V.I.P. – THE LAW: gross negligence, arrogance and ignorance towards the Oswaldtwistle community – PUBLIC INQUIRY / BOLLOCKS / JUDICIAL REVIEW


************************PUBLIC INQUIRY/JUDICIAL REVIEW************************

Let’s start from the beginning, shall we.

1. Blakely’s lied to the Wigan Council about what they were paid to drop off in Wigan – not only plastic.

2. Wigan Council and the Environ’mental’ Agency were made well aware of the not specifically limited to  “household” rubbish and gave Blakely’s mixed-organic-fly-causing-not-only-plastic rubbish it’s notice of eviction due to fly infestation growing in community.

3. As from Wigan’s eviction notice date, without any doubt and no ‘good faith’ may apply – Hyndburn and/or Lancashire Council, Blakely’s and the EA knew exactly what they were moving to Oswaldtwistle and planning to do – dig deep; planning on digging, again, into known chemically contaminated toxic land hidden well within a nature reserve built auspiciously by the Council to conveniently hide Arthur Morgan’s toxic land that was continually being granted a license to dig and dump unknown shite,, amongst both known and unknown new shite and old shite, unleashing TCP back into the air and into the community, at large, amongst various other unknown goodies and known war chemicals.

4. The land owner Arthur Morgan, The Hyndburn Council and/or the Lancashire Council, Blakely’s the Carrier and T. Crawley’s the disposer, and the Environment Agency knew exactly what they planned to do and SOMEONE granted a license from out their arse somewhere for this environ’mental’ madness- no doubt accepting financial remuneration legally and/or illegally – that is the question.

5. In order for a crime to be committed, there must be a foreseeable harm. War chemicals v. Oswaldtwistle community?

6. Are all the above mentioned corporate and/or publicly funded bodies deaf, dumb, blind and stupid or simply grossly negligent to say the very least?
7. Who decided this land was safe and did not need to be cared for by which council not soon after the factory was closed?

8. How many licenses have been granted to repeat this performance of environ’mental’ madness, all to save a buck, at the old Cocker/Nipa Chemical factory site completeing disregarding the Health and safety of the local community?

9. Exactly how many from where and exactly who is all pissing in the same pot?

10. EXACTLY WHO IS INVESTIGATING EXACTLY WHAT?

************************PUBLIC INQUIRY/ JUDICIAL REVIEW************************

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/land/contaminated/documents/legal-definition.pdf

 

Legal considerations for local authorities

40. As with many decisions taken by many regulators under many laws, the duty of local

authorities to decide whether land is contaminated land under Part 2A is balanced by

the fact that an affected person can challenge such a decision (i) by making an appeal

to the Secretary of State; and (ii) by applying for judicial review in the courts. Ultimately

decisions about what qualifies as SPOSH and contaminated land would be a matter for

the courts.

41. Decisions might be challenged on two broad grounds – (1) that land has been

determined as contaminated land when it should not have been; or (2) that land has not

been determined when it should have been.

42. In the past, some local authorities have been concerned that they may be vulnerable

to successful legal challenge, particularly in cases where there is unavoidable scientific

uncertainty underlying the risk assessments on which decisions are based.

43. If a decision were challenged, it would be for the courts (or the Secretary of State in

appeals) to decide the matter based on the circumstances of the case. However, Defra

offers the following general advice:

(i) Part 2A puts local authorities in a strong position legally, provided they make

decisions in accordance with the law. The law clearly makes local authorities

responsible for deciding whether or not land is contaminated land. It gives them

considerable leeway to exercise their judgement, provided their decisions were

taken reasonably, on the basis of a risk assessment based on sound science

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: