East Stoke: Greed 4, Democracy 0

Some bad news has been handed to my friends in East Stoke.

The East Stoke Wind turbine appeal has been approved. The local council had refused planning for four huge but pitifully ineffective turbines. The rich multinational appealed. The end result was that the  government appointed apparachtik overruled the local council. Infinergy get to build their four useless money making machines right in the heart of ancient Purbeck. 

To top it off, Joe Public gets to pay the ROC subsidy to line the coffers of Dutch multinational KOOP (who own Infinergy). In return Infinergy will provide a small, intermittent and laughably ineffective source of electricity. But, as long as nobody cuts the ROC subsidy, it will be a nice little earner for our Dutch cousins.

Even though the appeal steamrollered the local democratic decision, I think we should congratulate DART, Dorset CPRE, the people of Purbeck and particularly East Stoke who so gallantly fought this travesty. Many Dorset families are today out of pocket because they personally helped fund the legal defence against this appeal. They could do no more. Their defence of Purbeck has gone way beyond what anyone should reasonably expect from any community. 

But really, the odds were always stacked against them. All over the country there are literally thousands of East Stokes all battling an unequal and unfair fight against greed and stupidity.

This crime against East Stoke forms a just a small part of what will probably be one of the greatest scandals of the 21st century.

Where do the people of Dorset and East Stoke go from here? I don't know. No doubt when the dust settles a strategy will emerge. But this hard fought battle against the rape and pillage of Dorset should be acknowledged and congratulated. Equally we should lament this latest greed fuelled assault on rural England and local democracy.


Anonymous said...

If it was so undemocratic, how come there were more than twice as many letters in support of this project, from Purbeck people, than those opposing it?

BilloTheWisp said...

The type of democracy I am talking about involves councillors elected in fair elections. It involves officers of that council, overseen by their elected councillors arriving at logical and non partisan decisions. It then involves the elected councillors (elected by the people - not by pressure groups or PR firms) arriving at rational and fair decisions based on the evidence presented by their officers and particularly with due concern for those most at risk from exploitation by averacious vested interests.

Your "democracy" is based on ideological pressure group action which actually seeks to subvert the proper democratic process. It is exactly the the same technique used by Hitler in 1933 to subvert the election process and get elected as Chancellor. You can guarantee that many of your "letters" were from individuals who will have written many such letters to different WTG appeals.

As you know or should know many of youre green and friendly pro wind action groups, some which promoted this travesty at East Stoke are actually paid "Consultancies" (example Yes to Wind - actually yestowind Ltd) they in turn use experienced paid campaigners (example Pendragon PR) to overwhelm opposition from people who, most likely have never even had any direct dealing with the council at all. And who pays the bills I wonder.

Perhaps it is time you started putting real people before your trendy dreamworld fashion statements. You may despise
"normal" people especially when they object to your selfish enthusiasm for a hideously ineffective technology. But really, they count for far more than this obscene excuse to make money that has your avid support.

Anonymous said...

Claims made about levels of support for this windfarm by local people is all part of the propaganda spewed out by developers and shamelessly promulgated by our local 'news'papers.

he following is an objective analytical assessment of the actual numbers and types of response received by the council in response to this wind farm proposal. I and others have had letters published in the press on a number of occasions which have pointed out this irrefutable evidence and yet the newspapers continue to knowingly report such bilge as if it were fact. So what are the actual numbers and how do they add up? Read on:

Firstly, a petition objecting to the wind farm, which was signed by over 1,300 people,is never mentioned.

Secondly, of the 540 ‘letters’ of support, the fact that some 300 of these were identical pro-forma documents, signed by people who were mostly out shopping in Wareham, Swanage and other High Streets is ignored. Some of the signatories were clearly children; one of whom had ‘age 3’ written next to his ‘signature’.

Other ‘letters of support’ included a large number of identical, computer generated e-mails, some of which had originated from outside the UK, possibly from people who aren’t even British citizens. Incidentally, Infinergy has an automated letter generating tool on its website which enables people to pick and choose different formats, presumably to make such communications appear more genuine.

For further accurate, honest, and unbiased information visit the DART website at www.dartdorset.org.

Helen Crow
DART (Dorset Against Rural Turbines)

BilloTheWisp said...

Thanks for comment. Unfortunately you all too right about the way the wind farm scandal is reported.
Sadly many journalists (both local and national) appear to either swallow the pro wind propaganda hook line and sinker or they are so technically illiterate they cannot even attempt to distinguish the propaganda from the truth.

But more darkly, there also appears to be a group of journalists who are brazenly subverting the truth and spewing out the pro-wind propaganda for some political or financial end.

I can only endorse the DART website as a primary source of real data and information regarding the wind farm scam particularly in Dorset.
It is also a good information base for those who wish to see through this fraud.

Keep up the good work

Anonymous said...

Spoken with all the arrogance of a true polition Billo, "you elected us to make decisions on your behalf because we know better than you". Well sorry but in this information age, that system is out of date. Unlike some politions, we don't despise normal people, we are normal people. I can remember the cheer that went up in the Purbeck school after the first planning board decided to be "minded to approve". That was democracy, the hall was full of Purbeck people, not bussed in from Southampton as opponents claimed, although I see DART did appeal to North Dorset UKIP so maybe they were bussed in, I don't know.
Although some councillors were clearly partisan whilst others didn't seem to understand the issues, they had to appreciate the support for Alaska in the hall that evening.
Sorry if it doesn't suit your world view but that was real democracy.
DART is an ideological pressure group, set up to subvert the process, to say it's website has unbiased information is just another example of the string of lies trotted out by these people.
Take a read of the 'Lessons arising from the DART/CPRE experience on the Cumbria wind watch website to see how they used the 10 principles of war to get the results they want.
In this report it states that a 1,000 name petition should be secured, initially by taking names at public meetings, I went to the one in the Durb' hall and everyone signed in, assuming it was a fire register or such, not realising they were signing a petition. Some attendees (admittedly a small number) were there to support the project and others were undecided and I wonder if their names got added to the petition? And how many names on this petition came from outside the Purbeck area, was it sent around all the national anti groups? And knowing the misleading methods being used, how do we know everyone signing knew what they were signing and not being spun a yarn to get their name? That's the problem with petitions and that's why inspectors take them with a pinch of salt. Whereas a letter, even a pro-forma, proves that the person knows what they are signing and that is their opinion.
I've seen the leaflets that DART circulated, with an image of turbines we estimated were 4 times bigger than the proposed ones. Who wouldn't be horrified by that and sign a petition?
And what about the story of nuclear waste being buried up there? That was a deliberate ploy to confuse the minds of councillors, Helen, and another example of mis-leading. They are going into a quarry, how can there be any kind of waste under the natural gravel?
Happily sense and democracy have battled through the scare mongering and propaganda to see this project approved.

BilloTheWisp said...

My Apologies, this reply is rather long

Elected? Dear Anonymous, I'm not elected. Neither am I paid for. Or for that matter in the pocket of anyone. Least of all do I have large ruthless corporations paying my bills or stroking my ego.
You may have also noticed that almost all of my opposition is based on verifiable data not on fashionable propaganda or corporate deception.

Here are a few comments on your tirade.

"A cheer went up"

That just about says it all doesn't it? This was not a reasoned debate this was group action by an assortment of green cults and assorted pressures groups from a wide area, steamrollering their dogma over the wishes local people especially those who actually live in East Stoke. As for the meeting being packed by UKIP, there is no need to make things up, even if it is to attempt to obfuscate your deception regarding the very real Southampton contingent. (I was there too!)

But at the end of the day the democratically elected councillors, supported by their planning department, rejected the Infinergy gold diggers. Democracy in action. QED.

Dart an ideological pressure group

LOL!! Dart like the other 300+ anti wind turbine groups in this country are simply formed by people who lives are impacted by your hopelessly ineffective money making machines and their faceless owners. Lets face it, while Dart is a good amateur site (no offence) it somehow lacks the razzamatazz of say www.yes2wind.com.

Regrettibly no big corporation, or cartel, or "industry body" or "community partnership" funds the likes of DART and its 300+ sister sites. Even so they do a good job. Your spiteful remarks against these good people simply shows how you are prepared to sell anyone down the river, including your neighbours, just to feed your dogma. You sound like you will be shipping them off in cattle trucks next!

Nuclear waste.

I take it that was the nuclear waste supposedly buried in Masters Pit. I remember being emailed about it. It was so totally ludicrous I emailed back that I thought it was a pro-wind set-up. I still think that today. As I remember after that, it was dropped like a hot cake. Funny how you know about it. Where was it reported?

Happily sense and democracy...

Seriously Anonymous, you may think it sensible, clearly I do not. But nobody could pretend that there was anything democratic about this. Nobody (least of all in Dorset) elected this "appointed" apparachik and morally he had no right to overturn the considered decision arrived at by a truly elected assembly. Overturning the democratic decisions of elected representatives for political expediency for whatever reason really is the slippery slope.

Finally Anonymous, I think you should really think about who you are fighting against and who you are fighting for. The prospect of betraying the people of the East Stoke for those ever so nicely smiling snakes in Infinergy really should have you evaluating what you stand for.

Personally I would feel really ashamed about betraying my neighbours even if I though they were wrong. I would seek to convert not pillory my neighbours.

No sign of that in your comment is there?

Anonymous said...

This could go on and on which is pointless, so I'll keep it short.
Nuclear waste was a ruse used by Helen and others at the 2nd planning board meeting (I know, I was there)
Southampton contingent? well I knew of only 2 people there who happened to work in Southampton but live locally (1 in Wareham).
Evidence of the UKIP appeal is still on the internet; www.ukipdorsetnorth.org.uk/file_download/95/NDN_201012.pdf
See the report I previously mentioned on the Cumbria Wind Watch website of evidence of DARTs slick and devious operation.
Finally, I'm not fighting anybody, just happy to speak up against your narrow-minded opinions. I know people in East Stoke, Wool, Lulworth and Wareham who are very happy that Alaska is going ahead, they may not be your neighbours but they are mine.

BilloTheWisp said...

"This could go on and on which is pointless, so I'll keep it short"

I suspect you are the person (or persons) who turned into a troll on earlier posts, so if you are RayF or one of his/her aliases: Congratulations on finally realising the ugliness and stupidity of trolling.

I read the minutes of the council meeting you refer to. True, during public participation time prior to the meeting, Helen did bring up the nuclear waste allegation, which evidently was already under investigation by Police and the Environment Agency (read the minutes). Hardly a ruse then. The meeting went on refuse planning permission to the Alaska Wind farm 8 - 2. (Democracy in action again)

You only knew two people who work in Southampton but which live locally? Are you having a laugh? As I remember, one of the main speakers was from Southampton University (there along with his mates no doubt).

There was no appeal by Dart in the document you refer to ( North Dorset UKIP newsletter ) This is what the Dorset UKIP newsletter invites Dorset UKIP people to do (verbatim):

Although this is a very last minute appeal can members attend the Purbeck planning meeting on Tuesday 30th November where the proposed windfarm at East Stoke is under discussion. The protest group DART, Dorset Against Rural Turbines, intends to be there in force to persuade the planners that East Stoke is not the place to site these inefficient, expensive, noisy and unsightly giants. This of course will be relevant not only to East Stoke but also the Silton campaigners in North Dorset.

So no appeal by Dart to UKIP let alone UKIP bussing people in at Dart's behest. Personally I think it reasonable a Dorset grouping invites Dorset people to attend a Dorset meeting. Hardly the same as bringing in activists from across the country is it?

Slick and devious operation: LOL! No Anonymous. Just a group of local people vainly defending their patch against greed and stupidity.

As to my narrow minded opinions: As I said on my first reply to you:
"almost all of my opposition is based on verifiable data not on fashionable propaganda or corporate deception." That still stands. If relying on verifiable data as opposed to bigged up fashionable propaganda and corporate deception makes me narrow minded so be it. If you can shoot down any of my analyses please do so. I am though, still waiting for any meaningful technical repost to any of my posts on the uselessness of wind turbine generation.

If you can add something useful to this exchange do so but that does not include diatribes, character assassination, paranoid conspiracy delusions or plain simple bigotry. Otherwise this particular comment exchange is closed.