Public meeting will be held tonight to discuss the Averies Recycling fire

This Is Wiltshire: Public meeting will be held tonight to discuss the Averies Recycling fire Public meeting will be held tonight to discuss the Averies Recycling fire

RESIDENTS concerned by the ongoing fire at Averies Recycling are welcome to attend a meeting taking place tonight.

Representatives from the fire service, Swindon Council and the Environment Agency will be attending the event, being held at St Peter’s Church Hall, in Penhill, which starts at 7pm.

The authorities will be giving an update on their efforts to put out the blaze which has been going sine Monday, July 21. They will also discuss plans to move some of the waste from the Marshgate base to the former Groundwell park and ride site.

Firefighters have encountered difficulties putting out the blaze because they’ve struggled for space at the Averies site. The authorities claim that transferring some of the non-hazardous waste from the base will help firefighters tackle the blaze more aggressively.

It is thought that the authorities want to carry out the transfer in the next couple of days.

Yesterday, around 60 residents who live near to the former park and ride site protested against plans to move the waste to their community.

 

Comments (23)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:56am Fri 8 Aug 14

Ollie Dognacky says...

So basically an opportunity for councillors to be condescending to residents because the council have already decided what the council will do.
Residents should go though.
They'll see Swindon Borough Clownskool in action.
Each clown pretending to be at Westminster.
So basically an opportunity for councillors to be condescending to residents because the council have already decided what the council will do. Residents should go though. They'll see Swindon Borough Clownskool in action. Each clown pretending to be at Westminster. Ollie Dognacky
  • Score: -4

10:42am Fri 8 Aug 14

Davey Gravey says...

Give it a rest Ollie.
Give it a rest Ollie. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 20

10:48am Fri 8 Aug 14

Brunoh says...

Surely the irony is that, on the one hand the Council has spent £180,000 on a redundant idea to install bus lane cameras, and yet on the other hand are suggesting dumping tons of filth on a park and ride site ! (But equally redundant).

This is probably the thin end of the wedge, to set up a waste recycling area for the receipt of (mainly) green waste combined with a car park leased to the operators of the new Stadium up the road. Two birds with one stone, there being adequate room for queues of cars on other than match nights.

Of course this site cannot be used - it is not licensed!
Of course there is a vast amount of space available with the Council at Waterside Park!

Justin Tomlinson is right - this is a wakeup call for the Environment Agency. How many more 'operations' are accumulating waste in vast stockpiles rather than pay the price for proper disposal at a 'regulated' disposal site?

In other words, how many 'licences' have the Environment Agency issued via online application (only) to enable storage or transfer, more in search of money rather than the safety of the general taxpayer?

We have created such a bureaucracy in this country 'all working with their partners' such that nothing can be pinned down, decisions on the back stairs, masses of useless 'regulation' when push comes to shove.
Surely the irony is that, on the one hand the Council has spent £180,000 on a redundant idea to install bus lane cameras, and yet on the other hand are suggesting dumping tons of filth on a park and ride site ! (But equally redundant). This is probably the thin end of the wedge, to set up a waste recycling area for the receipt of (mainly) green waste combined with a car park leased to the operators of the new Stadium up the road. Two birds with one stone, there being adequate room for queues of cars on other than match nights. Of course this site cannot be used - it is not licensed! Of course there is a vast amount of space available with the Council at Waterside Park! Justin Tomlinson is right - this is a wakeup call for the Environment Agency. How many more 'operations' are accumulating waste in vast stockpiles rather than pay the price for proper disposal at a 'regulated' disposal site? In other words, how many 'licences' have the Environment Agency issued via online application (only) to enable storage or transfer, more in search of money rather than the safety of the general taxpayer? We have created such a bureaucracy in this country 'all working with their partners' such that nothing can be pinned down, decisions on the back stairs, masses of useless 'regulation' when push comes to shove. Brunoh
  • Score: 26

12:54pm Fri 8 Aug 14

Ollie Dognacky says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Give it a rest Ollie.
Give what a rest? Is there anything in my comment that is untrue?
I'll assume the cranky, thumb fiddling councillor has "cloned" Davey Graveys' login AGAIN
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Give it a rest Ollie.[/p][/quote]Give what a rest? Is there anything in my comment that is untrue? I'll assume the cranky, thumb fiddling councillor has "cloned" Davey Graveys' login AGAIN Ollie Dognacky
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Fri 8 Aug 14

messyits says...

Brunoh wrote:
Surely the irony is that, on the one hand the Council has spent £180,000 on a redundant idea to install bus lane cameras, and yet on the other hand are suggesting dumping tons of filth on a park and ride site ! (But equally redundant).

This is probably the thin end of the wedge, to set up a waste recycling area for the receipt of (mainly) green waste combined with a car park leased to the operators of the new Stadium up the road. Two birds with one stone, there being adequate room for queues of cars on other than match nights.

Of course this site cannot be used - it is not licensed!
Of course there is a vast amount of space available with the Council at Waterside Park!

Justin Tomlinson is right - this is a wakeup call for the Environment Agency. How many more 'operations' are accumulating waste in vast stockpiles rather than pay the price for proper disposal at a 'regulated' disposal site?

In other words, how many 'licences' have the Environment Agency issued via online application (only) to enable storage or transfer, more in search of money rather than the safety of the general taxpayer?

We have created such a bureaucracy in this country 'all working with their partners' such that nothing can be pinned down, decisions on the back stairs, masses of useless 'regulation' when push comes to shove.
I would add--the only safe disposal of this waste would be in the same manner as asbestos with copious water spray to stop the ash becoming airborne and fully sealed containers washed thoroughly at the deposit area. The costs borne by the company--who are likely to have the insurance claim rejected.
[quote][p][bold]Brunoh[/bold] wrote: Surely the irony is that, on the one hand the Council has spent £180,000 on a redundant idea to install bus lane cameras, and yet on the other hand are suggesting dumping tons of filth on a park and ride site ! (But equally redundant). This is probably the thin end of the wedge, to set up a waste recycling area for the receipt of (mainly) green waste combined with a car park leased to the operators of the new Stadium up the road. Two birds with one stone, there being adequate room for queues of cars on other than match nights. Of course this site cannot be used - it is not licensed! Of course there is a vast amount of space available with the Council at Waterside Park! Justin Tomlinson is right - this is a wakeup call for the Environment Agency. How many more 'operations' are accumulating waste in vast stockpiles rather than pay the price for proper disposal at a 'regulated' disposal site? In other words, how many 'licences' have the Environment Agency issued via online application (only) to enable storage or transfer, more in search of money rather than the safety of the general taxpayer? We have created such a bureaucracy in this country 'all working with their partners' such that nothing can be pinned down, decisions on the back stairs, masses of useless 'regulation' when push comes to shove.[/p][/quote]I would add--the only safe disposal of this waste would be in the same manner as asbestos with copious water spray to stop the ash becoming airborne and fully sealed containers washed thoroughly at the deposit area. The costs borne by the company--who are likely to have the insurance claim rejected. messyits
  • Score: -2

1:32pm Fri 8 Aug 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

messyits wrote:
Brunoh wrote:
Surely the irony is that, on the one hand the Council has spent £180,000 on a redundant idea to install bus lane cameras, and yet on the other hand are suggesting dumping tons of filth on a park and ride site ! (But equally redundant).

This is probably the thin end of the wedge, to set up a waste recycling area for the receipt of (mainly) green waste combined with a car park leased to the operators of the new Stadium up the road. Two birds with one stone, there being adequate room for queues of cars on other than match nights.

Of course this site cannot be used - it is not licensed!
Of course there is a vast amount of space available with the Council at Waterside Park!

Justin Tomlinson is right - this is a wakeup call for the Environment Agency. How many more 'operations' are accumulating waste in vast stockpiles rather than pay the price for proper disposal at a 'regulated' disposal site?

In other words, how many 'licences' have the Environment Agency issued via online application (only) to enable storage or transfer, more in search of money rather than the safety of the general taxpayer?

We have created such a bureaucracy in this country 'all working with their partners' such that nothing can be pinned down, decisions on the back stairs, masses of useless 'regulation' when push comes to shove.
I would add--the only safe disposal of this waste would be in the same manner as asbestos with copious water spray to stop the ash becoming airborne and fully sealed containers washed thoroughly at the deposit area. The costs borne by the company--who are likely to have the insurance claim rejected.
In which case watch the company declare itself bankrupt and avoid paying the costs; leaving the tax payer footing the bill.
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brunoh[/bold] wrote: Surely the irony is that, on the one hand the Council has spent £180,000 on a redundant idea to install bus lane cameras, and yet on the other hand are suggesting dumping tons of filth on a park and ride site ! (But equally redundant). This is probably the thin end of the wedge, to set up a waste recycling area for the receipt of (mainly) green waste combined with a car park leased to the operators of the new Stadium up the road. Two birds with one stone, there being adequate room for queues of cars on other than match nights. Of course this site cannot be used - it is not licensed! Of course there is a vast amount of space available with the Council at Waterside Park! Justin Tomlinson is right - this is a wakeup call for the Environment Agency. How many more 'operations' are accumulating waste in vast stockpiles rather than pay the price for proper disposal at a 'regulated' disposal site? In other words, how many 'licences' have the Environment Agency issued via online application (only) to enable storage or transfer, more in search of money rather than the safety of the general taxpayer? We have created such a bureaucracy in this country 'all working with their partners' such that nothing can be pinned down, decisions on the back stairs, masses of useless 'regulation' when push comes to shove.[/p][/quote]I would add--the only safe disposal of this waste would be in the same manner as asbestos with copious water spray to stop the ash becoming airborne and fully sealed containers washed thoroughly at the deposit area. The costs borne by the company--who are likely to have the insurance claim rejected.[/p][/quote]In which case watch the company declare itself bankrupt and avoid paying the costs; leaving the tax payer footing the bill. LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 7

3:05pm Fri 8 Aug 14

messyits says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
messyits wrote:
Brunoh wrote:
Surely the irony is that, on the one hand the Council has spent £180,000 on a redundant idea to install bus lane cameras, and yet on the other hand are suggesting dumping tons of filth on a park and ride site ! (But equally redundant).

This is probably the thin end of the wedge, to set up a waste recycling area for the receipt of (mainly) green waste combined with a car park leased to the operators of the new Stadium up the road. Two birds with one stone, there being adequate room for queues of cars on other than match nights.

Of course this site cannot be used - it is not licensed!
Of course there is a vast amount of space available with the Council at Waterside Park!

Justin Tomlinson is right - this is a wakeup call for the Environment Agency. How many more 'operations' are accumulating waste in vast stockpiles rather than pay the price for proper disposal at a 'regulated' disposal site?

In other words, how many 'licences' have the Environment Agency issued via online application (only) to enable storage or transfer, more in search of money rather than the safety of the general taxpayer?

We have created such a bureaucracy in this country 'all working with their partners' such that nothing can be pinned down, decisions on the back stairs, masses of useless 'regulation' when push comes to shove.
I would add--the only safe disposal of this waste would be in the same manner as asbestos with copious water spray to stop the ash becoming airborne and fully sealed containers washed thoroughly at the deposit area. The costs borne by the company--who are likely to have the insurance claim rejected.
In which case watch the company declare itself bankrupt and avoid paying the costs; leaving the tax payer footing the bill.
Highly unlikely--you do know how to find audited accounts I presume.
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brunoh[/bold] wrote: Surely the irony is that, on the one hand the Council has spent £180,000 on a redundant idea to install bus lane cameras, and yet on the other hand are suggesting dumping tons of filth on a park and ride site ! (But equally redundant). This is probably the thin end of the wedge, to set up a waste recycling area for the receipt of (mainly) green waste combined with a car park leased to the operators of the new Stadium up the road. Two birds with one stone, there being adequate room for queues of cars on other than match nights. Of course this site cannot be used - it is not licensed! Of course there is a vast amount of space available with the Council at Waterside Park! Justin Tomlinson is right - this is a wakeup call for the Environment Agency. How many more 'operations' are accumulating waste in vast stockpiles rather than pay the price for proper disposal at a 'regulated' disposal site? In other words, how many 'licences' have the Environment Agency issued via online application (only) to enable storage or transfer, more in search of money rather than the safety of the general taxpayer? We have created such a bureaucracy in this country 'all working with their partners' such that nothing can be pinned down, decisions on the back stairs, masses of useless 'regulation' when push comes to shove.[/p][/quote]I would add--the only safe disposal of this waste would be in the same manner as asbestos with copious water spray to stop the ash becoming airborne and fully sealed containers washed thoroughly at the deposit area. The costs borne by the company--who are likely to have the insurance claim rejected.[/p][/quote]In which case watch the company declare itself bankrupt and avoid paying the costs; leaving the tax payer footing the bill.[/p][/quote]Highly unlikely--you do know how to find audited accounts I presume. messyits
  • Score: -9

5:02pm Fri 8 Aug 14

trolley dolley says...

When I look at the photos of the site there appear to be very few hoses being used.

WHY.

Surely if enough effort and equipment was used by the fire service they would have had this fire out ages ago.

So what is the problem.
When I look at the photos of the site there appear to be very few hoses being used. WHY. Surely if enough effort and equipment was used by the fire service they would have had this fire out ages ago. So what is the problem. trolley dolley
  • Score: 1

5:05pm Fri 8 Aug 14

trolley dolley says...

When photos are published showing the fire at the site, very few fire hoses are in use.

WHY.

If the fire services used enough effort and equipment at the site they would be on top of the problem.

So what is the problem.
When photos are published showing the fire at the site, very few fire hoses are in use. WHY. If the fire services used enough effort and equipment at the site they would be on top of the problem. So what is the problem. trolley dolley
  • Score: 1

5:16pm Fri 8 Aug 14

messyits says...

trolley dolley wrote:
When I look at the photos of the site there appear to be very few hoses being used.

WHY.

Surely if enough effort and equipment was used by the fire service they would have had this fire out ages ago.

So what is the problem.
Mainly due to the fact some toxic waste is more dangerous and spreads when watered down--others react to other chemicals--again increasing the dangers and a host of other health and safety issues.
[quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: When I look at the photos of the site there appear to be very few hoses being used. WHY. Surely if enough effort and equipment was used by the fire service they would have had this fire out ages ago. So what is the problem.[/p][/quote]Mainly due to the fact some toxic waste is more dangerous and spreads when watered down--others react to other chemicals--again increasing the dangers and a host of other health and safety issues. messyits
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Fri 8 Aug 14

Alan Bast*rd says...

messyits wrote:
trolley dolley wrote:
When I look at the photos of the site there appear to be very few hoses being used.

WHY.

Surely if enough effort and equipment was used by the fire service they would have had this fire out ages ago.

So what is the problem.
Mainly due to the fact some toxic waste is more dangerous and spreads when watered down--others react to other chemicals--again increasing the dangers and a host of other health and safety issues.
If fluid suction tankers were used during the process wouldn't that stop that potential problem?
I've no idea but cannot think of another solution. It's going to rain heavily Sunday apparently
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]trolley dolley[/bold] wrote: When I look at the photos of the site there appear to be very few hoses being used. WHY. Surely if enough effort and equipment was used by the fire service they would have had this fire out ages ago. So what is the problem.[/p][/quote]Mainly due to the fact some toxic waste is more dangerous and spreads when watered down--others react to other chemicals--again increasing the dangers and a host of other health and safety issues.[/p][/quote]If fluid suction tankers were used during the process wouldn't that stop that potential problem? I've no idea but cannot think of another solution. It's going to rain heavily Sunday apparently Alan Bast*rd
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Fri 8 Aug 14

martinsummers99 says...

Also it leaches into the river Cole at Marshgate I understand.
Also it leaches into the river Cole at Marshgate I understand. martinsummers99
  • Score: 7

6:09pm Fri 8 Aug 14

messyits says...

I have been told the only accredited hazardous waste landfill was at the Barge Waste landfill/ at J16 M4 but was sold on.
I have been told the only accredited hazardous waste landfill was at the Barge Waste landfill/ at J16 M4 but was sold on. messyits
  • Score: -1

6:49pm Fri 8 Aug 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

messyits wrote:
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
messyits wrote:
Brunoh wrote:
Surely the irony is that, on the one hand the Council has spent £180,000 on a redundant idea to install bus lane cameras, and yet on the other hand are suggesting dumping tons of filth on a park and ride site ! (But equally redundant).

This is probably the thin end of the wedge, to set up a waste recycling area for the receipt of (mainly) green waste combined with a car park leased to the operators of the new Stadium up the road. Two birds with one stone, there being adequate room for queues of cars on other than match nights.

Of course this site cannot be used - it is not licensed!
Of course there is a vast amount of space available with the Council at Waterside Park!

Justin Tomlinson is right - this is a wakeup call for the Environment Agency. How many more 'operations' are accumulating waste in vast stockpiles rather than pay the price for proper disposal at a 'regulated' disposal site?

In other words, how many 'licences' have the Environment Agency issued via online application (only) to enable storage or transfer, more in search of money rather than the safety of the general taxpayer?

We have created such a bureaucracy in this country 'all working with their partners' such that nothing can be pinned down, decisions on the back stairs, masses of useless 'regulation' when push comes to shove.
I would add--the only safe disposal of this waste would be in the same manner as asbestos with copious water spray to stop the ash becoming airborne and fully sealed containers washed thoroughly at the deposit area. The costs borne by the company--who are likely to have the insurance claim rejected.
In which case watch the company declare itself bankrupt and avoid paying the costs; leaving the tax payer footing the bill.
Highly unlikely--you do know how to find audited accounts I presume.
There are plenty of ways of moving money around as any good accountant will tell you. Plenty of examples where one company gets written off whilst the directors simply move on. With limited liability there is little that can be done about it if its done in the right way.....! Lets see how the story pans out.
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brunoh[/bold] wrote: Surely the irony is that, on the one hand the Council has spent £180,000 on a redundant idea to install bus lane cameras, and yet on the other hand are suggesting dumping tons of filth on a park and ride site ! (But equally redundant). This is probably the thin end of the wedge, to set up a waste recycling area for the receipt of (mainly) green waste combined with a car park leased to the operators of the new Stadium up the road. Two birds with one stone, there being adequate room for queues of cars on other than match nights. Of course this site cannot be used - it is not licensed! Of course there is a vast amount of space available with the Council at Waterside Park! Justin Tomlinson is right - this is a wakeup call for the Environment Agency. How many more 'operations' are accumulating waste in vast stockpiles rather than pay the price for proper disposal at a 'regulated' disposal site? In other words, how many 'licences' have the Environment Agency issued via online application (only) to enable storage or transfer, more in search of money rather than the safety of the general taxpayer? We have created such a bureaucracy in this country 'all working with their partners' such that nothing can be pinned down, decisions on the back stairs, masses of useless 'regulation' when push comes to shove.[/p][/quote]I would add--the only safe disposal of this waste would be in the same manner as asbestos with copious water spray to stop the ash becoming airborne and fully sealed containers washed thoroughly at the deposit area. The costs borne by the company--who are likely to have the insurance claim rejected.[/p][/quote]In which case watch the company declare itself bankrupt and avoid paying the costs; leaving the tax payer footing the bill.[/p][/quote]Highly unlikely--you do know how to find audited accounts I presume.[/p][/quote]There are plenty of ways of moving money around as any good accountant will tell you. Plenty of examples where one company gets written off whilst the directors simply move on. With limited liability there is little that can be done about it if its done in the right way.....! Lets see how the story pans out. LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 7

7:02pm Fri 8 Aug 14

Brunoh says...

When we tested the water in the 'river Cole' some years ago, for cleanliness, it was found to be virtually a sewer taking lots of run-off, road chemical etc. from Dorcan Way and the Industrial sites along Drakes Way including the site in marshgate. This was in the stretch from Marshgate to south of the Gablecross Police Station. There was also indicators of organic pollution at that point and a licence had been issued permitting a sluice entering from lotmead, which could have been a probable source.

However by the time the river had reached the weir where it crosses the old Highworth - Shrivenham road - it had self- cleaned.

My point then is that copious amounts of water should be used as there is already considerable chemical leacheate in that vicinity - not helped by the inactivity of Environment Agency and like 'partners' - which will self clean.

So, get on with it; nature might help on Sunday but no more excuses and no dumping anywhere except the Council Depot at Waterside Park.

What happened to the Big Conversation???
When we tested the water in the 'river Cole' some years ago, for cleanliness, it was found to be virtually a sewer taking lots of run-off, road chemical etc. from Dorcan Way and the Industrial sites along Drakes Way including the site in marshgate. This was in the stretch from Marshgate to south of the Gablecross Police Station. There was also indicators of organic pollution at that point and a licence had been issued permitting a sluice entering from lotmead, which could have been a probable source. However by the time the river had reached the weir where it crosses the old Highworth - Shrivenham road - it had self- cleaned. My point then is that copious amounts of water should be used as there is already considerable chemical leacheate in that vicinity - not helped by the inactivity of Environment Agency and like 'partners' - which will self clean. So, get on with it; nature might help on Sunday but no more excuses and no dumping anywhere except the Council Depot at Waterside Park. What happened to the Big Conversation??? Brunoh
  • Score: 5

7:48pm Fri 8 Aug 14

messyits says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
messyits wrote:
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
messyits wrote:
Brunoh wrote:
Surely the irony is that, on the one hand the Council has spent £180,000 on a redundant idea to install bus lane cameras, and yet on the other hand are suggesting dumping tons of filth on a park and ride site ! (But equally redundant).

This is probably the thin end of the wedge, to set up a waste recycling area for the receipt of (mainly) green waste combined with a car park leased to the operators of the new Stadium up the road. Two birds with one stone, there being adequate room for queues of cars on other than match nights.

Of course this site cannot be used - it is not licensed!
Of course there is a vast amount of space available with the Council at Waterside Park!

Justin Tomlinson is right - this is a wakeup call for the Environment Agency. How many more 'operations' are accumulating waste in vast stockpiles rather than pay the price for proper disposal at a 'regulated' disposal site?

In other words, how many 'licences' have the Environment Agency issued via online application (only) to enable storage or transfer, more in search of money rather than the safety of the general taxpayer?

We have created such a bureaucracy in this country 'all working with their partners' such that nothing can be pinned down, decisions on the back stairs, masses of useless 'regulation' when push comes to shove.
I would add--the only safe disposal of this waste would be in the same manner as asbestos with copious water spray to stop the ash becoming airborne and fully sealed containers washed thoroughly at the deposit area. The costs borne by the company--who are likely to have the insurance claim rejected.
In which case watch the company declare itself bankrupt and avoid paying the costs; leaving the tax payer footing the bill.
Highly unlikely--you do know how to find audited accounts I presume.
There are plenty of ways of moving money around as any good accountant will tell you. Plenty of examples where one company gets written off whilst the directors simply move on. With limited liability there is little that can be done about it if its done in the right way.....! Lets see how the story pans out.
On the contrary--any accountant who gives information is in breach of their code of conduct as they are agents of HMRC--their duty to the client is to correctly advise if anything can be done to offset their tax burden.
To make such changes you suggest after accounts have been audited is business suicide amounting to personal liabilities. You can guarantee this has been looked into as blame falls on multiple parties.
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brunoh[/bold] wrote: Surely the irony is that, on the one hand the Council has spent £180,000 on a redundant idea to install bus lane cameras, and yet on the other hand are suggesting dumping tons of filth on a park and ride site ! (But equally redundant). This is probably the thin end of the wedge, to set up a waste recycling area for the receipt of (mainly) green waste combined with a car park leased to the operators of the new Stadium up the road. Two birds with one stone, there being adequate room for queues of cars on other than match nights. Of course this site cannot be used - it is not licensed! Of course there is a vast amount of space available with the Council at Waterside Park! Justin Tomlinson is right - this is a wakeup call for the Environment Agency. How many more 'operations' are accumulating waste in vast stockpiles rather than pay the price for proper disposal at a 'regulated' disposal site? In other words, how many 'licences' have the Environment Agency issued via online application (only) to enable storage or transfer, more in search of money rather than the safety of the general taxpayer? We have created such a bureaucracy in this country 'all working with their partners' such that nothing can be pinned down, decisions on the back stairs, masses of useless 'regulation' when push comes to shove.[/p][/quote]I would add--the only safe disposal of this waste would be in the same manner as asbestos with copious water spray to stop the ash becoming airborne and fully sealed containers washed thoroughly at the deposit area. The costs borne by the company--who are likely to have the insurance claim rejected.[/p][/quote]In which case watch the company declare itself bankrupt and avoid paying the costs; leaving the tax payer footing the bill.[/p][/quote]Highly unlikely--you do know how to find audited accounts I presume.[/p][/quote]There are plenty of ways of moving money around as any good accountant will tell you. Plenty of examples where one company gets written off whilst the directors simply move on. With limited liability there is little that can be done about it if its done in the right way.....! Lets see how the story pans out.[/p][/quote]On the contrary--any accountant who gives information is in breach of their code of conduct as they are agents of HMRC--their duty to the client is to correctly advise if anything can be done to offset their tax burden. To make such changes you suggest after accounts have been audited is business suicide amounting to personal liabilities. You can guarantee this has been looked into as blame falls on multiple parties. messyits
  • Score: -4

7:54pm Fri 8 Aug 14

messyits says...

LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
messyits wrote:
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
messyits wrote:
Brunoh wrote:
Surely the irony is that, on the one hand the Council has spent £180,000 on a redundant idea to install bus lane cameras, and yet on the other hand are suggesting dumping tons of filth on a park and ride site ! (But equally redundant).

This is probably the thin end of the wedge, to set up a waste recycling area for the receipt of (mainly) green waste combined with a car park leased to the operators of the new Stadium up the road. Two birds with one stone, there being adequate room for queues of cars on other than match nights.

Of course this site cannot be used - it is not licensed!
Of course there is a vast amount of space available with the Council at Waterside Park!

Justin Tomlinson is right - this is a wakeup call for the Environment Agency. How many more 'operations' are accumulating waste in vast stockpiles rather than pay the price for proper disposal at a 'regulated' disposal site?

In other words, how many 'licences' have the Environment Agency issued via online application (only) to enable storage or transfer, more in search of money rather than the safety of the general taxpayer?

We have created such a bureaucracy in this country 'all working with their partners' such that nothing can be pinned down, decisions on the back stairs, masses of useless 'regulation' when push comes to shove.
I would add--the only safe disposal of this waste would be in the same manner as asbestos with copious water spray to stop the ash becoming airborne and fully sealed containers washed thoroughly at the deposit area. The costs borne by the company--who are likely to have the insurance claim rejected.
In which case watch the company declare itself bankrupt and avoid paying the costs; leaving the tax payer footing the bill.
Highly unlikely--you do know how to find audited accounts I presume.
There are plenty of ways of moving money around as any good accountant will tell you. Plenty of examples where one company gets written off whilst the directors simply move on. With limited liability there is little that can be done about it if its done in the right way.....! Lets see how the story pans out.
You can be sure loopholes were closed and accountants are agents for HMRC-the accounts were settled some while back.
[quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brunoh[/bold] wrote: Surely the irony is that, on the one hand the Council has spent £180,000 on a redundant idea to install bus lane cameras, and yet on the other hand are suggesting dumping tons of filth on a park and ride site ! (But equally redundant). This is probably the thin end of the wedge, to set up a waste recycling area for the receipt of (mainly) green waste combined with a car park leased to the operators of the new Stadium up the road. Two birds with one stone, there being adequate room for queues of cars on other than match nights. Of course this site cannot be used - it is not licensed! Of course there is a vast amount of space available with the Council at Waterside Park! Justin Tomlinson is right - this is a wakeup call for the Environment Agency. How many more 'operations' are accumulating waste in vast stockpiles rather than pay the price for proper disposal at a 'regulated' disposal site? In other words, how many 'licences' have the Environment Agency issued via online application (only) to enable storage or transfer, more in search of money rather than the safety of the general taxpayer? We have created such a bureaucracy in this country 'all working with their partners' such that nothing can be pinned down, decisions on the back stairs, masses of useless 'regulation' when push comes to shove.[/p][/quote]I would add--the only safe disposal of this waste would be in the same manner as asbestos with copious water spray to stop the ash becoming airborne and fully sealed containers washed thoroughly at the deposit area. The costs borne by the company--who are likely to have the insurance claim rejected.[/p][/quote]In which case watch the company declare itself bankrupt and avoid paying the costs; leaving the tax payer footing the bill.[/p][/quote]Highly unlikely--you do know how to find audited accounts I presume.[/p][/quote]There are plenty of ways of moving money around as any good accountant will tell you. Plenty of examples where one company gets written off whilst the directors simply move on. With limited liability there is little that can be done about it if its done in the right way.....! Lets see how the story pans out.[/p][/quote]You can be sure loopholes were closed and accountants are agents for HMRC-the accounts were settled some while back. messyits
  • Score: -4

8:15pm Fri 8 Aug 14

messyits says...

Brunoh wrote:
When we tested the water in the 'river Cole' some years ago, for cleanliness, it was found to be virtually a sewer taking lots of run-off, road chemical etc. from Dorcan Way and the Industrial sites along Drakes Way including the site in marshgate. This was in the stretch from Marshgate to south of the Gablecross Police Station. There was also indicators of organic pollution at that point and a licence had been issued permitting a sluice entering from lotmead, which could have been a probable source.

However by the time the river had reached the weir where it crosses the old Highworth - Shrivenham road - it had self- cleaned.

My point then is that copious amounts of water should be used as there is already considerable chemical leacheate in that vicinity - not helped by the inactivity of Environment Agency and like 'partners' - which will self clean.

So, get on with it; nature might help on Sunday but no more excuses and no dumping anywhere except the Council Depot at Waterside Park.

What happened to the Big Conversation???
Here the problem is cross contaminated commercial products and ash of unknown quantities which will have to be very carefully handled and meter dosed with liquids at pre prepared landfill sites.--these are potentially life threatening products that if allowed into the river could affect too many people.
[quote][p][bold]Brunoh[/bold] wrote: When we tested the water in the 'river Cole' some years ago, for cleanliness, it was found to be virtually a sewer taking lots of run-off, road chemical etc. from Dorcan Way and the Industrial sites along Drakes Way including the site in marshgate. This was in the stretch from Marshgate to south of the Gablecross Police Station. There was also indicators of organic pollution at that point and a licence had been issued permitting a sluice entering from lotmead, which could have been a probable source. However by the time the river had reached the weir where it crosses the old Highworth - Shrivenham road - it had self- cleaned. My point then is that copious amounts of water should be used as there is already considerable chemical leacheate in that vicinity - not helped by the inactivity of Environment Agency and like 'partners' - which will self clean. So, get on with it; nature might help on Sunday but no more excuses and no dumping anywhere except the Council Depot at Waterside Park. What happened to the Big Conversation???[/p][/quote]Here the problem is cross contaminated commercial products and ash of unknown quantities which will have to be very carefully handled and meter dosed with liquids at pre prepared landfill sites.--these are potentially life threatening products that if allowed into the river could affect too many people. messyits
  • Score: -3

8:22am Sat 9 Aug 14

LordAshOfTheBrake says...

messyits wrote:
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
messyits wrote:
LordAshOfTheBrake wrote:
messyits wrote:
Brunoh wrote:
Surely the irony is that, on the one hand the Council has spent £180,000 on a redundant idea to install bus lane cameras, and yet on the other hand are suggesting dumping tons of filth on a park and ride site ! (But equally redundant).

This is probably the thin end of the wedge, to set up a waste recycling area for the receipt of (mainly) green waste combined with a car park leased to the operators of the new Stadium up the road. Two birds with one stone, there being adequate room for queues of cars on other than match nights.

Of course this site cannot be used - it is not licensed!
Of course there is a vast amount of space available with the Council at Waterside Park!

Justin Tomlinson is right - this is a wakeup call for the Environment Agency. How many more 'operations' are accumulating waste in vast stockpiles rather than pay the price for proper disposal at a 'regulated' disposal site?

In other words, how many 'licences' have the Environment Agency issued via online application (only) to enable storage or transfer, more in search of money rather than the safety of the general taxpayer?

We have created such a bureaucracy in this country 'all working with their partners' such that nothing can be pinned down, decisions on the back stairs, masses of useless 'regulation' when push comes to shove.
I would add--the only safe disposal of this waste would be in the same manner as asbestos with copious water spray to stop the ash becoming airborne and fully sealed containers washed thoroughly at the deposit area. The costs borne by the company--who are likely to have the insurance claim rejected.
In which case watch the company declare itself bankrupt and avoid paying the costs; leaving the tax payer footing the bill.
Highly unlikely--you do know how to find audited accounts I presume.
There are plenty of ways of moving money around as any good accountant will tell you. Plenty of examples where one company gets written off whilst the directors simply move on. With limited liability there is little that can be done about it if its done in the right way.....! Lets see how the story pans out.
You can be sure loopholes were closed and accountants are agents for HMRC-the accounts were settled some while back.
I seem to recall that HMRC tax advisors and so on were also working for the big accounting and auditing companies and depending on your opinion either allowed or engineered loop holes to exist.

The accounts for year to date won't be audited yet will they so it has nothing to do with those accounts already audited; the interesting bits will be the next set of accounts.

You may have a new user name, but the arguing for the sake of arguing and petty point scoring is still there.
[quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LordAshOfTheBrake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]messyits[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brunoh[/bold] wrote: Surely the irony is that, on the one hand the Council has spent £180,000 on a redundant idea to install bus lane cameras, and yet on the other hand are suggesting dumping tons of filth on a park and ride site ! (But equally redundant). This is probably the thin end of the wedge, to set up a waste recycling area for the receipt of (mainly) green waste combined with a car park leased to the operators of the new Stadium up the road. Two birds with one stone, there being adequate room for queues of cars on other than match nights. Of course this site cannot be used - it is not licensed! Of course there is a vast amount of space available with the Council at Waterside Park! Justin Tomlinson is right - this is a wakeup call for the Environment Agency. How many more 'operations' are accumulating waste in vast stockpiles rather than pay the price for proper disposal at a 'regulated' disposal site? In other words, how many 'licences' have the Environment Agency issued via online application (only) to enable storage or transfer, more in search of money rather than the safety of the general taxpayer? We have created such a bureaucracy in this country 'all working with their partners' such that nothing can be pinned down, decisions on the back stairs, masses of useless 'regulation' when push comes to shove.[/p][/quote]I would add--the only safe disposal of this waste would be in the same manner as asbestos with copious water spray to stop the ash becoming airborne and fully sealed containers washed thoroughly at the deposit area. The costs borne by the company--who are likely to have the insurance claim rejected.[/p][/quote]In which case watch the company declare itself bankrupt and avoid paying the costs; leaving the tax payer footing the bill.[/p][/quote]Highly unlikely--you do know how to find audited accounts I presume.[/p][/quote]There are plenty of ways of moving money around as any good accountant will tell you. Plenty of examples where one company gets written off whilst the directors simply move on. With limited liability there is little that can be done about it if its done in the right way.....! Lets see how the story pans out.[/p][/quote]You can be sure loopholes were closed and accountants are agents for HMRC-the accounts were settled some while back.[/p][/quote]I seem to recall that HMRC tax advisors and so on were also working for the big accounting and auditing companies and depending on your opinion either allowed or engineered loop holes to exist. The accounts for year to date won't be audited yet will they so it has nothing to do with those accounts already audited; the interesting bits will be the next set of accounts. You may have a new user name, but the arguing for the sake of arguing and petty point scoring is still there. LordAshOfTheBrake
  • Score: 10

1:25pm Sat 9 Aug 14

messyits says...

Sorry old chap--you demonstrate very clearly how little you know as to the roles of Tax officials and accountants nor the relevance of accounts and how the law applies.
The last years accounts (tax year) hold the viability of the business.
I do not listen to pie in the sky claims that have no merit.
As to my username an investigation is on going from an earlier time whilst I was in hospital and my username was used as was others.
Sorry old chap--you demonstrate very clearly how little you know as to the roles of Tax officials and accountants nor the relevance of accounts and how the law applies. The last years accounts (tax year) hold the viability of the business. I do not listen to pie in the sky claims that have no merit. As to my username an investigation is on going from an earlier time whilst I was in hospital and my username was used as was others. messyits
  • Score: -5

1:25pm Sat 9 Aug 14

knittynora says...

OF course as many posters on here are always telling us, the private sector is always more efficient and gets things done so much better and more cheaply than the public sector. Oh wait a minute isn't Averies a privately owned enterprise? And aren't all the calls for the Council and the emergency organisations to clean up the mess? This is par for the course. Private concerns mess up and Joe taxpayer pays but if private concerns make a profit shareholders gain.
OF course as many posters on here are always telling us, the private sector is always more efficient and gets things done so much better and more cheaply than the public sector. Oh wait a minute isn't Averies a privately owned enterprise? And aren't all the calls for the Council and the emergency organisations to clean up the mess? This is par for the course. Private concerns mess up and Joe taxpayer pays but if private concerns make a profit shareholders gain. knittynora
  • Score: 3

7:28am Sun 10 Aug 14

Blackmalkin says...

Hopefully Averies will be closed down after this is all over. There is ample evidence (previous fines) that they hgave been operating outwside the rules for some time. In one of the hottest summer periods for a while this has been awful for their neghbours - we've even had the odd whiff of it down in Covingham and sometimes haven't been able to have the windows open all the time or dry washing outside.
Hopefully Averies will be closed down after this is all over. There is ample evidence (previous fines) that they hgave been operating outwside the rules for some time. In one of the hottest summer periods for a while this has been awful for their neghbours - we've even had the odd whiff of it down in Covingham and sometimes haven't been able to have the windows open all the time or dry washing outside. Blackmalkin
  • Score: 3

2:32pm Mon 11 Aug 14

trolley dolley says...

Maybe with all the rain we are now having our brave fire fighters can put their watering cans away.
Maybe with all the rain we are now having our brave fire fighters can put their watering cans away. trolley dolley
  • Score: -3

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree