Monday, May 29, 2006

TRUTH - at last.

Rugby Council finally admit responsibility for POLLUTING whole town, and ruining total ENVIRONMENT for residents and visitors alike.

RBC finally admitted, after dragging its feet for years, and trying every which way to hide the facts, and to keep them off the Public Register (which is still the case), that "it was consulted upon the staged IPC authorisation application", of which the first stage began in January 1995 and ended with the last stage in June 1999 - when Rugby Cement finally finished the Application. In a letter of 24th June 1999 the Council and various other bodies were consulted on the finally finished application. It said on the letter from the Environment Agency "DO NOT DIVULGE ANY OF THIS INFORMATION: do not place on any Public Register!" Neither the Environment Agency, nor RBC can find any copies of the MANDATORY public consultation, nor advertisements in any newspapers, and that is hardly surprising since they do not have any! They had expressly told Rugby Council, and MAFF, and others to keep it all SECRET!

RBC have this to say about its behaviour, in relation to the documentation it received (and some of which it hid) over the FOUR PLUS years, which has led to the unlawful construction and operation of this gross industrial behemoth in Rugby:

"It is the holistic consideration of a range of documents and information that would have been used to form opinions and judgements. No formal responses were made in relation to this permit during the period between 1995 and 1999.

The Council was a consultee over the permitting process. There is NO DUTY on the Council or any other consultee (statutory or otherwise) to make responses. The Council had been extensively involved in the planning application for the new plant, which covered many of the pollution issues repeated in the permit Application. This was the context within which no formal responses to the permit Consultation was made."

So you see that the officers were secretly involved, behind the backs of the people, in secret discussions for years, and yet made NO FORMAL RESPONSE, (so there is no paperwork for anyone to see what they were thinking and doing) and yet now RBC claim that none of the pollution and environmental impact can be attributed to them. IF as they claim they have been involved all along why did they:

A) Deliberately aid the "destruction" of Rugby town: environment and air quality, and health?
B) Hide it all, make no response at all to try to limit the damage to Rugby people, and do it all in secret behind the backs of the people, and the Councillors?
C) Behave unlawfully and DELIBERATELY HIDE the official CONSULTATION and Application papers?
D) Refuse to accept any responsibility for this mess, while all the time continuously blaming Rugby Cement and the Environment Agency?

They then try to "Get Out of Jail Free" by saying it is not their fault: "The responsibility for publicising the IPC application lay with the Environment Agency and the Applicant." Even IF that were to be a true statement, then RBC could and SHOULD have not only made a formal response, but also have insisted and ensured that the public were consulted. But instead RBC colluded to hide the whole June 1999 IPC Application from Rugby people.

They then subsequently in 2001 went on to compound further their "irregularities" by spending a massive amount of Public time and money of a PHONEY TYRE BURNING APPLICATION in order to keep the Public away from the actual IPPC APPLICATION that we should have been consulted on. They say: "The Council did arrange a wide-ranging process of public engagement which started after 1999". (YES, in truth they did start a phoney consultation TWO YEARS LATER, and a fat lot of good that was in 2001 - shutting the stable door after the IPC horse has bolted!) "The community engagement process was primarily focussed on the specific issue regarding the use of alternative fuels, but did explore other issues." (Even this is not true as they, and WCC, and the EA and Rugby Cement called all the meetings and associated paperwork Tyre Burning Trials - no mention of alternative fuels.)

RBC and the EA then went even further and indulged in £500,000 worth of flawed air quality monitoring - all paid for by the long-suffering Rugby Council tax payers - to try, in desperation, to PROVE that there "really is no problem with air quality in Rugby, especially round the cement works where people are frequently covered in dust". They threw the Primary Care Trust representative out of the committee, and also all the Community Groups, and Air Quality Report was very much controlled by the Rugby Cement and its needs, and was also ultimately rushed through without any proper public consultation, and with the public not having any timely access to the data. Many questions remain over the refusal to provide the agreed access to real-time monitoring data, the controversial sitting of the monitors, the calibration, and the failure to correctly use the Turnkey Monitors, and the correct gravimetric equivalent method for the particulates PM10.

No wonder Rugby Cement, knowing all this, sold the plant to RMC in 1999 just before the construction was finished. Then they in turn realising the mess they were in offloaded it onto Cemex in 2004, and now Cemex are making it work better and have increased production by turning off the alarms and burning more waste and dirtier cheaper "fuels", such as petcoke, which RBC and the Agency have inflicted on Rugby people. Click below to find out what they do in Mexico.,0,3111299,full.story?coll=la-home-business

Thursday, May 18, 2006

ASBO on hold TRUTH at last!

Council U-turn as new evidence revealed of abuse of process and maladministration.

Lilian visits Town hall in hoody just as RBC forced to reveal incriminating papers on how they aided and abetted planning and operating permits for UNLAWFUL Rugby Cement plant.

Watch this space for full details of collusion and abuse of power by authorities and councillors.


Saturday, May 13, 2006

RBC sub group of Rugby Cement


HOW DID Rugby Cement plant get permission?
You might well ask.
Lilian did and this is what she got:

In order for Rugby people
To be kept in ignorance.
Lilian to be silenced by RBC
By all means. Now described as:
Vexatious Repititious ASBO!

Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 10:57 AM
To: 'Andrew Gabbitas'
Cc: 'All Councillors'; 'Patricia Wyatt'; '';
Subject: Is RBC a sub-group of Rugby Cement and the EA?

Dear Mr Gabbitas

Thank you for your letter dated 11th May 2006 which reads as follows:

Dear Mrs P

Between the 26th April and 1st May 2006, you sent me, and OTHERS, a total of 15 emails. It is beyond my capacity to write an individual separate reply to each of these messages. On looking at them , I have come to the conclusion that I, and my colleagues, have already given you replies or
information on the subjects requested. Your correspondence with me has reached the stage where it is repetitious and vexatious and I can add nothing to what I have said to you in earlier correspondence.

Andrew Gabbitas
Acting Chief Executive.

I would comment as follows:

You will see, if you care to read a little more carefully that my letters and emails have NOT been answered at any stage, by any of the people to whom they have been addressed, and for this simple reason I have been compelled to ask the same questions, and to request the same copies of documents on several occasions. You may remember the old adage : "If at first you don't succeed try and try again?"

If you would take it upon yourself to see to it that we get the answers and the information we request we would be able to stop writing to you, where the buck stops - as head of this council, and to the "unspecified others" to whom you refer, and on whose behalf you are now, most oddly, assuming the responsibility of replying.

Why would any Chief Executive take it upon himself to answer letters and email that are not actually addressed to him, or even to Rugby Borough Council, but to other Agencies, and are only copied to him for his information and for the fullness of records? Are you going to write back to
letters I have addressed to my granny also? In order to HIDE the unlawful practises that this Council has indulged in for so long you have decided, in consultation with other various "people" who do not speak the truth, to slur me, and to defame me, and thus you assert that I am "vexatious and repetitious." This is merely the latest SCAM you are using to get RBC off the hook, and to try to escape from telling Rugby people the truth about how RBC colluded to get this unlawful plant built and operated in Rugby, and how RBC colluded to blight the whole town, to ruin the environment, air quality, and impact the health of Rugby people.

You have sought to threaten me, and have had secret meetings with the four leaders of the groups, and with lawyers based on what "lies", all in order to hide the TRUTH.

RBC is refusing to give me the data that RBC hold on me. I made the request on 24th February and you have still not allowed me any access to it. It should have been provided within 20 days. Now it is already 80 days.

RBC are also refusing access to the Public Register Information regarding the cement works, IPC permit and secret reports.

The Environment Agency have deliberately also hidden the Public Register information regarding the cement works.

The Agency has also hidden the "MONTHLY RETURNS" which show the amount of toxic pollution being emitted by the cement works onto Rugby people. These have been hidden since July 2005 when they started:
# tyre trials# petcoke trials# allowed a five/eight fold INCREASE in the permitted emissions of VOC (toxic volatile organic carbons).

RBC and the Agency have hidden from the general public the results of the Survey carried out in Rugby in February 2006 that shows that 73 % of Rugby people are concerned : about 65,000 people are worried, and that it is not JUST me, or any other " Disgruntled Activists" as RBC cares to portray.

And so you seek to claim that I am "vexatious and repetitious".

I suggest the people write to you and ask the same questions as I have asked. Are you going to have the same description slapped on lawyers, and any of the 90,000 people of Rugby, who "dare" ask the same pertinent questions as I have done? Are you going to refuse ALL requests for information as you have done to me?

You had the secret meetings organised by the Chair of the Environment Panel: Carolyn Robbins (see 9th January RBC Cabinet Committee Minutes) who is also, by some strange co-incidence, Chair of the Rugby Cement Forum.

Who is working for who here? Is Rugby Borough Council working for the benefit and Environment of Rugby residents, or is RBC merely a sub-group of Rugby Cement? And may be a sub-group of the Environment Agency as well?


Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 9:59 AM
To: 'Andrew Gabbitas'
Cc: 'All Councillors'; '';
Subject: RBC refuses to answer questions and misinforms public

Dear Mr Gabbitas

Thank you for your letter of 26th April.

I think you will find you are in breach of the FOI Regulations, for which RBC has already been taken to task on at least one other occasion. Your reply to my email, that I have typed in below, does not answer the questions and a mere local authority Cabinet cannot ignore the Law of the Land and make a "silly little decision not to answer any questions, and not to tell the truth". In the meantime it appears that Rugby people are to be poisoned by toxic fumes from waste burning, and petcoke burning, because of the RBC cabinet decision to hide the information and to cover up what RBC
has done?

Now we have:
1) The EA unlawfully hiding from the PR the monthly monitoring emissions data for the Rugby plant since July 2005.
2) The EA claiming Cemex can use the poisonous petcoke as they got a (secret)IPC permit in conjunction with RBC.
3) They got an IPPC permit to burn waste in "half truths in conjunction with RBC" - who mislead the public to cover up the IPC failings, so that no one would know that it had no lawful IPC Permit, and thatthis was an IPPC Application.
4) Mr Gabbitas who refuses to answer all FOI requests, and a Cabinet who have decided to hide all the information, and "mislead and misinform" the public and other councillors at full council meetings.
5) Then RBC blame me for the "costs" of providing all this information, while the truth is that RBC is spending a fortune trying to hide and cover up what they have done. If RBC just answered truthfully and provided copies it would cost a minimal amount. The truth is cheap, it is the deceit and cover up that is costing Rugby Council tax payers so much money!

Any advice please?


Mr Gabbitas of RBC has finally written back 26th April as follows:

Dear Mrs Pallikaropoulos

I refer to your email of 12th February 2006 regarding Freedom of Information requests.

Cabinet on 9th January 2006 resolved that:-
(1) A scheme of Frequently asked Questions be developed and published that covers air quality and other issues associated with Cemex's local activities.
(2) That any further information requests on these issues be not individually responded to, but published on a FAQ list and
(3) any request that is potentially abusive, defamatory or other wise likely to cause offence be not responded to.

The Council is dealing with numerous requests for information from you and these requests will be dealt with as Frequently Asked Questions as resources permit in accordance with the cabinet's Decision.

The information in this current request is extensive and relates to issues dealt with 5 years ago. The Council's stance on the issue of tyre burning reflected public concern at the time and was a considered and balanced approach to the issue

Andrew Gabbitas

-----Original Message-----
From: L Pallikaropoulos []
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:58 PM
To: 'Karen Stone'
Subject: FW: IPPC application 2001 and IPC 1999

Dear Mrs Stone

I ask that you answer the attached email that was sent to you nearly one month ago. (Under the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Regulations.) You should be able to answer all the questions yourself in say 15 minutes, as you have been involved in all these meetings and decisions. Mr Lawson will not know what this is about which is why he has such difficulty answering any questions from "before his time".

Thank you.

Lilian Pallikaropoulos

Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006
To: 'Karen Stone'; ''
Cc: '';
Subject: IPPC application 2001 and IPC 1999

Dear Mrs Stone and Mr Humphies,

It seems that this Council and the public have been totally mislead, whether deliberately or not, by RBC officers and the EA. I think the people of Rugby deserve some answers. I would like to know the following please:

1. Why did you present the 2001 IPPC application as being "only a Tyre Burning application"?

2. Why did you commission an AEAT report into "tyre burning only"?

3. Why did the PCT commission an HIA into tyre burning only? "Is it better for the people of Rugby to breathe coal dust or tyre fumes?" Cook and Kemm.

4. Why did you totally misinform the public and all the Rugby Councillors about the nature of IPPC consultations, and what needed to be considered, and that the "whole IPPC permit was open to question and scrutiny?"

5. Why did you not tell the public that the information given out was incomplete, and that that information being given out was related to the "tyre burning" aspect only: see Rugby Group Limited, Rugby Works, Application under IPPC to allow burning of tyres. Incidentally that application did not include any mention of particulates at all though it listed pages of all the other main emissions from the plant, and the public consistently expressed concern about particulates and dust from the plant as a whole. The Councillors and public were not aware that the whole
application was on the Public Register, and that the whole operation of the plant was to be taken into account?

6. At the Indian Club 2001 Roger Wade said, at the opening of the meeting, that "this application is like IPC, and is now called IPPC, and so there is no difference. It has IPC, so let's get on with the tyre burning." What was the RBC response to the IPC application in 1999, and the public response to it? What public meetings did RBC call in 1999 to discuss the IPC application? Where is the Public Register containing this IPC information?

7. How did you brief councillors, such as the Environment panel, and also the Community Leadership Panel, that lead to the March 2002 "marathon meeting"? What was the objective of such a meeting?

8. What guidance did you use to advise you, on what the roll of RBC was at statutory consultee, and what guidance did you use also on how to advise the councillors and the public?

9. Why are the Minutes, Agendas and attachments, of the RCCF and the Rugby Cement Liaison meeting not available to councillors and the public at RBC offices?

10. What action is RBC prepared to take against the Environment Agency for its part in this deceit?

11. Please send an email copy of the Minutes of the meeting RBC held with the EA on 13th September 2001 as a pre-meeting in preparation for the Indian Club meeting of September 20th 2001.

12. What was the role of the Rugby Cement Liaison Committee in all this? What was the RBC's role in that Committee? Why were no Rugby Cement Liaison Committee meetings held from March 2002 until 23rd October 2002, during the crucial part of the IPPC application, until when it "evolved" into the RCCF?

13. What is the RBC role in the RCCF? (Rugby Cement Community Forum)

14. What is the RBC role in the TBRG? (Tyre Burning Review Group)

Thank you.


Wednesday, May 10, 2006

Agency Survey Backs Lilian!



Once upon a time, a long five years ago, Lilian innocently set off in quest of the TRUTH.

She planned to visit each in turn of Warwickshire County Council, the Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council. How could she possibly have known that all that these locations were inhabited by gangs of unscrupulous and devious officers and councillors, peopled by individuals with no care and respect for due process, no care for the public, nor for the environment, nor for health, but were occupied by those whose own personal vested interest, and over-inflated egos and misconceptions of self-worth, compelled them to adapt ideas of grandeur, and to over ride the Law of the land, and to stop at nothing to hide the truth, and to ruin the town of

Soon Lilian became disillusioned by the disgraceful lack of professionalism in these places she visited. Each of these three authorities was fearful lest the others should blame them, and it should cost them money - a lot of money - and so Lilian became a victim in piggy in the middle, or as WCC prefer to call it "pass the parcel". Piecing together the actions of each has not been easy as of course they place all obstacles in your way, in order to prevent any truth coming out, and what they let you see, or even actually tell you, you need to take with a salt mine - or two! It is what they are hiding that is interesting. This is a gripping detective story of dirty deeds and foul play, worthy of a crime novel. How much did who make out of it? Who stands to gain what? Where there's muck there's money and this is about the very dirty, dusty grimy cement industry, and the WASTE industry! It is a filthy business, make no mistake.

Where there is muck there is money, and there is plenty of both in this.

I will put a few facts on the table and you can "be the judge".

1. Rugby Cement applied to WCC for a new cement plant in 1995.
2. The planning application to WCC was inaccurate and incorrect.
3. The Environment Statement was incorrect and inaccurate.
4. The people of Rugby were told "porkies" about what was to be built.
5. The photomontages showed that this was not what was actually going to be built.
6. The people of Rugby did not have time to respond - and in any case the "few" responded to what they PRETENDED they were going to build.
7. The Environment Agency used to be called HMIP till 1996.
8. The HMIP Advisory Committee had Christopher Hampson the Chair of RMC on it and he was subsequently on the EA Board and Chair man of that in due course.
9. Rugby Cement said all queries about the planning had to go to them.
10. Rugby Cement took the public, councillors and RBC officers to the plant and showed them an incorrect model.
11. The EA/HMIP say they received an application in January 1995 for an IPC permit - but they cannot find it.
12. The EA have no copy on the public register.
13. The EA say" The Application (that we cannot find) was received and deemed duly made by the Agency in January 1995."
14. The EA say that Rugby Cement had to place an advert in the paper and consult.
15. The EA say the "Regulator had to consider any representations made to it within the period allowed, in determining the application. This would obviously include any representations by members of the public."
16. The EA say "There was no requirement for us to hold a copy of the advert on the Public Register, the responsibility for which lay solely with Rugby Cement."
17. SEPA, Defra and the EA web sites all say that the Agency should have informed Rugby Cement to place the advert 14 days after the application was "deemed duly made".
18. The Agency itself - regardless of what they now say about any excuse about the ADVERT, seem to have carried out a partial CONSULTATION and to have consulted National Rivers in 1995, and English Nature, with no response.
19. The Agency say" we are not aware of any representations made by members of the public." BECAUSE of course the PUBLIC were not asked.
20. But from 1995 to 1998 Rugby Cement, assisted by the EA and WCC planning officers, kept on altering the size and specification and capacity of the plant.
21. Rugby people were told it was to be three times bigger : 300,000 tonnes maximum X 3 = 900, 000 t a year .
22. Rugby Cement have built a 1,800,000 tonne plant.
23. Stage 1 of the IPC application on 25th January 1995 was hidden from the Public Register.
24. Stage 2 was made 19th July 1995 - by now the stack was much taller.
25. Stage 3 was 8th August 1996 and by then the tower had TREBLED in size and the stack 30 % bigger than originally - it was 115 metres tall instead of the 91 metres chimney stack of the planning application.
26. WCC made a conscious decision NOT to tell the people of Rugby. KB who is still on the WCC said in response to shall we tell them, "as far as possible let sleeping dogs lie!"
27. Further information was requested by the EA on 15th March 1997 - Schedule 1 Notice.
28. RBC Karen Stone wrote and asked the Agency why this "Consultation " was not following the normal and proper procedure.
29. She had a secret meeting with the EA presumably to secretly discuss how to hide what was going on.
30. 16th June 1999 Rugby Cement FINALLY has the answers to the 15th May
1997 questions called the Schedule 1 Questions. They send these to the EA with this letter:

Dear Dr Davies
Application Under IPC for new plant at Ruby Reply to Schedule 1 notice:

"We have now collected all information needed to reply to the Schedule 1 Notice dated 15th May 1997 and attach this information. We have also included additional information that we request you taking into account in determining the application. This is the FINAL STAGE of application and we look forward to receiving your full authorisation for the plant in due course."
S Elliot
Works Manager 16June 1999

31. So the Agency the CONSULT : MAFF and HSE . But they do NOT consult RUGBY BOROUGH COUNCIL as they already have a SECRET agreement with Karen Stone.


32. But the EA claim that they had accepted the application in 1995 and that it was advertised to the public then in an advert, that NO ONE HAS SEEN, so why NOW are the EA consulting these other authorities - but not RBC?
33. If as the EA say it was "deemed duly made" what about all these changes in the FOUR YEARS - (1995 - 1999) such as the stack being 50% taller, and the tower being over 300 % more cubic capacity, and bigger on all sides, and the PRODUCTION going up to SIX times over the OLD PLANT, and DOUBLE what the planning application said?
34. The planning application and plans were revised over and over again by WCC and Rugby Cement - so the 1995 Environmental Statement and all the planning application was completely WRONG. It needed a completely new planning application, It is not remotely the same - not even the locations of the buildings are the same.

EA LETTER: of 23rd March 2006:

" This further search has in fact revealed some additional material copies of which I enclose. As you will see there is further correspondence between the Agency and statutory consultees which, for SOME REASON, was not on the Public Register file at this point".

OF COURSE it was not on the Public Register because they "CLAIM" that they had carried out the consultation in 1995, and did not want anyone to know that IN FACT they had NOT CARRIED OUT THE CONSULTATION AT ALL. How could they carry it out then as they did not know what they were going to build.
But the secret Agency file hid the evidence of secret consultation with Rugby Borough Council in 1997 and again in 1999 in which the Agency said "DO NOT SHOW THE PUBLIC. The PUBLIC HAVE 28 DAYS TO BE CONSULTED BUT DO NOT SHOW THEM!!"

EA LETTER continues: "there is also information relating to the public liaison committee. This supports the conclusion that the Agency fulfilled its statutory consultation duties".

BUT OF COURSE IT PROVED JUST THE OPPOSITE - THAT ALONG WITH WCC AND RBC THEY HID ALL THE DOCUMENTS - CARRIED ON SECRETLY, MISINFORMED AND MISLED THE PUBLIC. And set up a liaison committee who did not even know what an IPC application is in order to manipulate it. But Karen Stone and David Burrows from RBC were on there. Do they have any formal qualifications as they should have known better - or are they part of the cover up? Why did RBC officers fail to tell the TRUTH??? WHEN IS A LIE NOT A LIE?

35. I will not go on with the IPPC application as this needs a chapter all of its own, but again all three of them were at it: misinforming, misleading and misrepresenting the facts to the public. There is also the Misinformation given out by RBC officers and WCC officers for subsequent planning applications. I am afraid it is lies, lies, lies all the way. They do it all the time and they do not know when to stop lying. They have the habit.


The EA, WCC and RBC have been and continue to be repeatedly guilty of crooked and unlawful practise seemingly specifically in order to damage the residents, the whole town and environment of Rugby, the air quality and the health of the residents. They have not followed due process and are all guilty of maladministration and worse.

IN ORDER TO TAKE THE SPOTLIGHT OFF THEM AND TO TRY TO STOP THE TRUTH COMING OUT THEY HAVE COLLECTIVELY: all tried to bully me, intimidate me, and threaten me; and have refused access to all data, even under the Freedom of Information Act in order to hide what they have done. All along they have tried to vilify me and say I am the only one concerned, and have tried to turn all people against me.

But the EA has just paid thousands of pounds of public money to try to hide what they have done. However the survey has not done what they wanted, and to the contrary has overwhelmingly shown that the 80,000 people of Rugby are very seriously Concerned and Worried about the cement works. The people will also soon be very angry when they find out exactly what these authorities have done to them, and how the 48 Rugby Borough Councillors have worked together to hide this and worked together to hurt the people of Rugby, and squandered thousands of pounds of public money.



Yes it has. Thank you!!

Tuesday, May 09, 2006




May 7th:
Dear Councillor Humphrey

Thank you for your email.
As it appears you are threatening me I would ask that you do not correspond further with me but you write to my lawyer, Mr Richard Buxton, Cambridge.

The RBC legal department are well aware of his address as they are currently involved in supplying information and copies, (under the Freedom of Information Act), of the IPC Consultation that RBC was legally bound to have carried out in 1999. This is causing RBC great difficulty, and is taking some considerable time, as they do not appear to have either the copies of the IPC consultation and application, or to have actually carried out their lawful duties regarding the IPC consultation of the people of Rugby.

This all goes to add up to the fact that his plant is unlawful: unlawful in terms of the WCC "unlawful planning permission", and the subsequent EA "unlawful IPC Permit" of 1999, and now the "unlawful IPPC Permit" of 2003.

The due process has not been carried out, and there has been maladministration by all the authorities concerned. This involves RBC, WCC and the EA, and of course Rugby Cement. The people were entitled to expect their Council to take the necessary and correct action to protect us, and to ensure that the letter of the law is/was upheld, and that we, the Public, were correctly and fully informed, and correctly consulted, and were not involved in "sham" consultation at great public expense in order to cover-up the illegalities. Trained officers should know, and should have known, what an IPC Application is, and what it lawfully entails, and the same applies to an IPPC Application.

The INCREDULOUS people of RUGBY, and people the WORLD OVER, have been asking for years:


I, and thousands of other people, have been asking this Council to help us for years. But this Council has turned its back on the people of Rugby, and is exploiting us, and abusing its power. Things are getting worse and worse as the TOTAL BURDEN on the air, and on the health of Rugby people, increases:
# production increases,
# pollution increases,
# HGV pollution increases,
# toxic chemicals in the air increase,
# and waste burning increases.
Now they are burning the POISONOUS PETCOKE; along with many other industrial wastes; about 8,000 tonnes each day.


The Law of the land must be upheld; and I am prepared to do whatever it takes; and to "STAND UP" for the people of Rugby, against any authority that is unlawfully damaging the interests of the Residents.

I have only ever spoken the truth, and I am right, as you will see. As I have truthfully said all along this has only been permitted by "crooked and unlawful practise!"



From: Cllr Craig Humphrey
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 7:18 AM
Subject: RE: Leader to "take the matter further"


Marvellous,at least you realise I am serious!



Sent: 08 May 2006 10:02
Subject: Leader to "take the matter further"

Dear Councillor Humphrey

I have passed this email to my lawyer and we are waiting for further information about the action that you intend to take against me.
Thank you.


Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 5:00 PM
Subject: RE: Pat - an honest, hardworking force for GOOD!


Unless you retract your allegation of ` crooked and unlawful practises ` I will take the matter further.

Cllr Craig Humphrey


Sent: 05 May 2006 08:09
To: Pat Wyatt and All Councillors
Subject: Pat - an honest, hardworking force for GOOD!


As you will have seen it is all the Midlands and southwards the same story... And it was only to be expected. Your losing your seat is as result of the protest vote against Labour, NOT a protest vote against Pat Wyatt, and NOT a vote for the Conservatives.

What gets me, and shows exactly how wicked they are is the childish and open ridiculous delight they showed in getting rid of you, which was far more than they showed when they gained any other seat. As I say Jeremy Wright and his massive Tory machine "licked the boots" of Lawford residents, and a lot of money was spent on this campaign in Lawford including, "personal" letters from Cameron. They HAD to get your seat because, clearly, they are suffering so much from:
# the truth you have told,
# how you have exposed their unreasonable "practises",
# and from what you have been able to achieve.

They are feeling so very relieved as now they can get on with their crooked and unlawful practises, unmonitored and undiscovered, as I doubt any of the other Councillors have the heart, intelligence, or will to take them on!



Sunday, May 07, 2006


One note of caution I need to mention is that people who live near cement plants need to be extra careful about tracking the cement dust into their homes where they can ingest it/breathe it and keep the cement dust inside their homes to as close to zero as possible since it's toxic. It's best to keep doors/windows closed as much as possible when winds blow from the cement plant, filter the interior air for dust, keep shoes outside or in a special box, and do not wear shoes/boots from outside into the house. Otherwise it could be ingested in dirty glasses and dirty plates and soup bowls etc. But if you keep your kitchen clean and all dishes washed well with no cement dust on them and filter your house, then the challenge is HOW MUCH ARE YOU TRACKING INTO YOUR HOUSE?

Young children may suffer more health effects from exposure to cement dust since they put their fingers in their mouths frequently and have developing nervous systems. Outdoor dust exposure may occur through both some degree of inhalation and ingestion depending no several factors.

Local water needs to be tested routinely to see if the Cr VI is showing up because the cement plants have dumped so much into the environment that's some may have entered the water system.

Cement kilns burning hazardous waste tend to have significantly higher levels of Chromium VI in the cement kiln dust and stack emissions due its presence in the hazardous waste.

Cr VI also causes skin problems through dermal exposure. Cement workers commonly suffer from skin lesions due to Cr VI cement dust exposure. Cr VI was featured in the movie Erin Brockovitch and one of the scientists involved is a friend of mine who told me about the case years before the movie came out.


Saturday, May 06, 2006

Give Them an ASBO (UPDATED!)

who deserves one?

Both RBC and the Environment Agency deserve ASBOs;
Officers and Councillors!


Now the EA have allowed Cemex to: trial tyre burning; and petcoke burning; and allowed five to eight fold increase in some TOXIC emissions; and by a very strange and untimely, fortunate-for-them, co-incidence:

The Agency has WITHHELD the mandatory Public Register MONTHLY EMISSIONS DATA information from Rugby Residents for NINE months.

Cemex have apparently provided it, but the Agency claim they have "forgotten to send it". What else have they forgotten TO TELL Rugby sitting-duck residents?..

Like how the plant came to be unlawfully built and operated in a smoke free town?

We don't know the half of what is going on.

SSHHH!! They do not want us to.



The Environment Agency did not FAPP test Cemex before allowing them to take over the Rugby Cement plant.

Are Cemex Fit and Proper Persons to "cook" 8,000 tonnes a day in Rugby town centre?

Is Rugby urban area an acceptable location for ANY cement company to "cook" nearly 8,000 tonnes daily?

Should they be burning HERE nearly 1,000 tonnes daily of PETCOKE made from WASTES from the oil industry?

Is this an acceptable location to burn waste tyres, or even coal?

And hazardous waste; meat and bone meal; plastics; low grade explosives; various WASTES of minimal calorific value?

You be the Judge!

The article below reveals why citizens need to be concerned living near cement manufacturing plants. Many cement kiln communities suffer serious cement dust impacts outside and inside their homes as observed here in the USA for years and in Belgium in April 2005 even up to a mile away.

What citizens in cement kiln communities need to do is conduct cement dust sampling and analyze the cement dust particles for metals especially Chromium VI which is a key toxic metal showing up in cement dust like the citizens found below in Lyons, Colorado, USA, just north of Boulder, Colorado.

Hazardous waste burning may result in even more Chromium VI released than from conventional fossil fuels like coal because hazardous waste has been found to contain much higher concentrations of the metal.
Boulder Weekly
Boulder, Colorado

May 4, 2006
Blowing in the wind
By Tyler Wilcox

If it wasn't clear before, it's a scientifically proven fact now: Making cement is, quite literally, dirty work. Cemex, the Mexican-owned company that stands as the largest cement manufacturer in North America and owns a cement plant just outside of Lyons, is sending harmful chemicals into the Front Range's air. Residents within a half-mile of the Cemex Lyons Cement Plant have found heavy metals in the dust on their cars, porches and inside their homes. These heavy metals are typically found in cement kiln dust, a fine, toxic dust that can burn skin, lungs and sensory organs.

Residents collected dust samples two weeks ago and submitted them to Cardinal Environmental Laboratories, an independent lab in Ohio, for analysis. The results confirmed the long-held suspicions citizens had about the plant's toxic discharge. In the samples, levels of chromium twice the level of the Environmental Protection Agency standards were found. Chromium is known to cause some types of cancer. Antimony-a metal that can cause heart and respiratory ailments-was also found in the dust. The tests were conducted with the help of the Colorado Citizens Campaign, a statewide grassroots group that has been keeping its eye on Cemex, and Denny Larson, director of Global Communities Monitor, a San Francisco-based nonprofit that assists communities worldwide to independently verify air pollution and health concerns.

"To me, one of the most meaningful results is that chromium was found, both inside the homes and outside the homes," said Jaime Rall, program director for the Colorado Citizen's Campaign. "That's not normal. That indicates to me that we need more testing to find out exactly what neighbors are being exposed to by living next to Cemex."

Lois Hickman, a Lyons resident who participated in the test, found heavy metals in the dust inside her home. "We want to know exactly where the cement dust comes from," she says. "Unwashed trucks on the highway? Fugitive dust from the plant? That will determine what Cemex needs to do to clean up our community."

In the coming weeks, Lyons residents will test for mercury, which is another toxin commonly found in cement kiln dust. They'll also test for more dangerous types of chromium. "Until we know which form is there, we can't speak clearly to the health risks," Rall says. "We do know that chromium 6 is a very dangerous toxin that is very frequently a byproduct of cement manufacturing-it's been found to have carcinogenic properties. That's what we're looking for."

And, Rall is quick to point out that the recent tests have only covered one aspect of Cemex's pollution-causing methods. "This doesn't even get to the stuff that's being released by the plant smokestacks, which is a whole other host of toxins," she says. "That includes sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds-and those are released in huge amounts by the stacks. We're talking about a 50-mile radius that is being affected by these emissions."

Since January of this year, members of the Colorado Citizens Campaign have written 1,958 personal letters to Cemex managers demanding the reduction of pollution produced by Cemex. With a recent management change at the Lyons plant, Rall is optimistic about the future. "John Lohr, the former plant manager, was replaced last week by Steve Goodrich," she says. "We know that the plant was receiving and reading the letters, but we see this as a new opportunity to make changes to the plant. We're hoping to build a relationship with him and really work at improving the plant. I'd like to meet with him personally and talk about what we can do to clean up the plant. Our goal is to build a lasting relationship between the plant and the neighbors that will create lasting changes to the pollution problems that people are experiencing. We're not going away until it's achieved. We're committed to the campaign until the company sits down with us."

In the meantime, Lyons residents are starting to make their voices heard. This Saturday, a "March To Clean Up Cemex" will take place. Organized by a new group, Mothers Against Burning Tires (MABT), in response to Cemex's plans to start burning tires as a source of alternative fuel, the march will start at 12:30 p.m. at the Stone Cup Café on 442 High St. in Lyons and will end at the Cemex plant. Prior to the march, from 10 a.m. to noon, there will be a letter-writing drive held at the Stone Cup.

"[MABT] came out of all of the mothers getting up and speaking at recent hearings that have been happening out here in Lyons," says Michele Leonard, one of the organization's founders. "Because they've extended the public comment period until May 18 for the state's air-quality control commission, this is our last-ditch effort to be heard, to let the state and Cemex know that we will not tolerate tire burning in Boulder County... Our goal is to have alternative fuels removed from the Title V operating permit that's about to be issued [to the company]. If Cemex proves that they can burn coal safely for five years then we're perfectly willing to come back and discuss other sources of fuel. But because they haven't burned coal safely for 40 years, there's no indication that they can burn tires safely. The EPA has said that tire burning is one of the most toxic forms of getting fuel. We are not willing to be experimented on, which is what they want to do."

For more information on the Colorado Citizens Campaign, go to, or contact Jaime Rall at 303-863-8168. For more information on the MABT's "March To Clean Up Cemex," contact MABT at 303-709-8343, or

Monday, May 01, 2006

How RBC Suppresses The Public


Campaign Groups used as SCAPEGOATS For RBC to justify hiding all information
Using Public Money to silence us and shield cement industry

Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006
To: 'Andrew Gabbitas'
Cc: 'All Councillors';
Subject: RBC seemingly refuse access to information to all Borough and to everyone

Dear Mr Gabbitas

Re: Information requests from Campaign Groups

# Further to the Secret meetings to discuss secret advice and to make a Decision in secret which you justify as "exempt" below:
# Is this Council acting within it powers in refusing to Access to Information to what it describes as unspecified "Campaign Groups"?
# I regard this Decision by the RBC Cabinet as unlawful, and as a blanket means of suppression. It seems it is not just about "Campaign Groups", but is a Decision to hide ALL INFORMATION, using the Campaign Groups as a smoke screen, and as an excuse to hide the information. RBC has made a Decision in the Cabinet to hide completely all the information, NOT JUST from the "loosely described" Campaign Groups, but from EVERYONE.

1. To whom does this term "Campaign Groups" apply?
2. Does it refer to every person in Rugby who asks for copies of documents?
3. To exactly what information are you refusing access?
4. Which Counsel advised RBC that they could lawfully refuse access to information under the FOI Act?
5. What was the cost of this information/advice that it seems was designed merely to prevent the public, that you have described as "Campaign Groups", gaining access to information that RBC (and the EA) wish to hide?
6. What information was given to the Counsel to make him suggest that RBC refuse all access to information?
7. Please provide a definition of "Campaign groups", and a definition of a "private citizen".
8. Please clarify that you are actually refusing ALL access to the information, including any access request made by any of the 90,000 Rugby residents, and any lawyers' requests, and in fact any requests from any other people in the world who might ask, as well as refusing it to the so-called "Campaign Groups".

From: Andrew Gabbitas
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006
To: L Pallikaropoulos
Cc: All Councillors
Subject: RE: Cabinet Minutes 9th January

Dear Mrs Pallikaropoulos,

"Exempt information" is defined in the Council's Constitution and the Local Government Act 1972. These set out 15 categories of information which are exempt. One of those categories is :

"Any instructions to counsel or any opinion of counsel,(whether or not in connection with any proceedings), and any advice received, information obtained or action taken in connection with:
(a) any legal proceedings by or against the authority; or
(b) the determination of any matter affecting the authority;

whether, in either case ,proceedings have been commenced or are in contemplation."

The report on Information Requests from Campaign Groups concerned an opinion from counsel in connection with this subject. The report, therefore, contained exempt information as defined by the Constitution and the 1972 Act.

From your email I take it that you have obtained a copy of the minutes to which you refer and that I do not need to respond to your earlier email requesting a copy of these.

Andrew Gabbitas

Subject: Cabinet Minutes 9th January

Dear Mr Gabbitas

Re : Cabinet 9th January 2006 Item 283 Environment Portfolio (page 12 of 13).

I believe this Council is guilty of maladministration. I will ask the Ombudsman to visit the related documents and judge for himself if these are "properly exempt matters".

The purpose of "confidentiality" in Committee proceedings is NOT, and must NEVER, be solely to HIDE the errors, omissions, or failures of Councils, Councillors or officers in relation to their Statutory Duties.

Where confidentiality is claimed the reasons in sensible terms need to be provided; it is NOT proper that the only response should be that X or Y subject IS confidential, or exempt.

All that the RBC has stated is that, in their opinion, this is exempt, and that Cabinet have considered a "private report" of the Environment Portfolio Holder. This has NEVER gone before any Environment, or any other committee, and is merely one person's private view, and Report, (by co-incidence the Chair of the Rugby cement Community Forum?) and recommendation to Cabinet. How have you justified this?

What reasons could this Council possibly have for considering, in secret, the private report of this person?

Referring to the RBC letter to Lilian of 26th April:

RE: Freedom of Information Requests the Cabinet resolved 9th January 2006 (which is on RBC web site): to REFUSE ALL INFORMATION REQUESTS, "that any further information requests be not individually responded to; But be published on a FAQ list; and only to develop a Frequently Asked Questions list on the web, as resources permit;
This to cover Air Quality Issues and other issues associated with Cemex's local activities."

Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 3:31 PM
To: 'Andrew Gabbitas'
Subject: Cabinet Minutes

Dear Mr Gabbitas

The Minutes of the Cabinet Agenda January 9th 2006 item you refer to in your letter of 26th April are on the RBC web site, but the Committee Report is not on there. Could you please tell me how to access it on the web, or send it to me?