Torys (sic)" constantly isn't a debate. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

No it is watch, we don't moan about the Torys we just point out facts about them and that go's Labour to.

Tit-for-tat criticism. Not a debate.

How do you think debates starts or ends, it is tit-for-tat

I'm not getting into yet another discussion on what 'debate' means with you, southy. You have proven, countless times, that you think it means browbeating your opponent until they stop arguing. You've even used the actual words "you don't need evidence if you know history".

.. oh, and: -

“real debaters do not quote their sources only weak ones do, weak ones can not stand there ground, and stand by there commitment they need a escape clause. to hide behind.” – southy, 12 January 2011

Can't be true. You cited a source.

Georgem wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
I'm still struggling to add up how it can jump from £5K to £45K just because they need to add another polling station.

Surely if the original polling station was budgeted at £5K how can an additional one cost the extra £40K?

I need to return to school and study maths again.

You're failing to take into account the endless paperwork and meetings that led to that extra expenditure. Public sector red tape costs an absolute fortune. Example: to replace a £3 computer mouse, once all the requisitioning and authorisation is done, costs about £127.

I see, but it still doesn't account for the £40K increase, surely they went through the same meetings and paperwork in the initial £5K budget estimation.

I have to wonder if the £5K was just plucked out of thin air! Hardly a way to run a business yet alone a Council.

Now, I need to choose a school to return to study Maths.

IronLady2010 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
I'm still struggling to add up how it can jump from £5K to £45K just because they need to add another polling station.

Surely if the original polling station was budgeted at £5K how can an additional one cost the extra £40K?

I need to return to school and study maths again.

You're failing to take into account the endless paperwork and meetings that led to that extra expenditure. Public sector red tape costs an absolute fortune. Example: to replace a £3 computer mouse, once all the requisitioning and authorisation is done, costs about £127.

I see, but it still doesn't account for the £40K increase, surely they went through the same meetings and paperwork in the initial £5K budget estimation.

I have to wonder if the £5K was just plucked out of thin air! Hardly a way to run a business yet alone a Council.

Now, I need to choose a school to return to study Maths.

Actually, if you read the story fully, the initial £5k was to effectively piggy-back the preferendum alongside an already-budgeted-for election. Makes a bit more sense now.

Georgem wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:

Georgem wrote:

IronLady2010 wrote:
I'm still struggling to add up how it can jump from £5K to £45K just because they need to add another polling station.

Surely if the original polling station was budgeted at £5K how can an additional one cost the extra £40K?

I need to return to school and study maths again.

You're failing to take into account the endless paperwork and meetings that led to that extra expenditure. Public sector red tape costs an absolute fortune. Example: to replace a £3 computer mouse, once all the requisitioning and authorisation is done, costs about £127.

I see, but it still doesn't account for the £40K increase, surely they went through the same meetings and paperwork in the initial £5K budget estimation.

I have to wonder if the £5K was just plucked out of thin air! Hardly a way to run a business yet alone a Council.

Now, I need to choose a school to return to study Maths.

Actually, if you read the story fully, the initial £5k was to effectively piggy-back the preferendum alongside an already-budgeted-for election. Makes a bit more sense now.

Yes that makes sense, they need an extra two buildings for a few hours at an additional cost of £40K.

Condor Man wrote:

Lone Ranger. wrote:

Condor Man wrote:
I'll be voting yes for the biomass plant as I like using electricity. I'll also be voting for Michael Mates as Police Commissioner- there we go, that's saved the Council a load of cash for starters.

But you dont live in Millbrook or Freemantle re Biomass.
.
.... and you would vote for Michael Mates ........ Well there is a surprise

that's right, I live close to all the Champagne Socialists- Williams, Denham and Whitehead.

So does that make you their lager lout neighbour?

Dan Soton wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Why cant they just say if you want to vote you have to come to the civic centre.Anyway it affects all of the city so we should all get a a vote.

Too right bigfella it affects all of Southampton

-

It will have the same imposing effect as Salisbury cathedral's spire has on Salisbury ( @404 ft the tallest in the UK) but in a bad way.. with pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead.

I'm not right up close to the £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports but I'll see the chimney stack from my garden like most of Southampton.

So when I vote No I'll be thinking of The West Quay, Bitterne and Lords Hill views from around Southampton.. a nightmare view in the making.

-

reading comments.. must be a few Pompey fans here looking forward to renaming the Saints The Wooden Tops?

You don't think that the prevailing south westerly wind will have any effect on the
"pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead"?

Torchie, if a south westerly wind prevailed ( any wind, any reasonable length of time ) all the time I'd put up a wind turbine to catch it.. wouldn't you ?

-

You know we can go for weeks without as much as breath of wind, probably a contributing factor in making ( according to all government figures ) Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road UK pollution hot spots.

-


Daily Echo.. Revealed: Our six pollution hot spots.

Wednesday, 4 August 2004.

Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road, Bevois Valley Road and Bitterne Road are the worst hit, according to Simon Hartill at Southampton City Council environmental health.

Fumes emitted in these areas have contributed to a 300 per cent rise in harmful pollutants in Southampton during the last year, according to the latest government figures. It all spells very bad news for our health.

The latest air quality statistics were released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in its annual quality of life report. They show that Southampton suffered poor air quality more often than Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle during the past year. The report revealed that air pollution in Southampton was "moderate or higher" on 48 days last year.

That figure is up from just 11 days in 2002 - a hike of 336 per cent.

-

http://tinyurl.com/d

27z6e5


-


so what's your real gripe?

I've stood on the pedestrian bridge with a fair wind whipped up by the traffic so sorry what do you mean you don't get any wind?
by the time any waste gases reach Millbrook road the car pollution will leave a protective barrier stopping it unless it can some how penetrate it so it can kill you all.
I can't believe you're only complaining against Bio Mass what about the road & traffic pollution?

OK here we go then, Hands up all those in favour and say aye!. Now hands up those against and say no.

The noes have it, the nose have it.

Dan Soton wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Why cant they just say if you want to vote you have to come to the civic centre.Anyway it affects all of the city so we should all get a a vote.

Too right bigfella it affects all of Southampton

-

It will have the same imposing effect as Salisbury cathedral's spire has on Salisbury ( @404 ft the tallest in the UK) but in a bad way.. with pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead.

I'm not right up close to the £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports but I'll see the chimney stack from my garden like most of Southampton.

So when I vote No I'll be thinking of The West Quay, Bitterne and Lords Hill views from around Southampton.. a nightmare view in the making.

-

reading comments.. must be a few Pompey fans here looking forward to renaming the Saints The Wooden Tops?

You don't think that the prevailing south westerly wind will have any effect on the
"pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead"?

Torchie, if a south westerly wind prevailed ( any wind, any reasonable length of time ) all the time I'd put up a wind turbine to catch it.. wouldn't you ?

-

You know we can go for weeks without as much as breath of wind, probably a contributing factor in making ( according to all government figures ) Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road UK pollution hot spots.

-


Daily Echo.. Revealed: Our six pollution hot spots.

Wednesday, 4 August 2004.

Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road, Bevois Valley Road and Bitterne Road are the worst hit, according to Simon Hartill at Southampton City Council environmental health.

Fumes emitted in these areas have contributed to a 300 per cent rise in harmful pollutants in Southampton during the last year, according to the latest government figures. It all spells very bad news for our health.

The latest air quality statistics were released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in its annual quality of life report. They show that Southampton suffered poor air quality more often than Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle during the past year. The report revealed that air pollution in Southampton was "moderate or higher" on 48 days last year.

That figure is up from just 11 days in 2002 - a hike of 336 per cent.

-

http://tinyurl.com/d

27z6e5


-


so what's your real gripe?

I don't have a gripe at all but then I haven't chosen to live in an area boxed in by the M27, the M271, the six lanes of A33, four lanes of A35, Southampton docks, the main Weymouth to London rail link, downwind of the biggest refinery in the UK and complain about what you imagine will come out of a high stack governed by the very latest regulations. The Bio-Mass plant will probably help to reduce the pollution in the area.

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Why cant they just say if you want to vote you have to come to the civic centre.Anyway it affects all of the city so we should all get a a vote.

Too right bigfella it affects all of Southampton

-

It will have the same imposing effect as Salisbury cathedral's spire has on Salisbury ( @404 ft the tallest in the UK) but in a bad way.. with pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead.

I'm not right up close to the £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports but I'll see the chimney stack from my garden like most of Southampton.

So when I vote No I'll be thinking of The West Quay, Bitterne and Lords Hill views from around Southampton.. a nightmare view in the making.

-

reading comments.. must be a few Pompey fans here looking forward to renaming the Saints The Wooden Tops?

You don't think that the prevailing south westerly wind will have any effect on the
"pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead"?

Torchie, if a south westerly wind prevailed ( any wind, any reasonable length of time ) all the time I'd put up a wind turbine to catch it.. wouldn't you ?

-

You know we can go for weeks without as much as breath of wind, probably a contributing factor in making ( according to all government figures ) Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road UK pollution hot spots.

-


Daily Echo.. Revealed: Our six pollution hot spots.

Wednesday, 4 August 2004.

Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road, Bevois Valley Road and Bitterne Road are the worst hit, according to Simon Hartill at Southampton City Council environmental health.

Fumes emitted in these areas have contributed to a 300 per cent rise in harmful pollutants in Southampton during the last year, according to the latest government figures. It all spells very bad news for our health.

The latest air quality statistics were released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in its annual quality of life report. They show that Southampton suffered poor air quality more often than Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle during the past year. The report revealed that air pollution in Southampton was "moderate or higher" on 48 days last year.

That figure is up from just 11 days in 2002 - a hike of 336 per cent.

-

http://tinyurl.com/d


27z6e5


-


so what's your real gripe?

I don't have a gripe at all but then I haven't chosen to live in an area boxed in by the M27, the M271, the six lanes of A33, four lanes of A35, Southampton docks, the main Weymouth to London rail link, downwind of the biggest refinery in the UK and complain about what you imagine will come out of a high stack governed by the very latest regulations. The Bio-Mass plant will probably help to reduce the pollution in the area.

Torchie1 says.. I haven't chosen to live in Southampton, the Bio-Mass plant will probably help to reduce the pollution in the area.


Sorry I don't get it.. are you an investor/shareholder in Helius Energy?

Dan Soton wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Why cant they just say if you want to vote you have to come to the civic centre.Anyway it affects all of the city so we should all get a a vote.

Too right bigfella it affects all of Southampton

-

It will have the same imposing effect as Salisbury cathedral's spire has on Salisbury ( @404 ft the tallest in the UK) but in a bad way.. with pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead.

I'm not right up close to the £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports but I'll see the chimney stack from my garden like most of Southampton.

So when I vote No I'll be thinking of The West Quay, Bitterne and Lords Hill views from around Southampton.. a nightmare view in the making.

-

reading comments.. must be a few Pompey fans here looking forward to renaming the Saints The Wooden Tops?

You don't think that the prevailing south westerly wind will have any effect on the
"pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead"?

Torchie, if a south westerly wind prevailed ( any wind, any reasonable length of time ) all the time I'd put up a wind turbine to catch it.. wouldn't you ?

-

You know we can go for weeks without as much as breath of wind, probably a contributing factor in making ( according to all government figures ) Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road UK pollution hot spots.

-


Daily Echo.. Revealed: Our six pollution hot spots.

Wednesday, 4 August 2004.

Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road, Bevois Valley Road and Bitterne Road are the worst hit, according to Simon Hartill at Southampton City Council environmental health.

Fumes emitted in these areas have contributed to a 300 per cent rise in harmful pollutants in Southampton during the last year, according to the latest government figures. It all spells very bad news for our health.

The latest air quality statistics were released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in its annual quality of life report. They show that Southampton suffered poor air quality more often than Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle during the past year. The report revealed that air pollution in Southampton was "moderate or higher" on 48 days last year.

That figure is up from just 11 days in 2002 - a hike of 336 per cent.

-

http://tinyurl.com/d



27z6e5


-


so what's your real gripe?

I don't have a gripe at all but then I haven't chosen to live in an area boxed in by the M27, the M271, the six lanes of A33, four lanes of A35, Southampton docks, the main Weymouth to London rail link, downwind of the biggest refinery in the UK and complain about what you imagine will come out of a high stack governed by the very latest regulations. The Bio-Mass plant will probably help to reduce the pollution in the area.

Torchie1 says.. I haven't chosen to live in Southampton, the Bio-Mass plant will probably help to reduce the pollution in the area.


Sorry I don't get it.. are you an investor/shareholder in Helius Energy?

I like to think I'm a realist. Everyone wants power but no-one wants to be inconvenienced by or be aware of the source of its production. The proposed site for the Bio-Mass facility is hardly an SSSI is it and it's better to add something to a industrial docks area than site a power producer on virgin soil in the middle of an area of outstanding natural beauty.

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Why cant they just say if you want to vote you have to come to the civic centre.Anyway it affects all of the city so we should all get a a vote.

Too right bigfella it affects all of Southampton

-

It will have the same imposing effect as Salisbury cathedral's spire has on Salisbury ( @404 ft the tallest in the UK) but in a bad way.. with pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead.

I'm not right up close to the £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports but I'll see the chimney stack from my garden like most of Southampton.

So when I vote No I'll be thinking of The West Quay, Bitterne and Lords Hill views from around Southampton.. a nightmare view in the making.

-

reading comments.. must be a few Pompey fans here looking forward to renaming the Saints The Wooden Tops?

You don't think that the prevailing south westerly wind will have any effect on the
"pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead"?

Torchie, if a south westerly wind prevailed ( any wind, any reasonable length of time ) all the time I'd put up a wind turbine to catch it.. wouldn't you ?

-

You know we can go for weeks without as much as breath of wind, probably a contributing factor in making ( according to all government figures ) Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road UK pollution hot spots.

-


Daily Echo.. Revealed: Our six pollution hot spots.

Wednesday, 4 August 2004.

Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road, Bevois Valley Road and Bitterne Road are the worst hit, according to Simon Hartill at Southampton City Council environmental health.

Fumes emitted in these areas have contributed to a 300 per cent rise in harmful pollutants in Southampton during the last year, according to the latest government figures. It all spells very bad news for our health.

The latest air quality statistics were released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in its annual quality of life report. They show that Southampton suffered poor air quality more often than Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle during the past year. The report revealed that air pollution in Southampton was "moderate or higher" on 48 days last year.

That figure is up from just 11 days in 2002 - a hike of 336 per cent.

-

http://tinyurl.com/d




27z6e5


-


so what's your real gripe?

I don't have a gripe at all but then I haven't chosen to live in an area boxed in by the M27, the M271, the six lanes of A33, four lanes of A35, Southampton docks, the main Weymouth to London rail link, downwind of the biggest refinery in the UK and complain about what you imagine will come out of a high stack governed by the very latest regulations. The Bio-Mass plant will probably help to reduce the pollution in the area.

Torchie1 says.. I haven't chosen to live in Southampton, the Bio-Mass plant will probably help to reduce the pollution in the area.


Sorry I don't get it.. are you an investor/shareholder in Helius Energy?

I like to think I'm a realist. Everyone wants power but no-one wants to be inconvenienced by or be aware of the source of its production. The proposed site for the Bio-Mass facility is hardly an SSSI is it and it's better to add something to a industrial docks area than site a power producer on virgin soil in the middle of an area of outstanding natural beauty.

Torchie1 says.. I like to think I'm a realist.


a realist that doesn't have any ties with Southampton, has no financial interest in Helius Energy has chosen a decision on the merits of polling stations in the Freemantle/Millbrook wards to set the world to rights.. what an honour..

if your area of outstanding natural beauty is the New Forest be warned it's all a masquerade, you would be better off eulogising a field of corn.

Southampton's pollution regularly drifts over the New forest and stagnates there for weeks at a time.

the truth is, at best your a cynic with nothing better to with you time.. bye-bye cheerio.

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Why cant they just say if you want to vote you have to come to the civic centre.Anyway it affects all of the city so we should all get a a vote.

Too right bigfella it affects all of Southampton

-

It will have the same imposing effect as Salisbury cathedral's spire has on Salisbury ( @404 ft the tallest in the UK) but in a bad way.. with pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead.

I'm not right up close to the £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports but I'll see the chimney stack from my garden like most of Southampton.

So when I vote No I'll be thinking of The West Quay, Bitterne and Lords Hill views from around Southampton.. a nightmare view in the making.

-

reading comments.. must be a few Pompey fans here looking forward to renaming the Saints The Wooden Tops?

You don't think that the prevailing south westerly wind will have any effect on the
"pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead"?

Torchie, if a south westerly wind prevailed ( any wind, any reasonable length of time ) all the time I'd put up a wind turbine to catch it.. wouldn't you ?

-

You know we can go for weeks without as much as breath of wind, probably a contributing factor in making ( according to all government figures ) Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road UK pollution hot spots.

-


Daily Echo.. Revealed: Our six pollution hot spots.

Wednesday, 4 August 2004.

Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road, Bevois Valley Road and Bitterne Road are the worst hit, according to Simon Hartill at Southampton City Council environmental health.

Fumes emitted in these areas have contributed to a 300 per cent rise in harmful pollutants in Southampton during the last year, according to the latest government figures. It all spells very bad news for our health.

The latest air quality statistics were released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in its annual quality of life report. They show that Southampton suffered poor air quality more often than Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle during the past year. The report revealed that air pollution in Southampton was "moderate or higher" on 48 days last year.

That figure is up from just 11 days in 2002 - a hike of 336 per cent.

-

http://tinyurl.com/d




27z6e5


-


so what's your real gripe?

I don't have a gripe at all but then I haven't chosen to live in an area boxed in by the M27, the M271, the six lanes of A33, four lanes of A35, Southampton docks, the main Weymouth to London rail link, downwind of the biggest refinery in the UK and complain about what you imagine will come out of a high stack governed by the very latest regulations. The Bio-Mass plant will probably help to reduce the pollution in the area.

Torchie1 says.. I haven't chosen to live in Southampton, the Bio-Mass plant will probably help to reduce the pollution in the area.


Sorry I don't get it.. are you an investor/shareholder in Helius Energy?

I like to think I'm a realist. Everyone wants power but no-one wants to be inconvenienced by or be aware of the source of its production. The proposed site for the Bio-Mass facility is hardly an SSSI is it and it's better to add something to a industrial docks area than site a power producer on virgin soil in the middle of an area of outstanding natural beauty.

Torchie1 says.. I like to think I'm a realist.


a realist that doesn't have any ties with Southampton, has no financial interest in Helius Energy has chosen a decision on the merits of polling stations in the Freemantle/Millbrook wards to set the world to rights.. what an honour..

if your area of outstanding natural beauty is the New Forest be warned it's all a masquerade, you would be better off eulogising a field of corn.

Southampton's pollution regularly drifts over the New forest and stagnates there for weeks at a time.

the truth is, at best your a cynic with nothing better to do with you time.. bye-bye cheerio.

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Why cant they just say if you want to vote you have to come to the civic centre.Anyway it affects all of the city so we should all get a a vote.

Too right bigfella it affects all of Southampton

-

It will have the same imposing effect as Salisbury cathedral's spire has on Salisbury ( @404 ft the tallest in the UK) but in a bad way.. with pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead.

I'm not right up close to the £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports but I'll see the chimney stack from my garden like most of Southampton.

So when I vote No I'll be thinking of The West Quay, Bitterne and Lords Hill views from around Southampton.. a nightmare view in the making.

-

reading comments.. must be a few Pompey fans here looking forward to renaming the Saints The Wooden Tops?

You don't think that the prevailing south westerly wind will have any effect on the
"pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead"?

Torchie, if a south westerly wind prevailed ( any wind, any reasonable length of time ) all the time I'd put up a wind turbine to catch it.. wouldn't you ?

-

You know we can go for weeks without as much as breath of wind, probably a contributing factor in making ( according to all government figures ) Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road UK pollution hot spots.

-


Daily Echo.. Revealed: Our six pollution hot spots.

Wednesday, 4 August 2004.

Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road, Bevois Valley Road and Bitterne Road are the worst hit, according to Simon Hartill at Southampton City Council environmental health.

Fumes emitted in these areas have contributed to a 300 per cent rise in harmful pollutants in Southampton during the last year, according to the latest government figures. It all spells very bad news for our health.

The latest air quality statistics were released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in its annual quality of life report. They show that Southampton suffered poor air quality more often than Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle during the past year. The report revealed that air pollution in Southampton was "moderate or higher" on 48 days last year.

That figure is up from just 11 days in 2002 - a hike of 336 per cent.

-

http://tinyurl.com/d


27z6e5


-


so what's your real gripe?

I've stood on the pedestrian bridge with a fair wind whipped up by the traffic so sorry what do you mean you don't get any wind?
by the time any waste gases reach Millbrook road the car pollution will leave a protective barrier stopping it unless it can some how penetrate it so it can kill you all.
I can't believe you're only complaining against Bio Mass what about the road & traffic pollution?

loosehead says.. I can't believe you're only complaining against Bio Mass what about the road & traffic pollution?

-

As a Council Tax payer I am worried about both Biomass and Traffic pollution, if you're not aware multimillion-pound EU fines could be winging their way to Southampton.


As far as I know... we are all under a temporary EU reprieve, so right now £45,000 for a biomass referendum is a screaming bargain.

-


Air pollution in the UK 'killing 50,000 people a year', warn MPs.

By Daily Mail Reporter.
Last updated at 12:32 PM on 22nd March 2010.
-

The Government has encouraged people to drive diesel cars which were more fuel efficient but created more particulates, while the introduction of biomass boilers in urban areas also led to air pollution.
-

The UK is also at risk of multimillion-pound fines from Brussels for missing air quality targets, the committee said.
-

On average people across the UK lose seven to eight months of their lives because of filthy air. But in pollution hotspots, that rises to eight or nine years
-

http://tinyurl.com/d
566u6v

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Why cant they just say if you want to vote you have to come to the civic centre.Anyway it affects all of the city so we should all get a a vote.

Too right bigfella it affects all of Southampton

-

It will have the same imposing effect as Salisbury cathedral's spire has on Salisbury ( @404 ft the tallest in the UK) but in a bad way.. with pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead.

I'm not right up close to the £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports but I'll see the chimney stack from my garden like most of Southampton.

So when I vote No I'll be thinking of The West Quay, Bitterne and Lords Hill views from around Southampton.. a nightmare view in the making.

-

reading comments.. must be a few Pompey fans here looking forward to renaming the Saints The Wooden Tops?

You don't think that the prevailing south westerly wind will have any effect on the
"pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead"?

Torchie, if a south westerly wind prevailed ( any wind, any reasonable length of time ) all the time I'd put up a wind turbine to catch it.. wouldn't you ?

-

You know we can go for weeks without as much as breath of wind, probably a contributing factor in making ( according to all government figures ) Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road UK pollution hot spots.

-


Daily Echo.. Revealed: Our six pollution hot spots.

Wednesday, 4 August 2004.

Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road, Bevois Valley Road and Bitterne Road are the worst hit, according to Simon Hartill at Southampton City Council environmental health.

Fumes emitted in these areas have contributed to a 300 per cent rise in harmful pollutants in Southampton during the last year, according to the latest government figures. It all spells very bad news for our health.

The latest air quality statistics were released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in its annual quality of life report. They show that Southampton suffered poor air quality more often than Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle during the past year. The report revealed that air pollution in Southampton was "moderate or higher" on 48 days last year.

That figure is up from just 11 days in 2002 - a hike of 336 per cent.

-

http://tinyurl.com/d



27z6e5


-


so what's your real gripe?

I've stood on the pedestrian bridge with a fair wind whipped up by the traffic so sorry what do you mean you don't get any wind?
by the time any waste gases reach Millbrook road the car pollution will leave a protective barrier stopping it unless it can some how penetrate it so it can kill you all.
I can't believe you're only complaining against Bio Mass what about the road & traffic pollution?

loosehead says.. I can't believe you're only complaining against Bio Mass what about the road & traffic pollution?

-

As a Council Tax payer I am worried about both Biomass and Traffic pollution, if you're not aware multimillion-pound EU fines could be winging their way to Southampton.


As far as I know... we are all under a temporary EU reprieve, so right now £45,000 for a biomass referendum is a screaming bargain.

-


Air pollution in the UK 'killing 50,000 people a year', warn MPs.

By Daily Mail Reporter.
Last updated at 12:32 PM on 22nd March 2010.
-

The Government has encouraged people to drive diesel cars which were more fuel efficient but created more particulates, while the introduction of biomass boilers in urban areas also led to air pollution.
-

The UK is also at risk of multimillion-pound fines from Brussels for missing air quality targets, the committee said.
-

On average people across the UK lose seven to eight months of their lives because of filthy air. But in pollution hotspots, that rises to eight or nine years
-

http://tinyurl.com/d

566u6v

I think you're in more danger of worrying yourself in to an early grave. Concentrate on serious issues like the lights going out, your computer shutting down denying you access to ebay and not being able to charge up your I-Phone.

Just a few facts to clear up the confusion on the comments.
1. The cost would be low if the referendum is held on the same day as the Police commissioner vote.
2. Tories and Lib Dems both supported Labours referendum call.
3. The legal officer has said that under existing rules the vote cannot be taken with the commissioner vote. The council would have to set up extra polling stations with staff just for the referendum. The legal officer is only doing his job.
4. The council leader is talking to Grant Schapps the govt minister to ask him to change the rules.
5. This is a trial to see how it works.

sottondave wrote:
Just a few facts to clear up the confusion on the comments.
1. The cost would be low if the referendum is held on the same day as the Police commissioner vote.
2. Tories and Lib Dems both supported Labours referendum call.
3. The legal officer has said that under existing rules the vote cannot be taken with the commissioner vote. The council would have to set up extra polling stations with staff just for the referendum. The legal officer is only doing his job.
4. The council leader is talking to Grant Schapps the govt minister to ask him to change the rules.
5. This is a trial to see how it works.

As this is being built in Southampton why are you only holding a vote in the area where the NO campaign is strongest due to the fact they're worried about their house prices & have admitted to being NIMBY's?
Surely as a tenant of this city & a guy who was born & bred in that area we should all get a vote or is it no more than a PR stunt on behalf of the NO campaign which we all are paying for?

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Why cant they just say if you want to vote you have to come to the civic centre.Anyway it affects all of the city so we should all get a a vote.

Too right bigfella it affects all of Southampton

-

It will have the same imposing effect as Salisbury cathedral's spire has on Salisbury ( @404 ft the tallest in the UK) but in a bad way.. with pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead.

I'm not right up close to the £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports but I'll see the chimney stack from my garden like most of Southampton.

So when I vote No I'll be thinking of The West Quay, Bitterne and Lords Hill views from around Southampton.. a nightmare view in the making.

-

reading comments.. must be a few Pompey fans here looking forward to renaming the Saints The Wooden Tops?

You don't think that the prevailing south westerly wind will have any effect on the
"pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead"?

Torchie, if a south westerly wind prevailed ( any wind, any reasonable length of time ) all the time I'd put up a wind turbine to catch it.. wouldn't you ?

-

You know we can go for weeks without as much as breath of wind, probably a contributing factor in making ( according to all government figures ) Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road UK pollution hot spots.

-


Daily Echo.. Revealed: Our six pollution hot spots.

Wednesday, 4 August 2004.

Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road, Bevois Valley Road and Bitterne Road are the worst hit, according to Simon Hartill at Southampton City Council environmental health.

Fumes emitted in these areas have contributed to a 300 per cent rise in harmful pollutants in Southampton during the last year, according to the latest government figures. It all spells very bad news for our health.

The latest air quality statistics were released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in its annual quality of life report. They show that Southampton suffered poor air quality more often than Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle during the past year. The report revealed that air pollution in Southampton was "moderate or higher" on 48 days last year.

That figure is up from just 11 days in 2002 - a hike of 336 per cent.

-

http://tinyurl.com/d



27z6e5


-


so what's your real gripe?

I've stood on the pedestrian bridge with a fair wind whipped up by the traffic so sorry what do you mean you don't get any wind?
by the time any waste gases reach Millbrook road the car pollution will leave a protective barrier stopping it unless it can some how penetrate it so it can kill you all.
I can't believe you're only complaining against Bio Mass what about the road & traffic pollution?

loosehead says.. I can't believe you're only complaining against Bio Mass what about the road & traffic pollution?

-

As a Council Tax payer I am worried about both Biomass and Traffic pollution, if you're not aware multimillion-pound EU fines could be winging their way to Southampton.


As far as I know... we are all under a temporary EU reprieve, so right now £45,000 for a biomass referendum is a screaming bargain.

-


Air pollution in the UK 'killing 50,000 people a year', warn MPs.

By Daily Mail Reporter.
Last updated at 12:32 PM on 22nd March 2010.
-

The Government has encouraged people to drive diesel cars which were more fuel efficient but created more particulates, while the introduction of biomass boilers in urban areas also led to air pollution.
-

The UK is also at risk of multimillion-pound fines from Brussels for missing air quality targets, the committee said.
-

On average people across the UK lose seven to eight months of their lives because of filthy air. But in pollution hotspots, that rises to eight or nine years
-

http://tinyurl.com/d

566u6v

Avoid EU fines by committing fraud or Saying No To Helius's £300m money/wood incinerator


-


Boris accused of pollution fraud by using dust-buster machines near monitoring stations to avoid EU fine

By DAMIEN GAYLE.
PUBLISHED: 16:57, 2 April 2012.

Boris Johnson has been accused of 'public health fraud' for ordering the use of dust suppressants to cut readings at pollution monitoring stations in London.

The London Mayor could be avoiding hundreds of millions in EU fines by ordering the use of sprays to cut the amount of dust in the air near pollution monitoring stations.

But the tactic could also be putting the public at risk by masking the true extent of pollution levels in the city and preventing smog warnings when pollution is severe.

Simon Birkett, director of Clean Air in London told MailOnline: 'This is deadly serious. We’re talking about dangerous particles, some of which are toxic or carcinogenic, not inert house dust.

http://tinyurl.com/c
x8lvm3

Dan Soton wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Why cant they just say if you want to vote you have to come to the civic centre.Anyway it affects all of the city so we should all get a a vote.

Too right bigfella it affects all of Southampton

-

It will have the same imposing effect as Salisbury cathedral's spire has on Salisbury ( @404 ft the tallest in the UK) but in a bad way.. with pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead.

I'm not right up close to the £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports but I'll see the chimney stack from my garden like most of Southampton.

So when I vote No I'll be thinking of The West Quay, Bitterne and Lords Hill views from around Southampton.. a nightmare view in the making.

-

reading comments.. must be a few Pompey fans here looking forward to renaming the Saints The Wooden Tops?

You don't think that the prevailing south westerly wind will have any effect on the
"pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead"?

Torchie, if a south westerly wind prevailed ( any wind, any reasonable length of time ) all the time I'd put up a wind turbine to catch it.. wouldn't you ?

-

You know we can go for weeks without as much as breath of wind, probably a contributing factor in making ( according to all government figures ) Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road UK pollution hot spots.

-


Daily Echo.. Revealed: Our six pollution hot spots.

Wednesday, 4 August 2004.

Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road, Bevois Valley Road and Bitterne Road are the worst hit, according to Simon Hartill at Southampton City Council environmental health.

Fumes emitted in these areas have contributed to a 300 per cent rise in harmful pollutants in Southampton during the last year, according to the latest government figures. It all spells very bad news for our health.

The latest air quality statistics were released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in its annual quality of life report. They show that Southampton suffered poor air quality more often than Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle during the past year. The report revealed that air pollution in Southampton was "moderate or higher" on 48 days last year.

That figure is up from just 11 days in 2002 - a hike of 336 per cent.

-

http://tinyurl.com/d




27z6e5


-


so what's your real gripe?

I've stood on the pedestrian bridge with a fair wind whipped up by the traffic so sorry what do you mean you don't get any wind?
by the time any waste gases reach Millbrook road the car pollution will leave a protective barrier stopping it unless it can some how penetrate it so it can kill you all.
I can't believe you're only complaining against Bio Mass what about the road & traffic pollution?

loosehead says.. I can't believe you're only complaining against Bio Mass what about the road & traffic pollution?

-

As a Council Tax payer I am worried about both Biomass and Traffic pollution, if you're not aware multimillion-pound EU fines could be winging their way to Southampton.


As far as I know... we are all under a temporary EU reprieve, so right now £45,000 for a biomass referendum is a screaming bargain.

-


Air pollution in the UK 'killing 50,000 people a year', warn MPs.

By Daily Mail Reporter.
Last updated at 12:32 PM on 22nd March 2010.
-

The Government has encouraged people to drive diesel cars which were more fuel efficient but created more particulates, while the introduction of biomass boilers in urban areas also led to air pollution.
-

The UK is also at risk of multimillion-pound fines from Brussels for missing air quality targets, the committee said.
-

On average people across the UK lose seven to eight months of their lives because of filthy air. But in pollution hotspots, that rises to eight or nine years
-

http://tinyurl.com/d


566u6v

Avoid EU fines by committing fraud or Saying No To Helius's £300m money/wood incinerator


-


Boris accused of pollution fraud by using dust-buster machines near monitoring stations to avoid EU fine

By DAMIEN GAYLE.
PUBLISHED: 16:57, 2 April 2012.

Boris Johnson has been accused of 'public health fraud' for ordering the use of dust suppressants to cut readings at pollution monitoring stations in London.

The London Mayor could be avoiding hundreds of millions in EU fines by ordering the use of sprays to cut the amount of dust in the air near pollution monitoring stations.

But the tactic could also be putting the public at risk by masking the true extent of pollution levels in the city and preventing smog warnings when pollution is severe.

Simon Birkett, director of Clean Air in London told MailOnline: 'This is deadly serious. We’re talking about dangerous particles, some of which are toxic or carcinogenic, not inert house dust.

http://tinyurl.com/c

x8lvm3

So this is suppose to be a cross party campaign but you a No person brings Boris into it?

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:
Why cant they just say if you want to vote you have to come to the civic centre.Anyway it affects all of the city so we should all get a a vote.

Too right bigfella it affects all of Southampton

-

It will have the same imposing effect as Salisbury cathedral's spire has on Salisbury ( @404 ft the tallest in the UK) but in a bad way.. with pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead.

I'm not right up close to the £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports but I'll see the chimney stack from my garden like most of Southampton.

So when I vote No I'll be thinking of The West Quay, Bitterne and Lords Hill views from around Southampton.. a nightmare view in the making.

-

reading comments.. must be a few Pompey fans here looking forward to renaming the Saints The Wooden Tops?

You don't think that the prevailing south westerly wind will have any effect on the
"pollution gaseous exhausts hovering overhead"?

Torchie, if a south westerly wind prevailed ( any wind, any reasonable length of time ) all the time I'd put up a wind turbine to catch it.. wouldn't you ?

-

You know we can go for weeks without as much as breath of wind, probably a contributing factor in making ( according to all government figures ) Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road UK pollution hot spots.

-


Daily Echo.. Revealed: Our six pollution hot spots.

Wednesday, 4 August 2004.

Redbridge Road, Millbrook Road, Bevois Valley Road and Bitterne Road are the worst hit, according to Simon Hartill at Southampton City Council environmental health.

Fumes emitted in these areas have contributed to a 300 per cent rise in harmful pollutants in Southampton during the last year, according to the latest government figures. It all spells very bad news for our health.

The latest air quality statistics were released by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in its annual quality of life report. They show that Southampton suffered poor air quality more often than Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle during the past year. The report revealed that air pollution in Southampton was "moderate or higher" on 48 days last year.

That figure is up from just 11 days in 2002 - a hike of 336 per cent.

-

http://tinyurl.com/d





27z6e5


-


so what's your real gripe?

I've stood on the pedestrian bridge with a fair wind whipped up by the traffic so sorry what do you mean you don't get any wind?
by the time any waste gases reach Millbrook road the car pollution will leave a protective barrier stopping it unless it can some how penetrate it so it can kill you all.
I can't believe you're only complaining against Bio Mass what about the road & traffic pollution?

loosehead says.. I can't believe you're only complaining against Bio Mass what about the road & traffic pollution?

-

As a Council Tax payer I am worried about both Biomass and Traffic pollution, if you're not aware multimillion-pound EU fines could be winging their way to Southampton.


As far as I know... we are all under a temporary EU reprieve, so right now £45,000 for a biomass referendum is a screaming bargain.

-


Air pollution in the UK 'killing 50,000 people a year', warn MPs.

By Daily Mail Reporter.
Last updated at 12:32 PM on 22nd March 2010.
-

The Government has encouraged people to drive diesel cars which were more fuel efficient but created more particulates, while the introduction of biomass boilers in urban areas also led to air pollution.
-

The UK is also at risk of multimillion-pound fines from Brussels for missing air quality targets, the committee said.
-

On average people across the UK lose seven to eight months of their lives because of filthy air. But in pollution hotspots, that rises to eight or nine years
-

http://tinyurl.com/d



566u6v

Avoid EU fines by committing fraud or Saying No To Helius's £300m money/wood incinerator


-


Boris accused of pollution fraud by using dust-buster machines near monitoring stations to avoid EU fine

By DAMIEN GAYLE.
PUBLISHED: 16:57, 2 April 2012.

Boris Johnson has been accused of 'public health fraud' for ordering the use of dust suppressants to cut readings at pollution monitoring stations in London.

The London Mayor could be avoiding hundreds of millions in EU fines by ordering the use of sprays to cut the amount of dust in the air near pollution monitoring stations.

But the tactic could also be putting the public at risk by masking the true extent of pollution levels in the city and preventing smog warnings when pollution is severe.

Simon Birkett, director of Clean Air in London told MailOnline: 'This is deadly serious. We’re talking about dangerous particles, some of which are toxic or carcinogenic, not inert house dust.

http://tinyurl.com/c


x8lvm3

So this is suppose to be a cross party campaign but you a No person brings Boris into it?

loosehead, this thread is about traffic pollution to and from the site and EU fines.


-

leaving Boris's pollution fix aside.

-


According to all government figures Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road are UK pollution Hot Spots

-

Quoting Helius.

-

All going well.. Helius Energy intends to transport 200,000 tonnes of biomass per annum by road, i.e... counting on no dock/ship strikes from South/North Europe, Africa to the Americas

-

It is anticipated that a single HGV can carry 25 tonnes of biomass. The site can be expected to receive up to 27 HGVs per day (with no deliveries Saturday afternoon or Sundays) or approximately 3 per hour.

Look if the NO campaign feel that strongly why don't they set up their own Referendum & pay for it?

loosehead wrote:
Look if the NO campaign feel that strongly why don't they set up their own Referendum & pay for it?

loosehead, if you dont like Helius's numbers join the No Campaign.

-

Millbrook Road is a UK pollution Hot Spot.. Under EU rules, Britain is allowed no more than 35 "bad air" days in a whole year, Southampton could face unlimited fines from Europe.


All going well.. Helius's best-case scenario is 33 heavy goods vehicles entering and leaving the site.

loosehead you tell me, a worst-case scenario senerio, Worldwide dock/ship strikes, 99 heavy goods vehicles entering and leaving the site?.


-


The plant will utilise up to 800,000 tonnes of biomass material per annum. A maximum of 200,000 tonnes could be delivered by road with the majority arriving by boat. It is understood that the promoter’s contract with ABP requires a minimum of 500,000 tonnes to be handled by the Port.

The promoter has the option, under the current quantities to up this to 600,000 tonnes should circumstances dictate this to be necessary.

The majority of the fuel required will be sourced from UK and international sources (including Southern Europe, North West Europe, Western Africa and the Americas) and delivered through the Port of Southampton’s Bulks Terminal. Fuel delivered by ship will be transferred from the quay to the biomass store via a purpose built conveyor.

The promoter has entered into a commercial contractual arrangement with ABP that guarantees the delivery of a minimum volume of 500,000 tonnes through the Port of Southampton’s Bulks Terminal per annum. Each container ship would have a capacity of between 30,000 and 45,000 tonnes. The commercial agreement provides flexibility to allow all or part the remaining volume of required feedstock to also be delivered through the Bulks Terminal, depending on the final fuel mix. Based on the above, it is anticipated that the frequency of deliveries through the Bulks Terminal will amount to approximately 2-3 deliveries per month.

Ongoing investigations have resulted in the reduction of locally sourced fuel from 300,000 tonnes per annum originally envisaged.

Therefore, under normal operating conditions, it is now anticipated that up to 200,000 tonnes of biomass fuel per annum may be sourced locally (Hampshire, Sussex, Wiltshire, Dorset, Berkshire, Surrey, Greater London are specified), if commercially available, and delivered to the site by road. It is anticipated that such material is likely to comprise predominately recycled wood.

200,000 tonnes equates to approximately 27 HGVs per working day (with no deliveries Saturday afternoon or Sundays) with an additional 6 HGV movements per day required to service the plant and remove the ash.

All trips, including staff movements, equate to approximately 122 per day

If high Carbon prices are good for Helius a collapse must be bad news right?

-

Like a cornered rat.. probably hurts Helius's green low carbon PR masquerade, there is evidence that burning biomas actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil.

-


EU rescue plan setback drives down carbon prices.

By Nina Chestney.

LONDON, July 18 (Reuters).-

Coal-intensive Poland, which on its own could not block a decision, has repeatedly objected to anything that could raise the carbon price, as have some sections of heavy industry.

PRICE COLLAPSE.

Carbon prices have collapsed to record lows under the burden of surplus supply following recession and have been very sensitive for months to news about withdrawing permits.

EU carbon permits traded 6.9 percent lower at 7.15 euros, after sinking to 6.80 euros earlier on Wednesday, above a record low of 5.99 euros in early April but well below the 20 euro level it was trading at in 2008.

Benchmark U.N. carbon credits were also dragged down, hitting a fresh record low below 3 euros a tonne as the market relies on demand from polluters in the EU scheme.

-


http://www.reuters.c
om/article/2012/07/1
8/market-carbon-idUS
L6E8IIAOU20120718

Helius competing with food crops.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets


-


Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year

-


Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe.

By Diana Martin, QMI Agency.
Posted 12 days ago.

“Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.”

European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said.

Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant.

-

http://tinyurl.com/c
srdlee

Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets


-


Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year

-


Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe.

By Diana Martin, QMI Agency.
Posted 12 days ago.

“Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.”

European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said.

Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant.

-

http://tinyurl.com/c
srdlee

Dan Soton wrote:
Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets


-


Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year

-


Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe.

By Diana Martin, QMI Agency.
Posted 12 days ago.

“Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.”

European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said.

Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant.

-

http://tinyurl.com/c

srdlee

Re: Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets.

-

In this youtube video @ 03:40 mins.. a Canadian farmer says he grows Tobacco, Soya, and Wheat but Miscanthus grass for biofuel pellets is his future.

-

www.youtube.com/watc
h?v=-ix1n2RfMpA

-

Given Helius/European countries are looking to Canada for Biomass pellets, I say this video goes some way to prove Helius will be competing with agricultural land.

-

Thats 120,000 acres of Canadian agricultural land incinerated every year to keep 20,000 homes supplied with power/lights and some (GAS) heat = Six Acres of agricultural land per home per year.

Today Bells peeled across Southampton to welcome the Olympics.. cover your ear's here's the Biomass Alarm Bells

-



For evey home Helius could be incinerating Six Acres of Canadian Miscanthus grass per year .

Six Acres of solar panels can power 199 homes.

One home Helius Biomass Vs One hundred and ninety nine homes Solar Panels.

-



Daily Echo.. Estate creates huge solar panel farm.

9:37am Friday 13th July 2012.

Nearly 19,000 solar panels have been installed on 30 acres of land on the Cadland Estate at Fawley to generate enough electricity to power 1,000 homes.

-

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/business/9815
892.Estate_creates_h
uge_solar_panel_farm
/

Europe needs 30 million plus tonnes of biomass pellets per year.

-

According to Canadian miscanthus growers, Europe needs 30 million-plus tonnes of grass pellets per year grown on 4.5 million acres or about 7,031 square miles of land.

That's 1000 square miles more land than Egypt's Nile Valley ( not the best comparison ) that helps to feed Egypt's estimate 90 million population.

When it comes to profits incinerating tall grass wins out over timber it's that simple

-


AFAIK: this Government or I should say the EU's support for biomass/biofuel isn't centred on incinerating timber or grass but Helius's Southampton plans are.

environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times.


Helius is the wrong company at the wrong time.

Governments Will Tax Algae Biofuel.. why subsidise Helius's Wood/Grass incinerator ?

-
　

Algae Biofuel is getting to the point where it will be commercially viable and not to soon after Taxable.
　
If the below news can be trusted, a £300m, 119 acre Algae Plant can produce over 15m gallons of biofuel per year.. 20,000 homes x 750 gallons.

If scaled up to Fawley Refinery's 3,250 acre site an Algae Plant can produce over 400m gallons of biofuel per year.. 20,000 homes x 20,000 gallons.

-


Austrian algae biofuel-production technology to debut in Brazil.

By Antonio Pasolini.

10:53 July 20, 2012.

The new plant will make the most of algae's potential. One of the products to come out of it will be feedstock for animals, providing an alternative to soybeans. The process also yields algal lipids that can be used to make biodiesel and biochemicals. Algae are also a source of omega-3. As overfishing has become a serious environmental concern, algae are a more environmentally friendly source of this nutrient, which is commonly sold as a supplement.

"We believe that this marks a significant step forward in the evolution of our company and validates both our exclusive technology and the commercial viability of algae, especially for use in feed and biofuels,” said Dr. Joachim Grill, SAT’s CEO.

The plant will occupy one hectare (2.5 acres) and the total investment is €8 million (US$9.81 million). SAT expects the unit to be producing 1.2 million liters (317,000 gallons) of biodiesel per year when it starts operating in late 2013.

-

http://www.gizmag.co
m/algae-biomass-plan
t-brazil/23378/

-


As I said to one ( Millbrook Church Hall ) of Helius's management team, environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times.. Southampton has a choice of Algae Biofuel, Fuel Cell, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal and Solar why should we incinerate Wood/Grass ?

I'm still waiting on an honest believable replay and what are you going to do when all the subsidies dry up?

If one solar home can power three who needs Helius's timber/grass incinerator ?

-


By 2020 one Southampton solar home could be generating 16,000kWh of energy and only using 4,000-5,000kWh a year.

-

YouTube Video.. Robert Llewellyn.


http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=Ac0cPOZMT
Tk


-



The Energy Efficient House | Fully Charged

Published on 25 Jul 2012 by

Robert Llewellyn visits an energy efficient house in Berlin.

Robert is back in Berlin, where he speaks to Jörg Welke who lives in a house which produces 16,000kWh of energy a year, when it only uses 4,000-5,000kWh. With it's great insulation, solar panels, and a 40kWh storage battery, it is truly energy efficient.

In 2010, the UK could produce on a sunny midsummer day, 74,000kW of energy from solar electricity. Compare this to Germany who under the same conditions producer 17,000,000kW of energy.

An inquiry headed by Sir David Attenborough ?


-
　

Going by the below UK Renewable Energy Roadmap this Coalition Government hasn't carried out an in-depth inquiry into the sustainability of Wood/Grass Biomass Energy.

-

An inquiry headed by David Attenborough could keep everyone happy?.. He supported Glyndebourne in their successful application to obtain planning permission for a wind turbine in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and gave evidence at the planning inquiry arguing in favour of the proposal.


1) This Coalition Government says Biomass heat technologies supply chains have not yet been tested at scale, the key issue of whether the global supply of sustainable feedstocks can fuel it, given that supplies are finite and there are competing uses in the bio-economy.


2) This Coalition Government says Cost reductions are expected for offshore wind and solar PV as supply chains and technologies develop to 2020.. AFAIK this Government sees no such Cost reductions for Wood/Grass Biomass Energy.

-



UK Renewable Energy Roadmap.

July 2011.

The nations of the United Kingdom are endowed with vast and varied renewable energy resources. We have the best wind, wave and tidal resources in Europe.

The UK leads the world in offshore wind, with more than 700 turbines already installed, and is accelerating the deployment of onshore wind with the biggest projects in Europe already operating and under construction in Scotland and Wales.

Taken together onshore and offshore wind provide enough power for more than two and a half million homes. But we could do so much more. Our challenge is to bring costs down and deployment up.

This document – the UK’s first Renewable Energy Roadmap – sets out our shared approach to unlocking our renewable energy potential.


Plant Biomass

The range of cost uncertainty is particularly large for technologies such as marine, which is at the early stages of commercial deployment in the UK, and biomass heat technologies, for which supply chains have not yet been tested at scale.

Cost reductions are expected to be most pronounced for electricity technologies, particularly offshore wind and solar PV, as supply chains and technologies develop to 2020.

The cost of generating heat and electricity from fossil fuels is also expected to rise over time.

It is essential that costs of renewable technologies fall over the decade as deployment increases. Our goal in the medium to long term is to help renewables compete on a level playing field against other low carbon technologies. We will regularly review our subsidy programmes to take account of cost changes from supply chain development, learning, and technical breakthrough.

Figure 19 sets out the results of analysis of the potential for growth in biomass electricity generation to 2020.

The breadth of the central range reflects the dynamic potential of the large-scale biomass sector and the key issue of whether the global supply of sustainable feedstocks can fuel it, given that supplies are finite and there are competing uses in the bio-economy. The low and high scenarios reflect initial views from industry on the upside potential and downside risks.

Dedicated biomass electricity offers great potential for cost effective renewable electricity generation, provided that it is generated from sustainable feedstocks. As noted above, the Government’s ambition for biomass electricity depends on the availability of suitable feedstocks. The Government considers that sustainable biomass should be cultivated, processed and transported in a way which delivers real and significant greenhouse gas savings compared to the fossil fuel it is replacing. In particular, forest and woodlands must be sustainably managed to ensure continuing supplies in future years.

There would also be significant public concern to projects delivering unsustainable generation.

-


http://www.decc.gov.
uk/assets/decc/11/me
eting-energy-demand/
renewable-energy/216
7-uk-renewable-energ
y-roadmap.pdf

Dan Soton wrote:
Europe needs 30 million plus tonnes of biomass pellets per year.

-

According to Canadian miscanthus growers, Europe needs 30 million-plus tonnes of grass pellets per year grown on 4.5 million acres or about 7,031 square miles of land.

That's 1000 square miles more land than Egypt's Nile Valley ( not the best comparison ) that helps to feed Egypt's estimate 90 million population.

When it comes to profits incinerating tall grass wins out over timber it's that simple

-


AFAIK: this Government or I should say the EU's support for biomass/biofuel isn't centred on incinerating timber or grass but Helius's Southampton plans are.

environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times.


Helius is the wrong company at the wrong time.

Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means EU/Helius could be incinerating 4.5 million acres/7,031 square miles of Miscanthus grass/Elephant grass per year..


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

Its report Fuelling a BioMess questioned assertions that biomass fuel is clean and carbon neutral - in fact using forests for energy could be worse for the climate than burning coal.

"This will mean more deforestation, more carbon emissions and land-grabbing overseas."

Farmers are realising they can made big profits out of growing miscanthus - elephant grass - for biomass use as well as getting grants for a half of start-up costs.

-

http://www.morningst
aronline.co.uk/news/
content/view/full/12
2307?

Dan Soton wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Europe needs 30 million plus tonnes of biomass pellets per year.

-

According to Canadian miscanthus growers, Europe needs 30 million-plus tonnes of grass pellets per year grown on 4.5 million acres or about 7,031 square miles of land.

That's 1000 square miles more land than Egypt's Nile Valley ( not the best comparison ) that helps to feed Egypt's estimate 90 million population.

When it comes to profits incinerating tall grass wins out over timber it's that simple

-


AFAIK: this Government or I should say the EU's support for biomass/biofuel isn't centred on incinerating timber or grass but Helius's Southampton plans are.

environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times.


Helius is the wrong company at the wrong time.

Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means EU/Helius could be incinerating 4.5 million acres/7,031 square miles of Miscanthus grass/Elephant grass per year..


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

Its report Fuelling a BioMess questioned assertions that biomass fuel is clean and carbon neutral - in fact using forests for energy could be worse for the climate than burning coal.

"This will mean more deforestation, more carbon emissions and land-grabbing overseas."

Farmers are realising they can made big profits out of growing miscanthus - elephant grass - for biomass use as well as getting grants for a half of start-up costs.

-

http://www.morningst

aronline.co.uk/news/

content/view/full/12

2307?

Bio Mass 4 Dan 0 these articles are hardly being read now but you keep putting this junk on them getting people to read them again great advertising for Helius don't you think?

Oxfam calls for an end to biofuel subsidies.. almost a billion go hungry worldwide

-

loosehead, Helius will be fried crispy and disappear up its own flue if David Cameron takes heed of Oxfam, Unicef and Save the Children


-


Almost a billion go hungry worldwide

SARAH MORRISON SUNDAY 05 AUGUST 2012.

An unparalleled number of severe food shortages has added 43 million to the number of people going hungry worldwide this year. And millions of children are now at risk of acute malnutrition, charities are warning. One week ahead of David Cameron's "hunger summit", they say that unless action is taken urgently, many more could fall victim.

Barbara Stocking, Oxfam GB's chief executive, called the summit "a positive step forward", but stressed: "It must be the start of concerted action to address the shocking fact that while we produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet, about a billion will tonight go to bed hungry.

"Dwindling natural resources and the gathering pace of climate change mean that without urgent action, things will only get worse, and multiple major crises could quickly move from being an exception to being the norm."

She added that Mr Cameron should call for increased investment in small farmers, greater transparency in commodity markets and an end to biofuel subsidies.

-

http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/world/
politics/almost-a-bi
llion-go-hungry-worl
dwide-8007759.html