Take the advice of Greg Clark, ex-Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government
"Those who are prepared to organise to be more effective and more efficient should be able to reap substantially the rewards of that boldness ...
Take power now. Don’t let yourself, any longer, be ruled by someone else"
Join the ever growing number of households who have signed up to the Wrongmove campaign!
Tell Cuadrilla and the Government that your house is "Not for Shale"
They get Younger all the time
No not policemen – edits to Wikipedia.
There is a Wikipedia article on “Hydraulic fracking in the United Kingdom” which, until quite recently has served as a vehicle for our old friend, Ken Wilkinson, to push his views on fracking, and give himself something to quote from when his arguments are called into question. There’s a related article that Ken edits occasionally, called “Shale gas in the United Kingdom” that has more or less managed to avoid the bias seen in Ken’s personal fracking info page; that is, until now.
We were interested to see that a revision had been added relating to the seismic activity at Preese Hall
when it triggered two seismic events of magnitudes (ML) 1.5 and 2.3, neither of which were reported to be felt at the surface until the British Geological Survey announced their geophyscial (sic) detection.{{cite journal|last1=Younger|first1=Paul|title=How can we be sure fracking will not pollute aquifers? Lessons from a major longwall coal mining analogue (Selby, Yorkshire, UK).|journal=Earth and Environmental Science Transactions|date=2016|volume=106|pages=89–113|url=http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/115618/}}
This change, which cites Professor Paul Younger as supporting evidence, claims that nobody said they felt the earthquake until it was reported later by the BGS. It was re-edited out with references to evidence which clearly contradicts the statement.
it seemed odd that a respected academic should be cited as evidence for a statement which flies in the face of the recorded facts, so we followed the trail and found that Prof Younger did indeed make a statement along these lines
However, it is clear that the evidence does not support this statement which seeks to undermine the credibility of those who felt the seismicity. The Sun of April 1st 2011 reported events in a way which clearly give the lie to Prof Younger’s claims
The BGS reported that they used 23 separate reports to help gauge the magnitude of the tremors
Now, we already pay close attention to Professor Younger because of his role in trying to discredit Prof David Smythe.
So, with that in mind, this raises 2 questions.
Firstly why would Professor Younger appear to ignore the reported facts and concoct a story that discredits the accounts of those who felt the seismic activity – this doesn’t seem like rigorous academic discipline to us.
Secondly why was a reference to this inaccurate confabulation added (apparently from an Edinburgh University IP address) to this Wikipedia article.
Curious isn’t it?
If Professor Younger can enlighten us he can always use the “contact us” button in the left hand side bar, and we’ll happily publish any response he provides.
Whither (or should that be withered) democracy?
As we wait to find out what decision the Planning Inspector recommended to determine Cuadrilla’s appeal on the Preston New Road and Roseacre Wood applications, and how it will be supported, or otherwise, by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Sajid Javid, it has been interesting to listen to the pronouncements made on the subject of local democracy and the determination of planning applications by two of his colleagues this week.
On “Any Questions” on Radio 4 on 23rd September we heard Brandon Lewis MP, ex Planning Minister and now Policing Minister, (nice Hi-Vis jacket and helmet by the way Brandon), talking about fracking in Ryedale, say [about 28 minutes in]
In terms of the decision here locally, it is a decision made by locally elected councillors, who are locally democratically accountable, as part of the planning process…well as I say I appreciate that my answer may not be popular but the reality is those councillors have to ..will have had to have made a decision.. I haven’t seen the papers from .. that case today but those councillors, when they look at a planning application will have to look at all the evidence put in front of them and make a decision about what they think is right, as locally elected councillors for their area and I think it is absolutely right that these decisions are made by local people through their local authority. That is how our democratic system works. [Boos from the audience]
Just in case anyone thinks he got carried away and didn’t mean it he re-iterated his position on Twitter later the same day:
Later the same week we saw Oliver Letwin, the MP dubbed “Captain I-Haven’t-the-Slightest-Idea” by Guardian Columnist Marina Hyde, waffling away on The Daily Politics about 48 minutes in.
He airily stated, speaking specifically about fracking, that
We have given local populations the right, which I think they should have, to decide whether they want it done in their own place.
which will come as news to anyone in Lancashire who is awaiting, with bated breath, a decision from the top levels of national government on whether the local democratic decision taken by Lancashire County Council will in fact be overturned by central government diktat.
Of course if these two senior politicians are treading the party line then we can all look forward to Mr Javid endorsing the decision taken by Lancashire County Council.
If, however, Mr Javid takes a less democratic view of the affair and decides to impose fracking on the local population is spite of the democratic decision “made by local people through their local authority” then Brandon Lewis may find himself busy in his new job as Minister of State for Policing and the Fire Services.
When democracy breaks down and local people discover that not only are they being ignored but normal legitimate channels are denied to them then protest and civil disobedience starts to look reasonable, even to those who previously had little or no political engagement, as it is the only way to make your voice heard.
I, for one, would regard it as terribly sad if such a situation was precipitated because the government’s “dash for gas” is blinding it to the fact that fracking has no social licence, but it is a rather obvious potential outcome if people learn the government is picking and choosing what it wants from the democratic process.
Next week may well be the start of some very “interesting times” in Lancashire.
Let’s hope Mr Javid realises thatDemocracy isn’t a pick and mix
Update – We are delighted that Backing Fracking (loving the new website by the way) pays such attention to whatever we post.
The BF Facebook page now contains a lengthy attempt at rebutting this article, but totally ignores the point being made which is the disconnect between what is said by these Conservative politicians and what is done, and the way in which the planning system is skewed towards allowing applicants and the government to get the result they want as long as they keep going higher up the chain.
If you are in any doubt about the influence exerted by central government on planning issues I suggest you read this excellent article on Counterbalance.
It seems that whoever was having that particular rant saw my closing paragraphs as ” thinly veiled threats about civil disobedience and direct action“. I’m sorry that he or she sees civil disobedience as a threat – it is normally considered a reasonable and proportionate method of protest against a policy or act which is genuinely believed to be unreasonable in itself.
Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. Of course our friend BackingFracking would probably have condemned Gandhi (who used civil disobedience as a very effective means of protest) if he’d opposed fracking instead of the Indian government of his day. And I wonder if he knows his friend Ken Wilkinson doesn’t seem to be averse to a bit of civil disobedience and trespass?
I am a bit mystified as to why he seems to be equating “protest” with “direct action” – that is going a bit far even for our rabid fracking friends.
They must be worried!
And as a final tribute we are delighted to see that they have picked up on my “pic and mix ” image and used the same picture. Not that they are lazy or unoriginal or anything like that …
If the frackers can’t keep to simple rules …
Today’s Times front page carries an article about a draft ruling made by the ASA on 5 complaints made about a Friends of the Earth Leaflet by fracktastic tag team of The Reverend Roberts and the now discredited Ken Wilkinson.
Interestingly according to ASA procedures, all draft rulings must remain confidential until both parties have been given the time to respond and the ASA council has ruled, so the timing of this revelation (with the Inquiry appeal result imminent) is interesting to say the least.
The Times article contains certain obvious inaccuracies – it suggests that the ASA draft “upholds the complaints against FoE on all four grounds” when the complaint which can be seen on the Rev Roberts vanity blog clearly has 5 separate complaints. The complaints themselves do not match with the claims in Times article (there is, for example, no reference to house prices in the complaint document reproduced on the Rev Roberts’ web site, yet Ben Webster of the Times clearly states that Foe failed to substantiate claims about house prices plummeting) and there is no reference in the article to the involvement of Mr Wilkinson – presumably because his reputation is now in tatters following his vexatious attempts to ruin Mike Hill’s career.
I can’t comment here on the draft ruling as none of us (except for the protagonists) have (or should have) seen it. Here’s the nub though – the ASA has a clear procedure.
A complaint is made. The advertiser is alerted and is invited to respond. If a ruling is considered then a draft ruling is issued to both sides showing the arguments that have been made. Both side then have the opportunity to review this evidence and respond again before, if appropriate, the case goes to the ASA council for review and a ruling may then be made.
In spite of numerous attempts the fracktastic tag team have so far failed to get the ASA to make a single ruling on their multiple complaints against anti-fracking publications, and this one may now have to go the same way. The ASA are very clear about their procedure. Here is what they wrote to me following the draft ruling on my own complaint about Cuadrilla which was finally ruled on in 2013.
The report must stay confidential until Council has adjudicated; at the moment it is not the ASA’s decision on the brochure. We expect both sides in an investigation to keep the report confidential until the publication date, which will be given to you in our closing letter once Council has made their decision. We take a dim view of leaked rulings and if the material is made public in any way at this stage, then we are liking (sic) to withdraw the investigation without any decision by Council or published report.
It is hard to imagine that, as serial complainers to the ASA, the Rev Roberts and Mr Wilkinson were not aware of the requirement to keep this draft ruling confidential, so why would they bounce the ASA into the position of having to “withdraw the investigation without any decision by Council or published report“?
It could of course be that somebody within the ASA, embarrassed by their recent debacle with Greenpeace has fed this information to the Environment Editor of the Times, who has now done his civic duty by publishing it.
More realistically, the Times, who along with sister rag the Sun, are increasingly just the mouthpiece for Mr Murdoch’s interests (which include fracking), agreed to publish a draft report leaked to them by somebody who had seen a copy in order that it could have some impact before the decision on the Cuadrilla / LCC appeal is taken in the next two weeks.
If this is the case it’s rather troubling – it would seem to suggest that the pro-frackers are incapable of keeping to even the most simple guidelines and procedures of the ASA, so what hope do we have of them being able or willing to comply with the rather more complex ones that the Environment Agency will be trying to get them to take notice of?
Their record doesn’t look great so far does it? Here’s a list of alleged breaches by just one company – Cuadrilla.
So, it remains to be seen whether the ASA will allow this flagrant breach of their procedures, or whether they will now kick this vexatious complaint into the long grass, where it deserves to remain. The ASA’s credibility has already taken a bit of a bashing as regards NGOs with their climb down over the Greenpeace energy price ruling. Being seen to kow-tow to vested interests by allowing the fracking industry and the press to set up a kangaroo court based on its draft rulings isn’t going to do much to improve matters.
Backing Fracking joins the retreat from debate
It is interesting that the fracking industry and its supporters like to pretend that they want to engage with people and have a proper debate about the issues. Sadly it seems that that is very seldom the case.
We know all about the recent Lorraine and Ken debate debacle, with its “will they?/won’t they?” excitement, but how many knew that Lorraine’s Facebook group “Friends of Ryedale Gas Extraction” (FORGE) routinely blocks anyone likely to express any opinion critical of fracking. In my own case, they seem to have been so worried that that happened before I posted anything!
The Backing Fracking Facebook page at least allowed opposing views to be posted. I suspect that it was only because they realised that they would have no credibility if they started blocking people (although the admins did get a bit confused and claimed to have blocked me when I stopped posting there for a few months)
However it seems that the discussions about Lorraine and Ken got them a bit lathered up. They posted a link to my article here and as you can see Facebook still indicates that there were 2 responses, but they’ve been hidden by Backing Fracking, presumably as a result of blocking both “Local Farmer” and I from posting because they really didn’t want to hear what we had to say.
The most recent post had whichever PR dimwit was on duty this morning claiming that the Dakota Oil pipeline could carry gas and thus reduce flaring
Local Farmer pointed out gently that it was unlikely that an oil pipeline would be able to carry gas and I followed his post up with a quote making it clear that the pipeline was indeed an oil pipeline and not a gas one.
This seems to have finally spoiled Backing Fracking’s appetite for open debate as he has now blocked both of us from posting and all of our ever so thoughtful contributions to his page have disappeared. You can imagine how hurt we both feel.
It does seem like a terrible shame that the pro-frackers’ main Facebook pages won’t allow themselves to be honest and open groups where opinions were traded. Instead they are now just pro-frackers talking to themselves. They are of course entitled to do this but we thought they claimed to be able to present arguments that trumped ours. We thought they actually believed in their own arguments. Clearly they have now given up on that aspiration and now intend to just pump out one way propaganda.
I am sure all four of the other contributors on Backing Fracking will enjoy agreeing with themselves for a while but it might all get terribly boring now – just like that FORGE page in fact!
Do Ken Wilkinson and Lorraine Allanson have no shame?
In our last post we raised the issue of the courage and dignity that was manifestly lacking in the decision made by Lorraine Allanson and Ken Wilkinson to renege on a promise to take part in a debate on fracking in Harrogate.
Ken Wilkinson
There is no doubt about the reason they gave (although we believe it has more to do with Ken Wilkinson having been exposed as a vindictive if ineffectual serial complainer who tried to ruin an anti-fracking engineer’s career. )
It was published on the Friends of Ryedale Gas Facebook page yesterday and stated :
On the 6th of October Ken Wilkinson and Lorraine Allanson were booked to address the Harrogate Debate group. Unfortunately they both decided to cancel. They have released this statement (the spelling and grammar errors are left as is) :
” We were initially booked to be involved in the debate at Harrogate and the organisers led us to believe it would be a genuine debate about fracking in front of their core supporters which we would have expected to have open minds.
Once Ian R Crane was brought in to oppose us we were disapointed and surprised that no one more credible could be found. The open selling of the tickets would also ensure that the audience would no longer be open minded.
We do not wish to share a stage with someone with such ‘perverse views’ about 9/11 out of respect for those who died.
We wanted a ‘real debate’, but all they could put up was a 9/11 denier who thought a secrect world government was manipulating North Yorks local council into the genocide of 90% of Yorkshires population. This sadly shows what extremists they really are and we are extremely disappointed with Friends of the Earth for being willing to share the stage with him.
Apart from being rather ludicrous as a rationale for wimping out, it makes no sense whatsoever given that once their cowardice was exposed in public they immediately changed their minds, realising what a PR fail their behaviour was.
The debate is now back on.
So how did they explain their spectacular volte-face? Well if the organisers are to be believed it was because they were scared for their own safety – presumably because of the nasty anti-frackers.
Here is what the debate website says today:
Harrogate Debate is pleased to confirm that the debate on fracking on 6 October 2016 at 7pm in the Wesley Chapel is now back on. Some of the speakers had concerns about security. These concerns have been alleviated. Harrogate Debate is liaising with the police who will be present at the debate.
It would seem that they are saying that the organisers are suggesting that Lorraine and Ken are so scared of Ian Crane that they felt they needed police protection. Here’s a thing though Ken and Lorraine. No policeman in the world could safeguard your arguments, or protect you from making fools of yourself. An open audience won’t cheer Lorraine for standing up and mouthing PR platitudes like she can expect to happen at the upcoming shale gas conference, and an open audience won’t blithely accept Ken’s protestations that the scientific debate on fracking is over and that all of the regulations needed are in place.
However, the implication being presented by the organisers that they pulled out because they had fears for their own safety is quite demeaning – to them. I have seen police attending many many events, where their presence was clearly a massive overkill – most notably the inquiry at BFC. Although I have personally witnessed police observing and recording peaceful and happy anti-fracking gatherings and meetings I have never ever seen any need for them to do so. The only conflicts I am aware of have happened at on-site protests where it would appear tensions have been running high on both sides. To suggest that a debate just down the road from Betty’s tea rooms requires police to protect people’s security is as nutty as Lorraine and Ken put together.
They really do need to do better – it will surely be a horrible feeling for both of them to have to stand up in front of a room full of people who already know they are cowardly dissemblers before they even start talking.
Even one of their own supporters claimed after they initially fled from the debate that :
Ken W is too smart to be caught in a no-win “debate” like that
which rather ignored the fact that he clearly wasn’t too smart, as he was already involved , and it would appear he isn’t too smart as he is still caught in it.
I do agree that it will be a “no-win debate” for them. I really can’t wait to hear the result.
Post Script: Writing on the FORGEY face book page Ken seems oblivious to the fact that we all saw the first reason given for chickening out of the debate and posted this:
Of course in answer to his second question, I wonder if he has considered that “the anti lot” know how little respect and credibility he and Lorraine have, and have deployed their resources accordingly.
If it were my debate I wouldn’t have arranged this conspiracy theorist upon conspiracy theorist death match (Crane v Wilkinson).
I would have put Mike Hill up against Ineos or Cuadrilla (although we all know of course that the fracking companies would never agree to that, so we get left with this amusing little sideshow.)
We’ve just found two more things the frackers can’t buy – Courage and Dignity!
Run Kenny Run
Following on from our last post about the lack of morality and integrity displayed by Ken Wilkinson and his (so far) anonymous accomplice in trying to wreck Mike Hill’s career, we are genuinely surprised to be able to bring you two more examples of things the pro-frackers don’t appear to have, and certainly can’t procure by flashing the cash – courage and dignity.
It seems that a debate was organised in Harrogate for 6th October with the subject being “This House Calls for an Immediate End to Fracking in the UK”
This is how the event was described on Eventbrite
The proposing speaker for this event is John Plummer. John represents Frack Free Harrogate District, one of many similar groups across the region. He retired in 2005 after a career in education and has campaigned on climate change and environmental issues for a long time. He is motivated by concerns for his grandchildren’s futures and by his longstanding enthusiasms for history and the great outdoors.
Opposing is Ken Wilkinson. Ken graduated in Engineering from Manchester University in 1974, and worked for Schlumberger Oilfield services as a field engineer for 2 years in the Far East. He then worked for Halliburton (wireline) for 10 years, becoming District Engineer, the most senior technical level, dealing with oil company clients, mainly in Libya and Kuwait. He had to understand how wells worked to do his job. He then became a Physics teacher for over 20 years, and retired 3 years ago. He is completely independent, both financially, and in his views. He is not an expert, but knows people who are!
The seconders are Lorraine Allanson and Ian Crane. Lorraine is a business woman, a former farmer who now owns a complex of accommodation serving the tourist and business markets. Lorraine founded ‘Friends of Ryedale Gas Exploration’ who are in support of the gas industry and to try and add balance to the debate on shale gas.
Ian R Crane spent 19 years in the international Oilfeld Services industry, living and working in Paris, Dubai and Houston, Texas. Having witnessed firsthand the impact of the Unconventional Gas Industry in the USA & Australia, Ian established his FRACKING AWARENESS CAMPAIGN immediately after the UK Government lifted the moratorium on Fracking in December 2012. Since Autumn 2013, Ian has produced over 90 episodes of FRACKING NIGHTMARE, all of which are freely available on YouTube. In Autumn 2014, Ian returned to the gasfields of Southern Queensland and in April 2015 released a documentary titled, ‘Voices from the Gasfields’ (also freely available on YouTube).
So far so uncontroversial – We have a local resident of Harrogate proposing the motion with well known (but now discredited) fracking supporter from Bristol, Ken Wilkinson opposing. Seconding were B&B owner and mouthpiece for the fracking PR industry, Lorraine Allanson and anti-fracker and conspiracy theorist Ian Crane. Now I don’t know who John Plummer is, but I’m sure he’s a perfectly reasonable chap – I have after all no reason to believe otherwise. As for the other 3 – well I was looking forward to watching the outcome. Ian isn’t to everyone’s taste – his theories about life in general seem “interesting” to many of us, but on fracking he is pretty sharp because he has experience in oil and gas. Lorraine and Ken are featherweights in comparison when it comes to arguing the case for and against fracking. It promised to be a challenging and highly entertaining evening, especially in the light of recent revelations about the lengths that Ken Wilkinson has gone to in trying (but failing abjectly) to ruin local engineer, Mike Hill’s, career.
But what is this? Lorraine and Ken have pulled out of the event. Were they simultaneously terribly ill I hear you ask? Why no! Here is what they wrote on the FORGE facebook page
On the 6th of October Ken Wilkinson and Lorraine Allanson were booked to address the Harrogate Debate group. Unfortunately they both decided to cancel. They have released this statement:
” We were initially booked to be involved in the debate at Harrogate and the organisers led us to believe it would be a genuine debate about fracking in front of their core supporters which we would have expected to have open minds.
Once Ian R Crane was brought in to oppose us we were disapointed (sic) and surprised that no one more credible could be found. The open selling of the tickets would also ensure that the audience would no longer be open minded.
We do not wish to share a stage with someone with such ‘perverse views’ about 9/11 out of respect for those who died.
We wanted a ‘real debate’, but all they could put up was a 9/11 denier who thought a secrect (sic) world government was manipulating North Yorks local council into the genocide of 90% of Yorkshires (sic) population. This sadly shows what extremists they really are and we are extremely disappointed with Friends of the Earth for being willing to share the stage with him.
So it seems that Ken and Lorraine are scared to attend a debate where a local resident is the proposer and Ian Crane is just the seconder. Let’s be clear here – The biggest arguments in a debate will be taken by the proposing speakers on either side, leaving smaller arguments for second speakers that cannot be as easily predicted. The job of the seconder is just to rebut the opposing argument and support the proposing speaker on his own side. I think if Ian Crane is prepared to share a stage with somebody vindictive enough to try to ruin somebody’ s career for no good reason (every one of Ken’s allegations about Mike Hill to the IET was dismissed without reservation), then Ken Wilkinson should really have had the grace to extend him the same courtesy. To be honest their claim to be backing out of the debate out of respect for those who died in 9/11 is the most disrespectful thing towards the victims of that atrocity that I have ever read. The idea that, after this week, Ken Wilkinson feels he has the right to claim any moral high ground is frankly laughable.
They also seem to have got into a blue funk about the prospect of facing an audience able to buy tickets on the open market. Yes really. We particularly like the claim “the open selling of the tickets would also ensure that the audience would no longer be open minded.” because it tells us so much about how their minds work. It is interesting to note that the event was sold out 3 weeks in advance.
sold-out
Both Ken and Lorraine should be ashamed of themselves. But, do you know, I imagine they already are ashamed of themselves. They really have let themselves and the fracking industry down here.
Many of us have strong opinions on this issue, and many of us have had the courage to stand up in public and voice those opinions and are prepared to have them questioned. Over 100 people did just that at the public inquiry at Blackpool Football Club in February. Some of us have spoken at public meetings. None of the people I know have run away from a debate they have agreed to take part in days after the details were published, claiming it was somehow beneath them and disrespected the victims of a terrorist attack.
It seems to me that a far more likely explanation for this is that they worked out that it was very likely that Ken Wilkinson would be hugely embarrassed by having his part in his abortive attempt to ruin Mike Hill’s livelihood (by levelling spurious complaints against him with his professional body, the IET) brought up in the debate and in questions from the audience, and that he simply couldn’t face the humiliation that that would entail. Rather than backing out on his own, the terrible twosome cooked up the world’s least likely explanation for their failure to show up between them.
Ken is very brave when he send in anonymous complaints about individuals and groups. It seems he is less so when it comes to standing up and displaying the courage of his own convictions. As Goethe said “Der Feige droht nur, wo er sicher ist.” – “the coward only threatens when he is safe”.
To be honest we were surprised by Lorraine Allanson backing out as well – we genuinely thought that, being a Yorkshire lass, she was made of sterner stuff. However, I suppose it’s not hard to see why even she might be wary of taking to the stage to second somebody as flaky as Ken Wilkinson.
So, folks, whenever the pro-frackers tell you that they want to have a debate with you and discuss the issues, just remember that when they get the opportunity they simply don’t have the courage and that they will lose the last scrap of their dignity to make any excuses, even the most mealy mouthed and incredible ones, for having run away.
[Post Script:
So did Ian Crane’s involvement and the idea that tickets would be openly available really come as a shock to Ken and Lorraine? Here is what Ian Crane wrote on the FORGE Facebook page on Sunday 18th September :
We have contacted the event organisers for their take on these two issues and will update if and when we get a response.]
[PPS – We have now heard that Ian Crane maintains that he has been on the Harrogate bill right from the outset having been first contacted some 6 weeks ago with a request to participate. The wording of the motion was agreed about three weeks ago and the Harrogate Debating Society website first promoted with the event about two weeks ago. On the first iteration of the Harrogate Debating Society event, Mr Crane maintains that he was mentioned by name but without the biography, which was added just before Mr Wilkinson and Ms Allanson gave backword.]
[PPS – (21:45 Sunday 18th) We have just received an email from the organisers in response to our query saying simply “Thanks for your email. The debate is back on. See you there. ”
We look forward to finding out more.]
[PPPS – (22:18 Sunday 18th) We have now had it confirmed by the organisers that Ken and Lorraine have now reversed their decision and the debate is back on as originally planned]
Morality and Integrity – Two things the Pro-Frackers can’t buy!
Mike Hill
Yesterday we were delighted to learn that, after a thorough 18 month investigation, Mike Hill was totally exonerated by the The Institution of Engineering and Technology with regard to 57 allegations that had been levelled against him. There were in fact two separate complaints brought against Mr Hill. The first claiming that he had brought the engineering profession into disrepute by “overstating his professional competence” and using the IET to enhance his reputation in a way which was damaging to his fellow members, and the second claiming that he used his MIET status to “present false data to the public“.
Whilst, in a bizarrely Kafkaesque twist, the IET did not allow Mr Hill to know the identity of his accusers, the redaction of the second complaint omitted to remove the phrase “I am a graduate engineer with 12 years experience in the oil business” which gives us rather a big clue as to the identity of at least one of the complainants. I believe Mr Hill has a pretty good idea who the other one is as well.
Who could this graduate engineer be? Step forward Ken Wilkinson – AKA “KW”, KennyWPara”, “NimbyMagnet1” and several other IDs on newspaper comments pages throughout the land. Here is how Ken describes himself in an article trying to discredit yet another better informed person than himself:
Just in case you remain in any doubt here is what he was goaded into admitting on Facebook earlier this year
So there can be no doubt that our engineer who maliciously and untruthfully maligned Mr Hill, specifically to get him “removed from the IET“, was Mr Kenneth Wilkinson, a rather sad and obsessive ex Physics teacher who lives miles away from the areas targetted for fracking in Bristol.
It would be inappropriate to give more oxygen to the fatuous claims made by Mr Wilkinson and his anonymous co-complainant, but suffice it to say they levelled 57 allegations calling into question Mr Hill’s statements on potential health impacts, the risks of irreparable damage to the environment, the inadequacy of existing onshore regulations, the inadequacy of provisions for monitoring, and severe repercussions for the quality of life of people living in fracking zones.
All of the allegations were considered in depth over an 18 month period by senior members of the IET. It is safe to assume that these people were all rather better qualified to assess the accuracy and veracity of Mr Hill’s various statements, and his level of integrity, than the malicious malcontents who vexatiously attempted to ruin Mr Hill’s reputation and destroy his livelihood. After a hearing at the end of a full enquiry it took them just moments to completely exonerate Mr Hill on all counts.
Interestingly a lot of the allegations centred around what the complainants suggested were inaccuracies and misleading statements in the Medact Report. Had the IET believed these statements were in any way wrong or mendacious then it is inconceivable that Mr Hill would not have been censured for bringing the IET into disrepute. It is reasonable to infer therefore that the IET has concluded that Mr Hill’s statements on, and involvement with, the Medact report were totally appropriate from a engineering/scientific point of view. Whilst it might be a stretch to say that the IET endorses the Medact Report it is indubitable that they endorse the fact that Mr Hill has the right, based on his qualifications, experience and research, to make the statements that he did in public and that they were fair and reasonable statements.
So here we have it – Mike Hill and his family have been through yet another bruising battle (many of you will remember the character assassination Mike suffered during his election campaign last year – Mr Wilkinson was heavily involved in that too!).
He was put through this because he had the integrity and vision to stand up and make his beliefs known to protect his family and those who live in the same area as he does. For this he should be applauded, and at very least he can now reasonably claim that his position on fracking has been deemed to be reasonable in engineering terms by his own professional body – remember his detractors left no stone unturned in their 57 allegations, but not one could be made to stick!
Those who attacked Mike wanted not only to destroy him but to destroy his arguments on fracking. Those arguments are also our arguments and are key to why fracking should not be allowed to go ahead and why Theresa May and her Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Sajiv Javid, should not overturn the democratic process to force fracking on the Fylde.
You can be sure the industry and Government would have made huge capital had the decision by the IET gone the other way. They would have used the wiping out of Mike’s credibility to wipe out in turn the credibility of all those opposed to fracking up and down the UK. However, after an extensive investigation, the IET have upheld Mike Hill’s position and the case he made against fracking and why. That is critically important to all of us who oppose this industry.
We use these arguments every day and they will become all the more important over the coming weeks. Let the government, industry and the pro fracking fraternity, with their vested interests, know that the largest and oldest engineering institution in the world has conducted an independent examination of the arguments, in great detail, over an eighteen month period, and found that its member had used his qualifications, experience and research, to produce perfectly valid and credible arguments based on sound judgements regarding the health impacts of fracking and the risks to the environment. Furthermore it is clearly accepted that Mike had executed his duty under the Codes of Conduct of the IET and had made public his findings for the good of his fellow citizens and the wider country .
“They” can “slap us down” no more. Our case is sound and based on engineering and science.
That just leaves us with Ken Wilkinson and his anonymous accomplice. What can we make of somebody whose self-obsession leads him to try to ruin the career of somebody who has clearly been exonerated by the IET, and is now shown to have been acting reasonably and in the public interest.
I believe Mr Wilkinson’s behaviour to have been absolutely shameful – his credibility is now forever tarnished by this vexatious (but failed) attempt to spitefully destroy another person’s reputation and livelihood. His arguments were all placed prominently on display and found to be wanting – not a single one, not one, was upheld by the body of engineers on whom he had called.
He has let himself down and totally humiliated himself. His pro-fracking comrades should now be embarrassed to be associated in any way with him.
Post Script – The Backing Fracking Farcebook page reported on this post but clearly didn’t like my responses, or those of another poster called “Local Farmer”.
They blocked us both which means our past posts are invisible and we can no longer comment. Knowing this Ken Wilkinson has now been “brave” enough to post this
I hope that Ken isn’t planning on complaining again, as I doubt organisations who you accuse of unjustly protecting their own members take too kindly to your subsequent complaints. This is rather typical Ken – he is never wrong – if his nasty and vindictive attempt failed it wasn’t because his complaints were invalid, it was clearly because the world is against him and his truth-telling. You know, he sounds like a bit of a conspiracy-theorist to me!
I can of course imagine your surprise when you find out that Ken has totally misunderstood how the Legal Ombudsman works – he or she is there to mediate between consumers and legal service providers. If the service provider has broken any rules of professional conduct, the Legal Ombudsman may refer your complaint to the appropriate regulatory body. This of course means that what he wrote above about the role of an ombudsman is rubbish.
For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Today’s sermon from the Church of St Michael Insanum will be based on a text from Galatians 6:7
“For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
On Wednesday this week, Dr Ania Szolucha of the University of Bergen launched her peer-reviewed research paper on “The Social Futures of Resource Extraction and Energy.” There was a full house of invited guests and those attending listened to presentations from distinguished speakers included Professor Anthony Ingraffea from Cornell University, USA and Professor Debra Davidson from the University of Alberta, Canada, both of whom spoke via a live video link.
Professor of Global Energy, Michael Bradshaw, from the University of Warwick, spoke informatively on the energy trilemma that the UK faces and the limitations on shale gas development that might be imposed by the 5th Carbon budget. The event was chaired by Marc Hudson of the University of Manchester.
Audience interest was generally high (we’ll go into this a bit more deeply in a moment) with the chair having to restrict questioners to two sentences each in order to keep the event on schedule.
The conclusions reached by Dr Szolucha’s research are no doubt uncomfortable for the proponents of fracking as they add yet another layer to the research which questions the impact of fracking on local communities. In spite of this we were shocked to read the press release issued by the industry front group “Backing Fracking” the next morning.
In their press release they tried to suggest that two supporters of fracking teamed up and mounted a valiant defence of the industry at an anti-fracking event “ organised by Friends of the Earth and local anti-fracking groups.” which was “low-key and poorly attended with only 40 people in the room”
We know that Stephen Tindale was there, as he sat alone in front of me and did ask a question before falling asleep and then leaving 30 minutes early.
John Baldwin claims to have been there “to argue that extracting shale gas in Lancashire is better than continuing to import so much gas from abroad. “. Strangely he certainly didn’t say anything when given the opportunity if he was indeed there. Hardly a proud and brave defence of the industry.
The event was in fact organised by Dr Szolucha herself without involvement from any NGO or local group of any kind, so the allegation that is was an anti-fracking event, organised by FoE ,that Backing Fracking had somehow infiltrated is quite ridiculous.
The suggestion that its was badly attended and low-key is a classic Backing Frackingism – I think their working principle is “Tell a lie and somebody will believe it“. In fact the event was invitation only, was fully subscribed and was attended by a capacity audience of at least 65. This can be validated with the Harris Museum where the event took place.
So there we had it – an independent academic has her launch event trashed by an industry front group who hope to water down its impact by casting unfounded allegations at and about her.
I imagine that they thought the local press, wary of prejudicing potential advertising revenue, would have dutifully published this pap and they would have received whatever thanks, in whatever form they normally get it, from the industry for having defused a potentially embarrassing situation.
Sadly for them Mr Tindale fell asleep and left 30 minutes early, a fact which they were presumably not aware of. When questioned about this on Twitter his rather graceless (and frankly incredible, given that he had been heard snoring) response was as follows:
Sadly also, Backing Fracking had gone too far by lying about several , easily verifiable, things as outlined above.
As a result, instead of simply rehashing the Backing Fracking press release, the Blackpool Gazette , who clearly have more integrity that Backing Fracking thought, ran this piece.
What promised to be a simple PR exercise in defusing an inconvenient report has now blown up in their faces.
And finally, we hope that Stephen woke from his slumbers suitably refreshed. It’s a pity that he didn’t stay for the end of the presentation and the wine reception afterwards as I would have liked to engage him in conversation about Carbon Capture and Storage. Still at least he is starting to keep better company – after all as Proverbs 13:20 tells us:
“He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.”
Fracking bribes and house prices
Hot on the heels of Theresa May’s attempt to ignite the flare stack of public enthusiasm for fracking by offering householders bribes to accept it, comes an article from Mortgage Insider which fractures one of the main seams of her argument, releasing the very gas of truth into the air.
The article references a study by the University of Bristol, which suggests that concerns about fracking have led to a a decline in house prices of between 2.7% and 4.1% within a 30km radius of the area affected by the Preese Hall earth tremors.
The study attributes the effect to fear of earthquakes, but does acknowledge the possibility (or likelihood based on my own experience) that:
Another interpretation is that the earthquake raised people’s awareness of shale gas exploration and the potential risks – but only in proximity to the location where the incident happened.
Now the study concludes, based on it detailed analysis of house sale, and extrapolating to the housing stock in the local as a whole, that:
this gives us a cumulative loss that ranges between £706 million and £1.1 billion. These numbers are restricted to the license blocks where the earthquake happened.
Note that The Mortgage Insider article wrongly suggests that:
the report estimates fracking could wipe a maximum of between £706m and £1.1bn off house price values across all areas where exploration licenses have been granted
Mrs May is busily trying to persuade us that an industry with extraction costs roughly double their wholesale costs is somehow capable of delivering a Shale Wealth Fund “worth of up to £1 billion in total“.
How frustrating it must be for her to know that more than this amount has already been knocked off the valuation of houses in just the area around the Preese Hall site. And they haven’t really got started yet.
Global WTF Thinktank Urges Theresa May to Jump off a Political Cliff
What’s this I hear you ask? The Global Warming Policy Forum , a right-wing climate denier “forum”, (or “think tank”, “septic tank” or what you will) is urging the newly minted PM to rush headlong of the fracking cliff? Surely not? But yes, they are indeed!
London, 8 August 2016 — The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) has welcomed the Prime Minister’s plan to spread the benefits of shale gas to local residents as a sensible step to break the decade-long logjam in UK shale development.
Strangely the consultation document doesn’t actually talk about a plan to to spread the benefits of shale gas to local residents – it merely raises it as a possibility. Rather cleverly the government put out a press release that led editors to a conclusion that wasn’t actually backed up by what would follow. This way they get to see the reaction to a course of action without having committed themselves to it. Neat isn’t it?
The “log-jam” the GWPF refer to has in fact only existed since 2011 when Cuadrilla caused the earth tremors at Preese Hall, so 5 years not a decade.
The GWPF, which has been advocating UK shale development for many years, is calling on the Government to speed up shale gas exploration in order to establish the full extent and economic viability of the UK’s substantial shale resources.
Yes it has – the climate change sceptic’s associated with the GWPF like Nigel Lawson, Matt Ridley have been banging the drum for fracking and repeating the hysterical ranting of Mr Murdoch’s Sun newspaper – e.g “the falsehoods of the noisy eco protesters and their social media pollution hysteria” for some time now. It’s not very edifying from grown men really.
“Despite repeated claims to ‘go all out for shale’, the last two governments under David Cameron (2010-2016) failed to get any shale gas out of the ground. Theresa May now has a golden opportunity to reset UK energy policy and demonstrate that she can deliver where her predecessor failed,” said Dr Benny Peiser, the GWPF’s director.
Well Mr Cameron was perhaps a little conflicted, what with having claimed he’d run the “greenest government ever”and all, but really the greater part of the delays have all been down to issues caused by the fracking companies themselves. One of the problems that we face with energy policies is that we have not had a coherent, consistent policy from any government for years. Continuous policy “resets” like the one we had last November from Amber Rudd when she crippled the nascent wind and solar industries, just as they were starting to show signs of unassisted economic viability are not a good thing. She can do yet another reset of course, but whether it would be politically or scientifically wise is a different thing entirely.
The GWPF also called on trade unions to support the development of a UK shale gas industry that will benefit both households and UK manufacturing.
“The trade unions have a choice between a policy based on the eco-dogmatism of green campaigners and the GMB Union’s energy policy that focuses first and foremost on safeguarding UK manufacturing and tackling fuel poverty,” said Benny Peiser.
Benny is right of course – the trade unions do have a choice – they can stick their heads in the sand and ignore the greater issues in order to maximise short term employment and income for their members (although fracking is going to provide relatively little of either if the submissions to the Blackpool Inquiry are to be believed. The Environmental Statements submitted by ARUP for Cuadrilla suggest that the likely total direct jobs per development site is 7 Full Time Equivalent Employment, and the total direct, indirect and induced employment will equate to just 11 for each site. Another 4 temporary Full Time Equivalents may be created by the associated monitoring processes.)
However, we really must take issue with the suggestion with the repetition of the old canard that fracking will alleviate fuel poverty – too many people, Cuadrilla included have stated that fracking will have little if any impact on gas prices for that one to fly.
So really, all we have here is the same old people, the usual suspects repeating the same old tired routines in the hope of pushing policy in directions that will favour their interests.
The reaction to the Brexit style lie that households are being promised tens of thousands of pounds each if they get behind fracking has been interesting, and I am sure Mrs May will have been disappointed that a lot of media outlets seem to have identified it as the bribe it was – here are just a few examples:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/07/fracking-bribe-public-accept-greenpeace-labour-cash
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/theresa-trying-bribe-britons-accept-8580845
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fracking-theresa-may-payment-households-profits-shale-gas-renewable-energy-a7177581.html
People have identified (as reasonable people would) that for compensation to be paid there must be something bad that requires them to be compensated, so this move has merely made more people realise that there is something to look at critically here.
Post Brexit Mrs May is in a delicate political position – attempting to force people to accept fracking, or setting neighbour against neighbour by appearing to promise large cash funds to some but not others, could be one of the riskiest strategies that she might adopt. Whatever you may think of Mrs May, her political history shows she is calculating and cautious enough to realise that. The luke-warm reaction to the announcement of huge cash windfalls (aka bribes) would make any sane politician take a step back from the cliff.
I’d be surprised if she’s listening to hard to the siren song of Nigel Lawson and his pals, so nice try GWPF, but it’s not going to fly.
"What you have to be able to do when you decide you want to hydraulic fracture is make sure there are no faults in the area. That's really very very important"
Professor Mike Stephenson - Director of Science and Technology - British Geological Survey
Fracking the UK Volumes I and II now available free from this site
"Untrustworthy, unbalanced and potentially brain washing." - Amazon Review
Yes the industry hated the first volume that much :-)
Both volumes now available as free downloads from this site Click here to download
Frack Free Lancashire
Preston New Road Action Group
Refracktion
Defend Lytham
Ribble Estuary Against Fracking
Frack Free Fylde
Fracking Free Ireland
Fracking Digest - a summary of the week's news
Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association
Frack Free Sussex
Frack Free York
Halsall Against Fracking
If you would like your group to be added please contact us
