Wednesday, November 29, 2006



Why are Rugby residents so very UNGRATEFUL?
This is ALL for your OWN GOOD!

The Environment Agency and Rugby Borough Council continue to work well with (for?) Cemex!
They insist this is an "informal non-consultation" into the Final Tyre Burning Report.
They all continue to collude, hold un-publicised meetings, and to hide as much damning data as they can.

RBC are rushing through extra un-publicised meetings :
e.g. such as 20 November "Climafuel Task and Finish Group" - designed to help get London's waste burnt here as soon as possible.
e.g such as 23 November extra item for Cemex added onto end of Agenda by Chair Chris Holman.
e.g. Agendas and Minutes not released.
e.g. the gaps in data on web site - click "sustainability" to get full Final Tyre Report.

e.g. JOLLY TO GERMANY - to see "another cement plant". LOVELY!
They perhaps have not noticed but we have a TWICE as BIG one in Rugby? RBC council tax payers "willingly" paid for the 7th November trip to Kollenbach Germany by RBC EHO Sean Lawson, and Councillors Carolyn Robbins and Chris Holman; and do not forget to mention Cemex Rugby managers Ian Southcott and Brian Hancock. (I presume we did not pay for them). A good time was had by all, courtesy of Rugby Council Tax payers - and STILL the LONG PROMISED report has not been produced. So why DID they go there - duty free bags of cement?

e.g. the Final Tyre Report (NOW 352 pages!) was placed on RBC Public Register on 8th November - but "no-one" was told about it till 21st November, when we were told by Sean Lawson that it had just come, but UNFORTUNATELY it was JUST TOO LATE for the COMMUNITY Tyre Burning Review Group to be reconvened as "we have to rush it through" - "The Agency and Cemex will not give us any time!"
e.g. The Council Tax payers funded a Facilitator for the Community Tyre Burning Review Group, to Review the DRAFT Tyre Report (168 pages) and we repeatedly asked Cemex and the Agency for data to make our work complete. They REFUSED to give us the data. Then after the end of 4 months of consultation "with no data" they suddenly found (24 October 2006) some data, that was related to August 2005 to February 2006 to stick in the Final report!
SHAME really they put it in THREE weeks TOO LATE for the Community Group to look at it!

It would be great to witness open, transparent, informed, honest, CONSULTATION. We dream on!
We continue to live with the NON co-operation on behalf of the environment and air quality and health of Rugby people!

Will we soon be hearing such rubbish as:
# "the use of shredded tyres has obviously only a BENEFICIAL effect on the environment in comparison to the fuels for which it is substituted, such as coal and oil and petcoke."
# "the Agency's ongoing and dynamic regulation of the works should be compared to the protesters demand for POINTLESS CONSULTATION, and DESIRE to create a WORSE ENVIRONMENTAL REGIME than that already existing in Rugby?

Rugby Advertiser November 23 Stuart Turner

A KEY group investigating the effects of tyre-burning trials has been "sidelined" by the Council, it has been claimed.
A 350 page document by Cemex outlining the effects of the trials has been lodged with the Agency who are due to make a full report on the scheme before the end of December.
However Sean Lawson, head of EHO at RBC, said "the short time scale and expense" made it "impractical" to reconvene the Tyre Burning Review group.

The group which includes councillors and member of the public was set up in 2004 to evaluate the results of of previous tyre-burning trials at the plant. Lilian P a member of the group said "They are trying to get rid of us and rushing this through at a CHRISTMAS PRESENT for Rugby people. By not letting us finish the work they are just WASTING MORE MONEY!"

Cemex hosted the trials last October (2005) as part of its ongoing investigation into the use of alternative fuels. It's hoped the process could supply a more cost-effective and environmentally-friendly source of fuel. However opponents claim the trials pose health risks to the town and need further evaluation.

Meanwhile Mr Lawson also hit back at claims of his department's "incompetence". Last week the Advertiser revealed that Mrs P had cost the Council £50,000 dealing with her multiple complaints and requests for information. Mrs P claimed this was partly due to the Council's EH department failure to answer her questions. However Mr Lawson said "As far as I am aware she has had all the answers to all requests she has made, although SHE MAY NOT LIKE THEM!!" "We have only a finite amount of resources and it is my job to balance that. It's for the people of Rugby to decide!"


Letters on this subject can be seen at

The following is a letter from Richard Buxton, a solicitor.
"It may help to clear the air to say part of the dispute between Mrs P and RBC is that the Council (as they earlier this year admitted) never responded to a PUBLIC CONSULTATION in 1999 on behalf of Rugby people. It is getting to the bottom of that that is causing such a rumpus.

IF RBC were to come clean about the details of what they did, and did not do, and why, then perhaps progress could be made. There are also various other issues relating to rugby Cement plant and air quality in Rugby where the Council just do not appear to have done their job.

IF, on the other hand they have, we would be DELIGHTED to see the evidence, but to date they have been UNABLE or UNWILLING to provide any ADEQUATE RESPONSE"

Richard Buxton
Environmental and Public Law

I believe that in time Lilian will be regarded as one of the great environmental campaigners.
Very few people have the perseverence, intelligence and sheer guts to stand up to the combined might and huge resources of a cement company, a local council that doesn't want to know and an Environment Agency that doesn't care.
As for the money - it has been estimated that the health costs from a large incinerator are about £30 million annually.
The health costs from a cement kiln would be far far greater. The £50,000 cost to the council bears no comparison.
To complain about this minor cost and yet ignore the huge health costs and health effects shows a hopeless misunderstanding of the issue by the Council.

Dr Jerry Thompson
(Member of the British Society of Ecological Medicine and author of 'Health Effects of Waste Incinerators')
40 Ragstone Road,

I have followed this debate from far away Tasmania for several years and I am astounded at the evasive actions of Rugby Cement, Cemex, the Environment Authority and especially Rugby Borough Council.

If they had all done the correct thing, obeyed and policed the law openly and not evaded the issue about the pollution and damage to the health of the ordinary Rugby citizens then Lilian Pallikaropoulos would not have had to ask her questions.
A town in the centre of the UK should exhibit 'world's best practice' in the 21st century and not treat its citizens and this planet worse than many third world countries.

Whatever it costs to protect the health and future of the children and people generally will be worth the expenditure in the long term.

Tasmania may be one of the cleanest and greenest places on earth and we sympathise with all the residents of Rugby for the way they are being treated.

Mike McBain
Derwent Terrace
New Norfolk

Is it any wonder that RBC has a £1.1 million pound shortfall when according to Mr Warren, the Council's chief executive, it takes four officers and 2/3 hours to reply to just one letter from a member of the public.
Admittedly Lillian probably knows more about the subject of
Rugby Cement works than the people we charge with securing our health in the community, but surely if they stopped prevaricating and running scared from questions posed by this formidable lady then this can only be good for the people of Rugby.
Using the cost of replying to letters as a means of denying the electorate access to public information is a very slippery slope which can only eventually, bring about the demise of all we respect about Local Government.
We need to know that the Council is completely above suspicion and the only way we can achieve this is with open and honest dialogue.
If you have nothing to hide, you should not fear the truth!
G C Prewett
Railway Street
Long Lawford

If there were more people like Mrs Pallikaropoulos asking questions we would not find ourselves in the position where a new born baby is allegedly born with more than 300 groups of chemicals in its tiny body, many of which are carcinogenic and/or known to cause brain damage and neurological development problems in a developing foetus. This contamination is primarily a result of slack regulations on industrial emissions and even weaker enforcement of this regulations.
I think the councillors and officers of Rugby should start looking more seriously at the number of scientific studies showing the huge amount of toxic compounds allegedly being released from cement kilns around the world rather than dismissing Mrs Pallikaropoulos's concerns.The latest news for your readers interest is that a Lafarge North America cement plant allegedly 'belches up to 263 kilograms of mercury a year into the atmosphere - about 10 times more than previously believed'.
Wishing you good health.
Ralph Ryder
Coordinator, Communities Against Toxics,
Ellesmere Port,

Mrs. Pallikaropoulos claims an injustice from the council and the environmental health not to mention Rugby Cement. But all have bent over backwards to try and help her.
She has also appeared on the news campaigning about a chicken farm in Northamptonshire - how much has she cost that council?
The cement works has been there since the early 1800s and is part of Rugby's heritage. I bet there are not many families in the town who have not any involvement with the plant. Can't you see Mrs P. - most of use do not agree with you, just accept defeat if you don't like the cement works it's simple - leave town.
It is people like you why we have not got a town centre, Western Relief road, ect. You have had very little support on your marches from the normal everyday people of Rugby.
I hope that when it is all over RBC sues you to recover the cost of it all.

Mr P Hancox
Westbourne Grove

I AM appalled by the amount of time and money spent by the council in addressing Mrs. Pallikaropoulos' concerns. Given that the £50,000 represents only 0.1% of his budget, I look forward to hearing from Mr. Warren how he intends to significantly increase his focus on Rugby's major environmental threat.

Julian Relph,

Lilian Pallikaropoulos may be a thorn in the side of Rugby Borough Council, but without her and Rugby in Plume's campaigning RBC would not have lifted a finger to fight the burning of tyres and other waste materials at the Cemex's cement works.
Rugby needs characters like Lilian who are prepared to question authority, and who will fight for a better environment for everyone in Rugby.
It may cost time and money to answer Lilian's awkward and detailed questions, but the cost of not doing so would be far greater. It would mean that RBC was unaccountable and its actions left unchallenged.
Perhaps that's what Simon Warren wants. But for those who care about our town and the environment that would be a disaster.
Rather than pandering to cheap attacks on Lilian and Rugby in Plume, people in Rugby should ask themselves why Lilian has to ask RBC all these questions, and why - unlike the fight against the airport - the council has never played a prominent role in the campaign against tyre and waste burning at Rugby cement.
It's a great shame that RBC doesn't have the courage and vision to lead the fight against the largest single threat to our town's environment and the health of its people: Cemex's Rugby cement plant. Instead, what do we get from the council's chief executive? Unpleasant and nasty personal attacks from an unelected official. Is that the kind of leadership we want for our town?
Adam Woolf,
Manor Lane,

Tuesday, November 21, 2006



Why DOES RBC do this to its own Council Tax Payers?
Who would knowingly increase the TOXIC BURDEN on its own residents?

RBC's own report 03/09/01 states that TYRE BURNING IN RUGBY CEMENT will increase the emissions of :
# finer particulate;
# zinc;
# copper;
It says: "Zinc and copper are relatively harmless, but thallium is toxic and is known to cause cancer!

"The Environment Agency advise that if there is an incident with the plant it is unknown if it will result in the release of DIOXINS and FURANS as there is currently insufficient information on this issue!"

RBC Cabinet - well C Humphrey and A Gabittas got together, and decided:

1. Not to allow the Cabinet to answer my questions - they said they were not "worded as they would have liked them"!

2. Not to answer Parish Councillor Pat Wyatt's POLITE AND WELL WRITTEN questions - as they did not think they were polite enough!

3. RBC decided NOT to answer any lawyer's questions.

4. A Gabbitas decided NOT to answer Chris Holman's questions.

Why not?

And what are the COUNCILLORS doing now to help Rugby people?
In the meantime they plot in hardly publicised meetings at the "Task and Finish Climafuel Group" how to get London's waste imported for incineration in Rugby Town Centre!

Holman (Chair); Avis;Bragg;Cassedy;Day;Elton;Kaur;New;Parker;Sandison;Watson,

Thallium may kill Russian spys, but in Rugby it is the healthy way to start your day! And you can enjoy it 24/7!! All for free, courtesy of Cemex Rugby Cement, ably supported by Rugby Borough Council!

# What do the World Health Organisation recommend as a daily dose of it - and why are Rugby people not susceptible to it?

Rugby residents are apparently even tougher than Russian spies - they need to be with this Council!

All 48 Councillors are jointly responsible for this "carry-on", but the long-standing ones have aided and abetted it, or turned a blind eye to it all!

The fact that the Council refuses to answer questions of its own citizens, lawyers, and long-standing ward councillors says it all!


Monday, November 20, 2006

Witch is right !?

When Cemex got fined £400,000 for the 14th October 2005 POLLUTION EPISODE, under the watchful eye of the Environment Agency:

Was it during the Cemex Rugby Tyre Trials which actually started on 11th October 2005, and NOT on 21st October 2005 - as officially claimed in the Tyre Burning Draft Report - that went out to extensive public consultation?


Were Cemex burning tyres from 11th-21st October 2005, UNLAWFULLY and OUTSIDE of the Permit?


Now Cemex have "decided to appeal" the £400,000 fine? A definite case of " Out of the frying pan into the fire!"

FURTHER FLEECING: by RUGBY CEMENT of the hapless Rugby Council Tax payers who funded the Tyre Burning Review group, from whom so much essential data was with held, and who were even told the WRONG starting date for the Tyre Burning Trial. How wrong can you get?

What Rugby Cement, and the colluding Grubby Borough Council, have cost the Rugby Council Tax payers!

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Local Hero Or Crackpot

"Obsessive crackpot with spurious bee in her bonnet" now let loose in House
of Lords much to dismay of RBC who keep on persucting and defaming in order
to help prop up ailing Environment Agency and cement company?

In Today's Rugby Advertiser...

A FURIOUS campaigner has hit back at claims that £50,000 of council funds have been 'unreasonably' spent, dealing with her long-term battle against Cemex's Rugby works.
In a recent letter to Lilian Pallikaropoulos' lawyers Simon Warren, chief executive for Rugby Borough Council, said the figure was an 'estimation' of money spent dealing with her continuing protests over the Lawford Road site.

The letter said Mrs. Pallikaropoulos - a member of the Rugby in Plume group - sent more than 350 requests for information and other correspondence to the council's environmental health staff alone, since July 2005.

Mr. Warren described her behaviour as 'totally unreasonable' and condemned the 'frequently abusive or derogatory tone' of requests.

However, Mrs. Pallikaropoulos said: "This figure is totally unjustified.

"They are trying to fight someone who is only asking questions that they should be able to answer. It's malicious and vindictive and it's an attempt to hide the truth," she claimed.

Mr. Warren said the figure was a 'reasonable' calculation based on the volume of correspondence from Mrs. Pallikaropoulos.

Any single request for information had to be sent to four senior council officers and a minimum of two-three hours of workers' time then had to be spent dealing with each single query.

Mr. Warren described Mrs. Pallikaropoulos's behaviour as 'manifestly unreasonable', and claimed it diverted resources from other matters and in many cases were repeats of previous requests.

She said: "The reason we put in these questions is because we want to unearth the truth, and I would say the people of Rugby would say it's a small amount to uncover that."

Mrs. Pallikaropoulos' solicitors have since written back, rebutting the 'distressing' allegations.

WHAT do you think? Are Lilian Pallikaropoulos's protests worth £50,000 of YOUR money? Contact us via our postbag or email us on

The Editor Peter Aengenheister said this...

Editor's Comment: Local hero or crackpot?!

THIS week Advertiser editor Peter Aengenheister talks about one of the town's most well-known people - Lilian Pallikaropoulos.

Lilian Pallikaropoulos - a local hero or a strange obsessive?
Lilian, as most will know, is Rugby's greatest campaigner against the Cemex Cement Plant in Lawford Road.

She would like to see it closed down. She claims, backed up by an incredible amount of alleged evidence, the cement works is poisoning the people of Rugby.

Despite hiccups and incidents which clearly have caused problems, Cemex most vehemently denies this is the case, and says the filtering is far safer than ever at the plant.

Rugby Borough Council is integrally linked to the issue, being the organisation which issued planning permissions and has been monitoring emissions.

In her own words, Lilian has spent thousands of pounds of her own money in her battle to prove her point - she has also used acres of space on the Rugby Advertiser's letters pages.

But now, Rugby Borough Council's chief executive has written to Lilian's lawyers pointing out that her persistent requests for information have cost the council, and therefore the tax-payer, at least £50,000 to date.

So, is Lilian P an obsessive crackpot with a spurious bee in her bonnet? Or will history show that lives could have been saved if people had heeded her claims...

I have no idea... but I defend her right to campaign. If she is found to be right, £50,000 is nothing. If not, I think the council has spent big money in far worse ways... one only needs to mention the Princess Diana memorial..

Sunday, November 12, 2006







Regarding the EA: well SUDDENLY out of the blue on 8th November they come up with this cock and bull story: The incident of 14th October 2005 was during the Tyre Trials, which started on 11th October 2005, BUT we at the EA do not NOW count that as part of the "formal" tyre trials, and now we have just decided to say to all gullible people that that was just a TEN DAY "pre-trial trial" - know what I mean - just pretending, just practising, - yes that's it, that's the story! Yes! that ten day period in October 2005 is now NOT considered to be part of the Formal Tyre Trial - even though we never told anyone this for a WHOLE YEAR, despite endless meetings with Rugby residents at the Cement Forum, and the Tyre Burning Review Group, and officers at RBC, nor do we have any paperwork to show that, but now we have just now today decided to say that. Got it?

Could it just possibly be that this "new version of events" has occurred because a little bird had just told them, on that very day, 8th November, that the Rugby residents fight for ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE had moved up the ladder with the Petition proceeding to the next stage in the House of Lords? Surely not?

Regarding RBC : what can possibly have rattled their cages so much? Could it just be the distinct possibility that they might now have FINALLY to tell the WHOLE TRUTH? About WHY and HOW and WHO DUNNIT? Who are the OFFICERS at RBC that made the decision to collude with the Environment Agency to give the Rugby Cement plant the UNLAWFUL IPC operating permit in September 1999, IN SECRET behind the backs of the unsuspecting public, and trusting gullible councillors.


Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:24 PM
Dear Mrs Pallikaropoulos,

After consultation with the Leader of the Council and reference to Council Standing Orders, your questions to Cabinet on 13th November are rejected.

This is on the grounds that:

a. The questions are offensive and possibly defamatory.
b. They relate to legal proceedings.
c. They relate to individuals employed by the Council.
d. They relate to your own personal circumstances.

Simon Warren
Chief Executive

A. The questions can in no way be considered "offensive or possibly defamatory" to any open, honest, transparent, proper record-keeping, democratic, law-abiding, and procedurally correct Council. They could appear to be offensive to any Council more concerned with protecting its reputation, and concealing the facts and evidence of maladministration.

B. What legal proceedings is RBC involved in? Unless it is involving itself in trying to cover-up for the Environment Agency in the House of Lords Petition and Judicial Review brought by Rugby residents against the Agency for malpractice, and failing to comply with UK and EU Law. I would comment that RBC's repeated refusal to answer the questions over this last year could be viewed as a blatant attempt to PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, and to damage Rugby residents further than this Council has already done.

C. Of course the questions relate to officers employed by the Council, because they are employed by this Council because (presumably) they are "trained" in their jobs, and it is those people who have advised Councillors and made Decisions to do this to Rugby people, in secret, and who have been party to this environmental crime, and allegedly acted and colluded to obtain the grant of an unlawful IPC operating permit. Officers are supposed to advise the Councillors who are supposed to make the
decisions in an open, transparent way. This is not to go on behind closed doors, with no records, and no witnesses. If they would only tell the truth we might all know more.

D. They are not "my personal circumstances" but circumstances this Council has put on me. I have merely asked the questions and told the truth, and for this the officers and 48 Councillors have colluded (January 9th meeting) to take many "operational tactics against me" and considered putting an ASBO on me with no justification.
Naturally I want to know why.

The questions were relating to:

# The RBC's dereliction of duty in failing to respond to the June 1999 IPC application, the failure to ensure that the public were consulted, the failure to place it on the Public Register, and the failure to keep any files at all about who made the decision/s, and how they did so. There is apparently NO PAPERWORK at all. After months of insisting that she has "no memory" of the events, the Chief of the EHO department suddenly regained her memory and told the Rugby Times October 31st 2006: "Paperwork relating to the decisions may be hard to find, and SOME of those decisions were made by people who had retired or died". We merely asked for the names of these "dead and retired" decision makers, who kept no files at all? The RBC microfiche of Committee Meetings and Minutes reveals endless reports into every minutiae of environmental crime in Rugby, such as the heinous crime of "DOG FOULING", but surprise there is no mention at all of a NEW massively polluting CEMENT PLANT PERMIT.

# The EA's copy of the IPC Application sent to RBC on 24th June 1999 allowed 28 DAYS for consultation and appears to contain a "gagging clause", about the application. What did RBC do to CHALLENGE this gagging clause?
Again there is no paperwork about what happened.

# Assuming the RBC officers' have some formal training in IPC and IPPC applications, then why did they not ensure the public were consulted as they had to be by LAW, and why did they collude in hiding the application - and from the councillors?

# Why has RBC accused me of wasting £50,000 in Freedom of Information costs when all I have done is ask for copies of the records. Their problem is that they do not like the questions, they have no records, dare not reveal the TRUTH, and clearly "making up answers" takes a whole lot more of officers' time than just photocopying old files. They have even gone to the lengths of taking legal advice on how to "shut me up" and considered an ASBO. That would be just great - the first person in the UK to get an ASBO for:
# "telling the truth"
# "asking questions"
# "trying to protect the environment and health of 90,000 Rugby residents!"

Instead of answering the questions, and being truthful, open and transparent, RBC seek to tie me up in the "mess of their making", and to waste more of my time, and money, and to delay the inevitable MOMENT OF TRUTH when all will be revealed. RBC write and tell me to get their own Council and Councillors investigated. Can there be an investigation by the Standards Board into the behaviour of 48 Councillors who have just stood by and refused to ask for the TRUTH? COMPLAIN they say COMPLAIN:

# "GO TO THE OMBUDSMAN" about the maladministration.
# "GO TO THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER" about our refusal to answer
questions and supply information.
# "GO TO THE STANDARDS BOARD ABOUT THE COUNCILLORS" who refuse to help and work for Rugby residents despite being paid about £1,000, 000 a year from our Council taxes.

It is the DUTY of the WARD COUNCILLORS to help the residents in their own patch to make these formal complaints. Watch this space for futher updates on the response my request for HELP will get.




To: Patricia Wyatt
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 1:23 PM
Subject: RE: Questions for Cabinet 13.11.06

Dear Mrs Wyatt,

After consultation with the Leader of the Council and reference to Council Standing Orders, your questions to Cabinet on 13th November are rejected. This is on the grounds that:

a. The questions are offensive and possibly defamatory.
b. They relate to legal proceedings.
c. They relate to individuals employed by the Council.
d. They relate to a particular application.

Yours sincerely

Simon Warren
Chief Executive
Rugby Borough Council
01788 533532

From: Patricia Wyatt []
Sent: 10 November 2006 01:50
To: Simon Warren
Subject: Questions for Cabinet 13.11.06
Importance: High

For the attn of the Chief Executive - Mr. Simon Warren.

Please accept the following questions for Members of the Cabinet to answer during their meeting to be held on the 13th. November 2006.

With particular reference to the Question I raised on the 18th. October 2005 with the Council and the answer given by Cllr. Craig Humphrey - Conservative Leader of the Council regarding a request to be considered to hold a Full Environmental Impact Assessment into the Rugby Cement Works, Lawford Road. His answer was not acceptable as true at the time and has since been proven as untrue. He said the Council had carried out an assessment and that to carry out another would be a waste of resources and time. Therefore:-


2. Will this Council undertake every ACT and APPLY ITS FULL LEGISLATIVE POWERS to this Lawford Road cement plant immediately, as laid out in the letter from Richard Buxton - Solicitor dated 25th. October 2006 regarding IPC Authorisation and IPPC Application appertaining to AP8314? as the people of Rugby and Long Lawford expect NO LESS!!!

3. When will Rugby Borough Council accept it's full responsibilities to the residents of Rugby, including myself, and fulfil it's duties to FULLY PROTECT OUR HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT?

4. Who is and was responsible on behalf of Rugby Borough Council for making the decision, as a Statutory Consultee, not to make a formal response to the Permit consultation? (see letter 16.05.06 signed Head of Legal and Administration - RBC)

5. Given the same chances/opportunities and with hindsight, would this Council still choose not to respond to such a massive and important issue?

Yours faithfully,

Patricia Wyatt

Mrs. Patricia Wyatt.

Click to read letter...

Thursday, November 02, 2006