The proposed site of the incinerator at Saddlebow. Picture: Ian Burt.

Liberal Democrats call for independent probe into behaviour of Norfolk County Council leader Derrick Murphy and his cabinet over Norfolk incinerator contract decision

by DAN GRIMMER Wednesday, January 11, 2012
6:30 AM

Calls have been made for an independent investigation into the behaviour of Norfolk County Council leader Derrick Murphy and his cabinet during the process which led to them agreeing to award a contract to run an incinerator at King’s Lynn.

The opposition Liberal Democrat group has put forward a motion to be discussed at Monday’s meeting of the county council, focusing on the way the Conservative cabinet has behaved during the controversy over the proposed Saddlebow incinerator.

The cabinet agreed in March last year to award a contract to Cory Wheelabrator, but, with, as was claimed at the High Court during a bid to secure a judicial review into the process, that meeting had been proceeded by a Conservative group meeting, at which the party showed its “in principle support” for incineration.

And the High Court application also heard claims that a subsequent cabinet scrutiny meeting, where a wider group of councillors chose not to refer the issue back to cabinet or to full council, had been subjected to whipping.

While High Court judge Mr Justice Nicol found that there was no evidence that the councillors had “fettered their discretion” ahead of the cabinet meeting or that there was evidence that whipping had influenced cabinet decisions, Lib Dem leader Paul Morse still wants the council to agree to its own probe into what occurred.

Mr Morse will ask the council to agree that the chief executive should initiate a “full, public and independent investigation by an appropriately qualified independent body into the behaviour of the council leader and the cabinet in this entire process.”

He said, if that investigation should establish that councillors or the public were misled, or that the cabinet members did not act in accord with the constitution, then they should resign.

Last September, a similar motion led to a walk-out by opposition councillors when the Conservative group, on the advice of lawyers, prevented it being discussed until after the judicial review.

Mr Morse said: “We have had the judicial review, but that judgement was based on statute, not on whether the county council acted in accordance with its constitution.

“I don’t know if there was predetermination or if cabinet scrutiny members were whipped, but I think we should have an independent inquiry to find out.”

A second Lib Dem motion, proposed by the group’s environment and waste spokesman Tim East, calls for the council to agree a debate on the incinerator issue - to take place at the full council meeting in March.

But Mr Murphy, who has a 63-strong Conservative group at County Hall which can easily defeat the motions, gave the Lib Dems short shrift.

He said: “I would invite people to look at the county council’s constitution and to look at the report from Mr Justice Nicols following the judicial review.”

dan.grimmer@archant.co.uk

Latest News

53 comments

Honest John, with all due respect that's beside the point. I didn't say that NCC was correct in using the questionnaire; I said that using the poll in West Norfolk was wrong. Single issue polls such as this would make any form of decision-making in this country privy to populism which should not be tolerated. As I said to you before, if you want to defeat this, attack the company. You're on a highway to nowhere going for impropriety.

Report this comment

Peter J

Monday, January 16, 2012
Peter J, reading your comment to nrg “Allowing a non-binding straw poll to dictate the actions of elected representatives would severely undermine the very premise of our system.” Isn’t this slightly contradictory, given that NCC put so much weight to the 2008 questionnaire? That’s after the greatest brains combined between CW & NCC got the decimal point in the wrong place to give 5% instead of 0.5%. And when the elected representatives need to resign? We certainly have a mass of them at the moment, Fuller, Borrett, Proctor, Mackie, and let’s not forget our own Mr Murphy himself. He is a councillor in West Norfolk, NCC’s second choice location for the incinerator. Should he not do as others do and declare an interest whenever this is on the agenda, irrespective of whether he cares a hoot about his own constituents or not?

Report this comment

Honest John

Monday, January 16, 2012
Peter J. NCC were well aware of the past record of pollution by Cory Wheelabrator and the parent company Wheelabrator technologies were fined $450 million for fraud not so long ago. I expect when the full extent of many years breathing in toxins, claims for compensation will arise as they did in the 1970s with asbestos. Cory will change ownership the same as Turner Newell asbestos did. At the end of the day NCC are liable knowing Cory Wheelabrators past record. Councillor Ian Monson who instigated the proposed incinerator at Kings Lynn is shouting from the roof tops of about pollution and size of the chimney stack at the proposed biomass burner at Thetford. NIMBY or he knows the full extent of damage burning does to health.

Report this comment

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

Monday, January 16, 2012
Peter J. NCC were well aware of the past record of pollution by Cory Wheelabrator and the parent company Wheelabrator technologies were fined $450 million for fraud not so long ago. I expect when the full extent of many years breathing in toxins, claims for compensation will arise as they did in the 1970s with asbestos. Cory will change ownership the same as Turner Newell asbestos did. At the end of the day NCC are liable knowing Cory Wheelabrators past record. Councillor Ian Monson who instigated the proposed incinerator at Kings Lynn is shouting from the roof tops of about pollution and size of the chimney stack at the proposed biomass burner at Thetford. NIMBY or he knows the full extent of damage burning does to health.

Report this comment

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

Monday, January 16, 2012
Honest John, you may well be correct. I am not going to try and argue with the science behind incineration as, unlike lots of people on here, I for one am not arrogant enough to assume I know all the ins and outs. What I do know is that the way to fight such decisions are not to fight the contract. As I understand it, CW won a contract that was privy to proper competitive tendering processes. I don't see how you can fault the county council for this given that they are bound by laws governing contract agreement. What you can try and fight are the figures used by CW. If they are not up-to-scratch, I imagine you then have a substantial basis on which to challenge the contract award. I also don't see how you can really fight the government legislation... all this stuff about "consensus", because as I've said before, a world in which the public have all the say over development in their communities is a world where negative economic growth occurs and, in eventuality, jobs are lost because companies go elsewhere.

Report this comment

Peter J

Monday, January 16, 2012
nrg, what I meant with that comment is that the whole basis for British democracy is based on, essentially, every statute that has been agreed since the Magna Carta - those statutes which enshrine representative democracy. In simple terms, this means that we elect people to agree things for us. Allowing a non-binding straw poll to dictate the actions of elected representatives would severely undermine the very premise of our system, so until the system is changed, such polls as the one in King's Lynn cannot and should not make a difference in terms of decision-making.

Report this comment

Peter J

Monday, January 16, 2012
The people who would have to inhale the toxic dioxins night and day from a waste incinerator burning 268.000 tonnes of waste that is mostly recyclable every year for the next 25 years on their doorstep are the ones that should count. 65.516 people said they did not want a waste incinerator in West Norfolk. It is pure ignorance by Norfolk County Council cabinet members to try every dirty trick in the book to force this on us. Thousands upon thousands of toxic ash would have to be buried in landfill. And the rest will go down drains into the River Great Ouse that runs into The Wash and would poison every living creature there. Waste incinerators are not properly tested, nano particles are not tested yet these are the dioxins most dangerous to health. It seems that greed is more important than health. I would like to thank Brenda Arthur for seeing things for what they are. And for her excellent letter to Caroline Spelman. Also I would like thank West Norfolk Council who are looking at alternatives.

Report this comment

Jack

Saturday, January 14, 2012
Peter J, hate to be pedantic....but could you run that "unless you want to unwind HUNDREDS of years of democratic tradition in the UK, with all of the consequences that entails" past me again???

Report this comment

nrg

Saturday, January 14, 2012
Peter J, incinerators are simply about money. It is an outdated technology that makes ludicrous amounts of money for the operators, at the expense of local taxpayers. It is no secret that the American firms are desperate for customers. They go looking for the most ignorant or corrupt councils and pay $millions to people to smooth the way through. It's not a level playing field, I don't have a granny I can sell. I am against the incinerator being built, if you would offer suggestions on how to get the decision overturned, I for one would welcome it. However, those NCC officials who sold their soul to CW cannot just walk away, they need at the very minimum to get the £20million payout secured. As for democratic tradition, please wake up, that has long gone. For someone so intelligent as yourself, and I'm sure knowledgeable about individual dictators, the silent world dictators pull the strings of presidents and prime ministers now. And before you mock, do some research ... egg on face and all that.

Report this comment

Honest John

Saturday, January 14, 2012
Peter J, incinerators are simply about money. It is an outdated technology that makes ludicrous amounts of money for the operators, at the expense of local taxpayers. It is no secret that the American firms are desperate for customers. They go looking for the most ignorant or corrupt councils and pay $millions to people to smooth the way through. It's not a level playing field, I don't have a granny I can sell. I am against the incinerator being built, if you would offer suggestions on how to get the decision overturned, I for one would welcome it. However, those NCC officials who sold their soul to CW cannot just walk away, they need at the very minimum to get the £20million payout secured. As for democratic tradition, please wake up, that has long gone. For someone so intelligent as yourself, and I'm sure knowledgeable about individual dictators, the silent world dictators pull the strings of presidents and prime ministers now. And before you mock, do some research ... egg on face and all that.

Report this comment

Honest John

Saturday, January 14, 2012
Peter J. I agree with you but there is no level playing field. NCC and CW have gone all out to discredit the pro recycling campaign. CW has a long history of polluting and their parent company not so long ago were fined $450 million for fraud. My view is no contract has been signed so NCC should be disqualified from any contract in Norfolk. I can see why NCC had picked Kings Lynn as the preferred site because the residents allowed the Power Station and Palm Paper to be built with little or no opposition. Palm Paper was built and it is humongous. What the campaigners are saying is this area is now over intensive with chimneys and all pollutants will cross contaminate and settle on Kings Lynn. NCC are just taking liberties.

Report this comment

Choice

Saturday, January 14, 2012
Jack, he is now up to eight since he became leader in October 2010. The most recent was by Cllr Paul Morse.

Report this comment

Nemesis

Saturday, January 14, 2012
Honest John, I don't ever recall saying that I personally wanted an incinerator. My reasons for writing on the comment strings is to point out the hypocrisy, poorly articulated arguments and base stupidity of those who oppose the incinerator (and, if you look back into the annuls of these comments boards, those who support it too). If those groups who seek to get the decision overturned weren't so busy shouting at everyone who supposedly "support" the project, they might have more success than they have had currently. As I've said before, democracy, despite what many on here think, is not the people simply getting exactly what they want. The incinerator decision has been through a great many committee stages prior to the final decision being made, and unless you want to unwind hundreds of years of democratic tradition in the UK, with all of the consequences that entails, you would do better to accept this and try another tack with your argument than simply repeating the same (as yet unlistened to) argument about democracy.

Report this comment

Peter J

Saturday, January 14, 2012
How many complaints has Derrick Murphy got against him now I wonder ? It is a disgarace that councils lose funding if they speak out against him. A big thank you to Brenda Arthur of Norwich City Council for her letter opposing waste incineratoin. Excellent letter may I add.

Report this comment

Jack

Friday, January 13, 2012
Peter J, I am not going to rise to the bait. Whatever I and others say, you will disbelieve it. That is why I said that it is time that you did some legwork yourself, and uncovered the facts. It is all too easy to sit back and let others do that so that you then pontificate on their findings. Unless you move from being reactive to proactive, you will find that no-one can be bothered to respond to your unconstructive comments.

Report this comment

John Martin

Friday, January 13, 2012
Are you really sure it’s been given democratic accountability Peter J? Really sure? 0.05% wanted incineration across the county in the 2008 survey, preferring recycling instead. As Gordon Brookes mentions, this was echoed by North Norfolk Council in 2007, and Norwich City Council have expressed for more than 4 years that they were against incineration anywhere in the county. It’s much longer than 4 years though isn’t it? £millions wasted trying to push through an unwanted incinerator in Costessey, then 4 years ago buying the land at Saddlebow that was only suitabe for an incinerator. What is it with incinerators Peter J? We know they make the contractors £ hundreds of millions profit, they are desperate to build one anywhere they can find a sucker, and they are happy to provide incentives wherever they can be helped along. Most people who have taken the time to research incinerators know they are not the answer to landfill, siting one on the extreme edge of a county is rather silly, PFI’s are no better now than when they almost brought the county to it’s knees over the hospital, even Osborne says they’re flawed, so why do you personally want this incinerator so much? And please, don’t insult us by trying to pretend you don’t.

Report this comment

Honest John

Friday, January 13, 2012
I said "20th century dictators" Fenscape, of which Trotsky was not one. Let's just agree to not compare the current situation with any historical antecedents and perhaps a reasonable debate can be had. So, I guess the point your were making is that a 63 strong (out of 84) Conservative Group should not simply be allowed to push through decisions? Well, as I mentioned previously, my understanding is that this decision has been in the pipeline for some 4 years now, so I would argue it's not being pushed through at all, but has at many levels been given democratic accountability.

Report this comment

Peter J

Friday, January 13, 2012
I said "20th century dictators" Fenscape, of which Trotsky was not one. Let's just agree to not compare the current situation with any historical antecedents and perhaps a reasonable debate can be had. So, I guess the point your were making is that a 63 strong (out of 84) Conservative Group should not simply be allowed to push through decisions? Well, as I mentioned previously, my understanding is that this decision has been in the pipeline for some 4 years now, so I would argue it's not being pushed through at all, but has at many levels been given democratic accountability.

Report this comment

Peter J

Friday, January 13, 2012
Breaking news:- Phil Hardy once 'allegedly' interested in green issues justifying his defection by saying he would be better able to acheive his green aims under the conservative banner, yeh right. Word is he is totally uninterested in the biggest environmental threat that Norfolk has ever faced and is not going to join in because people said cruel things when he defected. Ahh bless!

Report this comment

Canary Boy

Friday, January 13, 2012
Peter J, I find it ironic that, despite telling me to go read some books, you still haven't read my previous post properly. As for your remark about 20th century figures, didnt you start the ball rolling by mentioning Trotsky? I fear you are starting to blunder into the realms of trollism and as such, I will not feed you further.

Report this comment

Fenscape

Friday, January 13, 2012
NIMBYISM. North Norfolk Council issued a booklet to householders 2007.Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The introduction mentions “who would want to live near a toxic incinerator”. Last week we hear they rejected underground wind farm cables. Broadlands Cllr Ian Monsoon was quite happy to lumber West Norfolk with an incinerator. Now the news that the stack from the proposed biomass burner at Thetford will be a blot on the landscape. Both districts had the brass nerve to submit letters of support for the incinerator at Kings Lynn. I wonder at the planning stage, will Parish councils be asked to vote on these issues as they were concerning the proposed incinerator at Kings Lynn. If not why not.

Report this comment

Gordon Brookes

Friday, January 13, 2012
NIMBYISM. North Norfolk Council issued a booklet to householders 2007.Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. The introduction mentions “who would want to live near a toxic incinerator”. Last week we here they rejected underground wind farm cables. Broadlands Cllr Ian Monsoon was quite happy to lumber West Norfolk with an incinerator. Now the news that the stack from the proposed biomass burner at Thetford will be a blot on the landscape. Both districts had the brass nerve to submit letters of support for the incinerator at Kings Lynn. I wonder at the planning stage, will Parish councils be asked to vote on these issues as they were concerning the proposed incinerator at Kings Lynn. If not why not.

Report this comment

Gordon Brookes

Friday, January 13, 2012
Now everybody calm down we must remember that Peter J considers himself to be the most important person on this site, a god like figure! Let him waffle on and ignore him, he will go away if no one bothers with him or if he does not he will be really p..d off that his ramblings are not challenged.

Report this comment

Canary Boy

Friday, January 13, 2012
I don't need to invoke any kind of law to call someone who uses gas chambers to prove an argument callous Fenscape. Your argument is ridiculous - if using the barbarism of some 20th century dictators is the only way you can argue your point, I suggest you take up a new hobby, like perhaps reading a few history books to truly understand some of the issues you have referred to. And Honest John, I suspect someone else has already taken the rights for the law you're referring to, but nice try.

Report this comment

Peter J

Friday, January 13, 2012
A democracy means listening to the people, giving them a right to have a view on decisions that affects them. When 65.516 people said they did not want a waste incinerator. Their view should have been respected. Bill Borrett and Derrick Murphy are hell bent on taking away our rights and our liberty. Every councillor should be apalled by their ignorant stance against West Norfolk.

Report this comment

Jack

Thursday, January 12, 2012
Peter J, I'm afraid I'm going to have to invoke HJ’s Law here: "The amount of rubbish coming from the mouth of someone holding office, is directly proportional to the financial gain rewarded for it."

Report this comment

Honest John

Thursday, January 12, 2012
Peter J, I'm afraid I'm going to have to invoke HJ’s Law here: "The amount of rubbish coming from the mouth of someone holding office, is directly proportional to the financial gain rewarded for it."

Report this comment

Honest John

Thursday, January 12, 2012
Do residents of Kings Lynn & West Norfolk support the call for a five thousand pound "cap" on legal costs payable when challenges made in issues such as incinerators? See Aberdeen Press & Journal article of 11 Jan 2012 "Government moves to cap planning legal challenge costs" by Tim Pauling, which has this paragraph: "The proposals would apply in cases challenging decisions made by public authorities which impact on the environment, such as planning decisions on major infrastructure projects like windfarm developments, major roads and incinerators." Maybe the border with Scotland should be re-drawn?

Report this comment

Michael Ryan

Thursday, January 12, 2012
Peter J, I'm afraid I'm going to have to invoke HJ’s Law here: "The amount of rubbish coming from the mouth of someone holding office, is directly proportional to the financial gain rewarded for it."

Report this comment

Honest John

Thursday, January 12, 2012
Peter J, if you feel you need to invoke Godwins law in order to call me names in a bid for the moral high ground then go ahead, you've missed the core principle of my arguement, regardless of the way I've framed it.

Report this comment

Fenscape

Thursday, January 12, 2012
The phrase pots and kettles comes to mind maryjane, given that you are clearly emitting hot air by accusing me of doing the same. And John Martin, I'm not sure whether you're purposefully being obfuscatory, but I really don't understand how a complaint (has it been substantiated legally?) against the Leader proves anything at all.

Report this comment

Peter J

Thursday, January 12, 2012
Peter J. Diana Irving is not a West Norfolk Cllr, she represents Breckland, she was removed from a committee immediately after not towing the party line as a substitute during the March 22nd scrutiny committee meeting. Your choice of words I quote "(from West Norfolk I might add... I don't suppose this has anything to do with them trying to save their own necks)" show the contempt that outsiders have for those living in West Norfolk! I thought you were an unbiased educated man but obviously in recent weeks you have shown your true blue colours.

Report this comment

Joy, King's Lynn

Thursday, January 12, 2012
Well done Fenscape. John Fuller in South Norfolk is known to his Tory Group as Strong Leader (in an admiring way, terrifyingly enough). Even Kim Jong Il didn't dare go that far, being know as Dear Leader.

Report this comment

alecto

Thursday, January 12, 2012
PeterJ needs to get a job! His head is so full of hot air and he obviously lives on another planet.

Report this comment

maryjane

Thursday, January 12, 2012
Judge Nicol should look into the letters sent in support by District councillors who's responsibility solely lies with collecting waste, not its disposal. These letters sent were inconsequential, without mandate or base in reality and should be disregarded by any judge looking into this case. To have to use a whip in your own party means that there is discontent about an issue. Will we see another filibuster by errant cllr.s? Norfolk should boycott our county council and its work if this pollution charter is going ahead, they do not deserve to be called representatives anymore.

Report this comment

ingo wagenknecht

Thursday, January 12, 2012
Peter J, I think that it is time that you made some enquiries of your own. Could I suggest that you start with the formal complaint of bullying and intimidation made by Cllr Joe Mooney against Cllr Derrick Murphy in October 2010? Cllr Mooney, who is now a deputy Cabinet member, represents a South Norfolk division. As far as I know, he has never commented on the Saddlebow waste incinerator project.

Report this comment

John Martin

Thursday, January 12, 2012
Fenscape, I'm afraid I'm going to have to invoke Godwin's Law here. By using a reference to gas chambers you automatically ruin your own argument. Using this (or other dictators for that matter) to prove a point about local democracy is callous and ignorant. Perhaps we should ask the people of Syria whether they think the incinerator issue is in any way similar to their own. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the incinerator decision been going through the democratic process since 2007, with a huge array of public committees being used to discuss it? I hardly think this happens in the Middle East...

Report this comment

Peter J

Thursday, January 12, 2012
Sorry PeterJ but you can't bang on about democratic process and then give the LibDems a hard time for having an opposing view can you?? Nemesis is on the money with this one - if you had been in the public gallery last March when the incinerator was just waved through then you'd have a better idea about the prevailing attitude at County Hall. A majority in cabinet in this instance appears to have led to an abuse of governance - the fact that the Tories are in a majority shouldn't give them the right to arrogantly behave in the way they do. History tells us that people were ultimately sent to gas chambers because a ruling majority acted in such a way - a laugh, a joke, a wink and a signature on a piece of paper. And before you cry foul on my comment, let me ask you how, in this day and age, we're all still standing around with our hands in our pockets while people like Assad are still in power? Small things and all that.....

Report this comment

Fenscape

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
I still think it's a bit far fetched. You need look no further than the film currently at the top of the box office, which deals with how Lady Thatcher was forced out by her own party. When a Leader abuses their position, they are removed. Apart from the two or three Tory councillors who have spoken out (from West Norfolk I might add... I don't suppose this has anything to do with them trying to save their own necks) I hear see nothing in the press from any of the others. I think you're all seeing a giant conspiracy where in reality there is none. And as for this LibDem motion... well, what a waste of time. Do the LibDems actually do anything at County Hall other than throw a motion in moaning about the incinerator once every couple of months?

Report this comment

Peter J

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
It is an absolute scandal that if councillors speaks out against Derrick Murphy, it has been proved time and time again councillors lose their jobs. It is time for conservatives to join forces and bring down the dictator. Big thank you to Paul Morse and others who are standing against Derrick Murphy's tory wheelabrator chums.

Report this comment

Jack

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Here's link for what's not done in UK prior to incinerator decisions: http:test.cp.euro.who.intdocumente63686.pdf “Disease mapping & risk assessment for public health decision-making” Report on a WHO workshop, Rome, Italy, 2-4 October 1997

Report this comment

Michael Ryan

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
There is every point in Cllr Paul Morse’s motion. Mr Justice Nicol reached his decision solely on the evidence put before him. His role was not an inquisitorial role. An independent investigator would not have his hands tied in this way. Part of his role is to look for evidence as well as to receive it. There is every possibility that he or she might uncover much more. The bodies are buried somewhere.

Report this comment

John Martin

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Peter J, ice picks are not necessary. It is still “stick” and “carrot”, however, though perhaps not in the graphic way I suggested to test the moderator. If we start with “stick” a very strict set of rules governs the Conservative Group in County Hall. For instance, they oblige Group members to vote in accordance with decisions of the Group. Failure to comply can mean expulsion from the Group, and possibly also expulsion from the local Conservative constituency association. In short, it means the end of your political life in the Conservative ranks. It is no secret that two Group members are facing this now. To turn to “carrot”, some fifty roles in County Hall carry a special responsibility allowance payable in addition to the standard allowance of £9k. (On top of that, there is also the possibility of an appointment to the Norfolk Police Authority, which cab be quite lucrative.) In practice, the majority of these are in the gift of Cllr Derrick Murphy. This is why, for instance, on defecting to the Conservative Group Cllr Phil Hardy was able to keep his place on the Norfolk Police Authority. This system of patronage is used to make sure that Group members toe the line. They can be rewarded when a reward is necessary. Of course, there is also an element of “stick” because they can also be removed from the same role.

Report this comment

Nemesis

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Nemesis, first of all, congratulations on getting your last post past the moderator; perhaps they're on holiday. And second of all, exactly how powerful do you think the Leader of the Council is? I haven't read of many reports of councillors being found with an icepick in their head, a la Trotsky. He wouldn't be able to wield any power unless councillors wanted him to.

Report this comment

Peter J

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
The appeal by Veolia against the unanimous refusal of planning permission for an incinerator in Shrewsbury was upheld yesterday. Note what's written in section 89 of the decision document and bear in mind that the Planning Inspector was fully aware that the Health Protection Agency hadn't bothered to examine any health or mortality data around any existing incinerator and therefore unable to form any valid opinion of the health effects of incinerator emissions. http:www.pcs.planningportal.gov.ukpcsportalfscdavREADONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.3856248&NAME=Decision%20Letter.pdf

Report this comment

Michael Ryan

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
This Tory cabinet is trying to ride rough-shod over genuine democracy.They were appointed by a majority of councillors who had less than 50% of the votes at election time, thus denying a voice to over half the electors of Norfolk. To compound the issue, the cabinet has denied the opportunity of public debate to every councillor except themselves.

Report this comment

Geoff Hinchliffe

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Isn't it ironic? The judge finds that there is no evidence "that whipping had influenced Cabinet decisions". Yet the reason why Cllr Derrick Murphy can easily defeat these motions is because he subjects his sixty-two colleagues to the whip. The device of stick and carrot is heavily in use. Anyone who ignores the whip soon finds that the stick is rammed hard into his or her anal orifice followed smartly by the carrot.

Report this comment

Nemesis

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
the following are quotes from official government agency or ncc consultants. Mott MacDonald current Core Strategy Document, Page 53 section 5.2.7 Human Health: “There is growing evidence regarding the effects of pollutants from road traffic and industry on human health. Air pollution is a potential hazard to the population as a whole, but in particular to vulnerable groups including pregnant women, the elderly, those suffering from respiratory and coronary illnesses, children and workers with high occupational pollution exposure levels. HPA Impact on Health Emissions RCE-13: Page 7 section 17 “ The World Health Organisation (WHO) in its 2005 report on Air Pollution and Children’s Health Development, concluded that there was an association between air pollution and infant mortality that appeared to be mainly due to particulate air pollution. DEFRA Review of environmental & Health effects of Waste Management 2004 which is the report the HPA based its guidance on: Page 141 People with pre existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases may have their illness exacerbated by acute exposure to air pollutants such as SO2, NO2 and PM10 which occur in incinerator emissions. Children and the elderly are also particularly vulnerable to air pollution. Exposure via the food chain will also arise if locally grown or reared produce is important to the diet of local people. Groups such as local allotment owners and farmers may need particular consideration. Look up the documents this council know what they are doing to us as do the government.

Report this comment

Joy, King's Lynn

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
How ironic that Murphy should point people to the council's constitution - the very thing he and his cronies have ignored since day one. So which two Tories will step up and try to bring a motion of closure this time? Will it be Smith and Casimir again or will new fop Phil Hardy be extending his tongue over the threshold in an effort to prove his worth?

Report this comment

Fenscape

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Will Cllr Paul Morse again be the vicitim of a drive-by-shooting? I suggest that the Tories bear in mind that the conduct of the September meeting is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Local Government Ombudsman.

Report this comment

John Martin

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
I rather like the term "skyfill " Is there any Norfolk Conservative Councilor with even half a brain who thinks it is sensible to pump tons of some of the most toxic chemicals known to man over the atmosphere in Norfolk . Much of this is in the form of particulate contamination in the nanoparticle range which is capable of being absorbed directly into the blood stream via the lungs . No wonder the HPA have been asked to carry out a study into infant mortality around incinerators . At least the voters in Norfolk will be able to cleanse the county of the Conservatives at the next voting opportunity .

Report this comment

flower

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Dear Double Bill, stopping this monstrosity IS the best way to save money. The elderly and our children need clean, fresh air. How valuable is that? Pumping over 500 tons of waste into the atmosphere over King's Lynn every day for 25 years is not the way to do it. There are better and cheaper alternatives. Don't replace landfill with skyfill... and don't give up!

Report this comment

Barking

Wednesday, January 11, 2012
its going to come whether we like it or not please do not spend more valuable money on this our elderly and children need it

Report this comment

Double Bill

Wednesday, January 11, 2012