Nuclear decision: Councillor quits senior role, minister hints at police probe into 'intimidation'
Published at 13:49, Thursday, 07 February 2013
A senior Cumbria county councillor has resigned from its executive following a decision not to search for locations for a nuclear repository.
Have your say
The inquiry into this decision is extremely dodgy Mr Reed and his cohorts lost the vote and seem determined to carry on until they get their way. The statement that the majority of Copelands people want the nuclear dump ignores the fact that the majority of Cumbrians do not want the dump, if it was put to all the people in Cumbrian to vote on then and only then would it be a fair vote, would Mr Reed then accept the outcome, as for it affecting a new nuclear power station build then again do the majority of Cumbrian want this given the safety record of the present sellafield set up.
Posted by Paul Irving on
18 February 2013 at 18:47
What most amazes me is just how much difficulty the supporters of building a nuclear waste dump in Cumbria have experienced in being able to hear the size and scale of the NO. Eddie Martins speech to CCC and his letter to Ed Davey are very balanced. Read them, then read them again. There is no "anti nuclear"vote voting "no" to everything. The case for re-exploring the already excluded fractured geology around Sellafield was always weak. There was no evidence ever presented of a willing community. What has now become apparent is that some individuals would do absolutely anything to get this dump, including submitting new laws to overturn democratic process. This really does not sound like a safe, scientifically based and objective process.
Posted by cumbrian on
14 February 2013 at 17:52
Surely as majority of the waste has been moved to Sellafield for long term storage already it makes sense to have the geological facility in Cumbria or a surrounding county. The vote that has dennied it is very short sighted as the waaste will have to be transferreed to the final area when agreed of the geolical facility and in moving the waste you will create far greater hazard and a massive increase in possiblity of an accident. This in turn could create far bigger problems in Cumbria than being known as a nuclear store.
Posted by Anon on
14 February 2013 at 12:48
I was amazed by the comment made by one of the anti-nuclear protesters who claimed a Yes vote would involve masses of highly toxic nuclear waste being imported into Cumbria. Obviously that person has no idea what happens at Sellafield, where that mass of highly toxic waste is already being stored. So the problem is already here, NOW!!! So voting no has simply left that massive pile of very toxic rubbish sitting above ground at Sellafield. It can't stay as it is for ever, it must be dealt with, and the sooner the better. The anti-nuclear lobby just vote no against everything that has the word nuclear attached to it. They even complain when BNFL sends part of that waste back to Japan where it came from. They don't want it here, and they don't want it sent back where it came from. What do they want? How do they propose this very real problem is resolved?
Posted by Ian on
14 February 2013 at 00:03
Well said Stonewaller & Rob, the bid is dead because people do not want this in Cumbria, what is driving Mr Reed to take a path away from democracy and want to be the mouth piece for the nuclear industry, what has he to gain ? At least Mr Knowles realises his views are not the same as the people he represents and has done the right thing, perhaps Jamie should take a leaf out of his book .
This waste is not Cumbrian, it belongs to the british government and is there problem, just because they do not want it down south don't let them dump it in Cumbria. The nuclear industry needs cleaning up and never be resurected, you don't play with something you only manage and cannot control. One good thing that might come out of this is no new build and no pylons across Cumbria.Time to move on, diversify from the nuclear industry because you do not put all your eggs in one basket and look at bringing new industry to the area, create jobs that pay.
Posted by Roy on
13 February 2013 at 19:47
57 out of 60 parishes voted no to going forward to the next stage.However Allerdale councillers along with Jamie Reed has chosen to iignore this FACT in favour of a phone poll. Do they not realize how foolish they look To subvert over 200 years of democratic process like this in an attempt to satisfy the Leviathanth nuclear lobby ?Speaking of which Sandip Verma(Sorry i stopped doing Panto when i was 12)found a particular email chilling Was it the bit that suggested politicians and councilors should be made accountable for they're actions (God forbid )or the word poo? Surely this is a rather desperate attempt to discredit supporters of the no vote and to muddy the waters ahead of Jamie Reed's trip to London In his attempt to resurrect his failed bid.One more thing if i may,Eddie Martin's statement is pretty increadable , If Youv'e not read it i would implore you to do so..
Posted by Stonewaller on
11 February 2013 at 10:41
Mr Reed, this is not your problem, it is the UK Governnment's problem, and like it or not, the party you represent is not in government. You sadly Mr Reed are a mere constituency MP in opposition, elected to represent all the people in your constituency, fairly and equally. You were not elected UK nuclear supremo, you were not elected Governor of West Cumbria, you were NOT elected to speak on behalf of the nuclear industry. If you put one tenth of the energy in to the real local issues Copeland faces asisde from cosying up to NMP, then towns like Whitehaven and Cleator would not be in the sad state they find themselves in now - and thats 50 yrs on from the benefits of nuclear would you believe it. Please Mr Reed do the job you were elected to do and not the one you want to do.
Posted by rob on
10 February 2013 at 13:54
Totally agree with M Hunter. Are you more likely to have the '**** scared out of you' by being called 'irrational' (one of the grounds for judicial review, by the way) or the prospect of 23 square miles of hot radioactive waste buried in unstable geology? Eddie Martin & Co were right to nip this in the bud. Moving to Stage 4 would have unleashed a runaway train and if J Reed & Co's behaviour since the vote is anything to go by, No is never going to be an option at any future stage of the process. As for generous community benefits, over 6 billion a year is spent on Sellafield while half the area's children are still living in poverty. What makes you think these children will be better off in the future?
Posted by SolwayMoss on
9 February 2013 at 10:19
Intimidation is not new to local politics. Go to the Whitehaven News website and do a search on "Labour Council intimidation".This comes back with an interesting series of reports from September 2009. It seems that a Labour Copeland Councillor resigned the Labour Whip due to intimidation by Labour Council members. He states that "It was collective intimidation by the Labour Group". He also goes on to state that "You are being led by lemmings".Who was leader of the Labour Council ? You guessed, Elaine Woodburn.Tim Knowles also gets mentioned in dispatches. An officer made a formal complaint against Labour councillor Tim Knowles for "the alleged aggressive manner of his behaviour towards him".The councillor who resigned also stated that "people's views are being ignored by political leadership". Ring any bells ?Its not a pretty picture but people can draw their own conclusions as to how this relates to what is happening in 2013. But it does bring to mind the old saying that "a leopard doesn't change its spots".Personally I would welcome an investigation into "dirty tricks" during the MRWS process. But lets not cherry pick the "dirty tricks" to be investigated. All "dirty tricks" should be investigated.And now Copeland councillors are wanting to renege on a signed agreement.
Posted by Peter on
8 February 2013 at 21:44
Jamie Reed's performance on the Whitehaven News webchat on 8th February was once again very poor. He doesn't seem to understand the harm he is doing to the reputation of the nuclear industry.
He stated that Copeland will move forward outside of MRWS. Yet he knows that this means reneging on an agreement signed-up to by Copeland Borough Council, Allerdale Borough Council, Cumbria County Council and the Government.How can people who renege on an agreement be trusted ?Surely he can't think that renaming MRWS makes it a different process ?How would the Sellafield workforce feel if management reneged on a signed agreement ?When Jamie Reed was asked this specific question on the signed agreement "why did Copeland and Allerdale then sign an agreement if they then wouldn't be happy with the outcome ?" It interestingly takes him 7 minutes before he comes back with this "ask them, but they have always known - correctly - that they are in a far stronger position than CCC could ever be in".Could somebody please explain to me what on earth this means ?I couldn't bear to inflict any more suffering on people so suffice to say that the rest of the webchat is also desparate stuff.Jamie Reed continues to blame Cumbria CC for the "no" vote. However, his presentation of the issues has been very weak. Well that's not quite true. It was a close shave but in the end he did manage to convince the people that already strongly supported a dump that it was a good idea.
Posted by Looking For Excuses on
8 February 2013 at 18:46