Campaign against the Faldingworth explosions nuisance

West Lindsey District Council – Working for You

February 22nd, 2012 | Posted by admin

What do you do with people who take your money and then lie to you?

We all pay councils to work on our behalf, doing jobs such as emptying dustbins that we don’t want to do. They’re also supposed to stop noise nuisance and other anti-social activities that are no longer dealt with by the police.

We spent four years having our time wasted by our council pretending to want to help us in stopping the Faldingworth nuisance.

It was only when they started systematically lying to us that we realised it was a con trick.

Here are some examples of West Lindsey District Council lying to us. And we’re going to name names:

1. There was an upsurge of explosions in January, and many people complained. It turns out that everyone who complained was told by Lyn Marlow (Customer Services manager) and possibly others, that each of them was “the only person who’d complained”. Challenged about this by one RATS member, she said “oh, you were the only person who put in a formal complaint”; but she didn’t make that distinction to him, and it wasn’t made to anyone else. RATS have now put in a formal complaint about the lying, but it has been fobbed off  –  even when caught out, West Lindsey staff don’t have the decency to admit that they’re lying. What kind of people are these?

2. Challenged some months ago about why so many explosions had exceeded the levels recommended in the Atkins  report but nothing had been done about it, a WLDC staff member called Lesley Beevers claimed that no explosions had exceeded this limit. When it was pointed out to her that Atkins had recommended a limit of 115dB, and West Lindsey’s own monitoring figures (as published on the West Lindsey site) showed explosions up to and over 130dB, she said “Oh, I meant they didn’t exceed the limit during [a particular 3 month period]”. This was clearly intended to deceive. The chief executive of West Lindsey, Manjeet Gill, acknowledged various complaints about this lying but refused to say what (if any) disciplinary action had been taken. We assume none has; that we have no guarantees against more lying of this kind; and that Manjeet Gill has no interest in stopping her staff lying.

3. A WLDC staff member called Grant Lockett appeared on a Look North TV piece on Wednesday 15th Feb, claiming that there was nothing the council could do about the explosions “because they do not reach the level required to qualify as a statutory nuisance”. But there is no such level !!! Statutory nuisance does not depend on a magic decibel number, above which something is a nuisance and below which it isn’t. If Grant Lockett did not know this, we must seriously question why he is being employed. But we take the view that he must have known it, and therefore was deliberately telling the public something he knew to be untrue; that is, lying. RATS challenged him to apologise for this lie, but were not answered; they then made a formal complaint, which has also not been answered. Apparently West Lindsey council don’t consider that lying to the public matters.

4. A staff member called Adrian McCormick, supported later by another called Alan Robinson, claimed in a letter that the Atkins report had said the explosions are “not a statutory nuisance”. The Atkins report says nothing of the kind. RATS has challenged WLDC to say which page of the report contains this statement; of course, they haven’t done so, because they can’t.  More lies.

5. Various WLDC staff have claimed that West Lindsey has “taken legal advice”, based (we are told) on the non-existent statement by Atkins in point 4 (above), that any legal action taken by the council “would fail on appeal”. Even without the lie about Atkins, RATS found this impausible. But when asked to produce this alleged “legal advice”, West Lindsey refused (most likely because it doesn’t exist); when RATS put in a Freedom of Information request, West Lindsey still refused, saying (and we’re sure you’ll all love this) that it was “not in the public interest” to produce it.

Proportionate and reasonable response:

HEY!!! You West Lindsey staff in there!!! We ARE the public!!!!!! Who the HELL do you think you are, telling us that we can’t see evidence of YOUR lies, can’t see evidence of YOUR coverup, because it’s not in our damn’ interest?!!!!!!!! Just WHO THE HELL do you imagine yourself to be????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why should we pay people to lie to us?

Leave a reply