Plan to slash energy bills in York

Plan to slash energy bills in York

Plan to slash energy bills in York

Published in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by

ENERGY prices could be slashed in York through a series of ambitious new projects being planned by the city council.

Wind farms and/or solar energy sites in York, bulk-bought energy, and carbon credits gained by planting trees in the city are all being considered by officials and elected councillors.

A committee of backbench councillors have discussed plans to use the schemes to fight rising energy prices for York residents.

Council leader James Alexander and cabinet member for environmental services Dave Merrett have both confirmed they are considering bulk buying energy to bring prices down for York people.

The news emerged in a report to the council’s economic and city development overview and scrutiny committee.

Government figures show 9,000 households in York are estimated to be in fuel poverty, and the council’s plans have drawn support from national campaigning body National Energy Action (NEA).

The charity’s external affairs manager Peter Smith said: “Fuel poverty is a serious and growing problem, with 9,000 households in City of York alone estimated to be unable to heat their homes properly.

“NEA believes that that coordinated action by local authorities and other partners is the key to tackling fuel poverty and we welcome the fact that efforts are being made in York.”

According to a document submitted to the committee in March, special bodies could be set up to run local energy plants - either as Energy Service Companies or cooperatives - and the same paper shows the council has been looking into ways of generating electricity on its own land and across the city. The council has commissioned a report from engineering company AMEC.

A council spokesman confirmed that once it has been completed the AMEC report will be part of the next stage of the Local Plan, and the council could then start investigating renewable energy projects either on its own land or elsewhere in the city, she added.

The council’s plans are not the first examples of local energy generation planned in York. Richard Lane is chairman of York Community Energy - a not for profit group which earlier this year began to investigate a possible wind farm site at Murton Moor.

Now the group is casting the net wider in a bid to build support for its ideas across the city. Its projects would work by selling energy back to the grid and giving the profits to the community either via dividends or bond payments.

Mr Lane praised the council’s ideas and said: “We would like to see cooperative owned sites so local residents can have a say in how they are run.”

Although the council is looking at both wind and solar energy, Mr Lane said the Community Energy group supports wind over solar farms.

As Wednesday’s meeting the scrutiny committee decided against an immediate review of the issue, but it will reconsider the matter in October.

It also decided not to launch a review of the Lendal Bridge closure trial, with Labour councillors voting down a proposal supported by the Green, Conservative and Liberal Democrat members, by four votes to three.

Comments (44)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:03am Sat 14 Jun 14

GMuser says...

HIDDEN AWAY AT THE END OF THIS PRESS REPORT.

LENDAL BRIDGE ENQUIRY KILLED OFF BY LABOUR.......

WELL WHAT A SURPRISE....... TRY TO KEEP THIS QUIET ME THINKS
HIDDEN AWAY AT THE END OF THIS PRESS REPORT. LENDAL BRIDGE ENQUIRY KILLED OFF BY LABOUR....... WELL WHAT A SURPRISE....... TRY TO KEEP THIS QUIET ME THINKS GMuser
  • Score: -48

10:38am Sat 14 Jun 14

Jalymo says...

Build a wind farm at Westgate Offices because there is enough hot air there to run the things. As for other sites around York, all of course are below sea level and will not produce anything other than profits for the foreign manufacturers that come from government subsidies funded by us, the tax payers!!
Build a wind farm at Westgate Offices because there is enough hot air there to run the things. As for other sites around York, all of course are below sea level and will not produce anything other than profits for the foreign manufacturers that come from government subsidies funded by us, the tax payers!! Jalymo
  • Score: -74

10:40am Sat 14 Jun 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Initially I thought this was a great effort to benefit residents in York.

Reading through the whole story, getting to the last paragraph and hey presto, burying the awaited review of the Lendal failure.

On a Saturday, at the end of what should be a good news story, just shows the contempt Labour Councillors have for York residents, but then you only have to look for the names in the story to realise it should be expected.

Try being open, honest instead of sneaky and underhand, but then a leopard never changes it's spots, so we should change the leopard.
Initially I thought this was a great effort to benefit residents in York. Reading through the whole story, getting to the last paragraph and hey presto, burying the awaited review of the Lendal failure. On a Saturday, at the end of what should be a good news story, just shows the contempt Labour Councillors have for York residents, but then you only have to look for the names in the story to realise it should be expected. Try being open, honest instead of sneaky and underhand, but then a leopard never changes it's spots, so we should change the leopard. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: -47

11:23am Sat 14 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Look out for more and more of these initiatives.

Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality'

We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold.

It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.
Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped. Badgers Drift
  • Score: 13

11:33am Sat 14 Jun 14

marvell says...

For those of you who want to know - it was Cllr Steve Burton who had the casting vote - and chose to kill off any enquiry into Lendal Bridge.
For those of you who want to know - it was Cllr Steve Burton who had the casting vote - and chose to kill off any enquiry into Lendal Bridge. marvell
  • Score: -24

11:34am Sat 14 Jun 14

Garrowby Turnoff says...

It's nothing new. The same scheme was introduced by my East Yorkshire CC a few months ago.
It's nothing new. The same scheme was introduced by my East Yorkshire CC a few months ago. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: 17

12:03pm Sat 14 Jun 14

Grumpy Old Man says...

Was last night's power cut in Heworth (why no report, Press?) part of the plan to slash our bills? Two hours without power will certainly reduce my bill.
Was last night's power cut in Heworth (why no report, Press?) part of the plan to slash our bills? Two hours without power will certainly reduce my bill. Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 18

12:28pm Sat 14 Jun 14

Dave Ruddock says...

Good ideas (Just Ideas), and nothing to speak of till October (wounder October 2015). Seems the Country,s Government cant hold a world wide conference against ever higher prices for Gas and Electric, New Homes with solar power, and yes a massive Wind Turbine on Station Rise.
and who put in the last paragraph, Evening Press reporter, or was it said at a meeting (backbench Councillors ) and energy yo lendal bridge . one wonders...
Good ideas (Just Ideas), and nothing to speak of till October (wounder October 2015). Seems the Country,s Government cant hold a world wide conference against ever higher prices for Gas and Electric, New Homes with solar power, and yes a massive Wind Turbine on Station Rise. and who put in the last paragraph, Evening Press reporter, or was it said at a meeting (backbench Councillors ) and energy yo lendal bridge . one wonders... Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Sat 14 Jun 14

tobefair says...

OK if the wind turbines are situated in the North Sea.
NOT OK if they are going to surround York.
OK if the wind turbines are situated in the North Sea. NOT OK if they are going to surround York. tobefair
  • Score: 6

1:16pm Sat 14 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Look out for more and more of these initiatives.

Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality'

We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold.

It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.
Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place?
Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.[/p][/quote]Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?" Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -120

1:27pm Sat 14 Jun 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

The huge cost of renewables (Wind and solar) are mostly what are putting people into fuel poverty. in the first place. So, CoYC suggesting more of the same comes as no surprise. Why are they not considering the more efficient hydro electricity?

You would have thought that after CoYC wasted all that money on their own James Street wind turbine that they would have learnt their lesson. Solar will give very little in the winter short days when we need energy the most. And wind, well it has to be blowing to produce energy.

On the plus side, it's nice to see that the Councils score adjuster has not yet attacked this topic!
The huge cost of renewables (Wind and solar) are mostly what are putting people into fuel poverty. in the first place. So, CoYC suggesting more of the same comes as no surprise. Why are they not considering the more efficient hydro electricity? You would have thought that after CoYC wasted all that money on their own James Street wind turbine that they would have learnt their lesson. Solar will give very little in the winter short days when we need energy the most. And wind, well it has to be blowing to produce energy. On the plus side, it's nice to see that the Councils score adjuster has not yet attacked this topic! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -36

2:25pm Sat 14 Jun 14

strangebuttrue? says...

Notable how most political parties are jumping on this bandwagon. They may all be jumping on it but what difference is it actually making? My bills continue to rise and despite the recent huge drops in wholesale prices I don't expect to see any reduction. Are we trapped by an industry that appears to have latched onto the fact that we are all reliant on it's products and it can charge whatever it wants and no political party in this country has any real will to change this?
Notable how most political parties are jumping on this bandwagon. They may all be jumping on it but what difference is it actually making? My bills continue to rise and despite the recent huge drops in wholesale prices I don't expect to see any reduction. Are we trapped by an industry that appears to have latched onto the fact that we are all reliant on it's products and it can charge whatever it wants and no political party in this country has any real will to change this? strangebuttrue?
  • Score: -68

3:49pm Sat 14 Jun 14

julia brica says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Look out for more and more of these initiatives.

Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality'

We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold.

It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.
Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place?
Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"
He doesn't need to explain.............
.......the one that just arrived here from Brighton should be an explanation to everyone and everything.
She has impeccable qualifications . Has just bailed out of a failing looney left authority and jumped straight into an equally looney left authority.
Welcome welcome, lets see what damage she can do here. Wont be long before we see.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.[/p][/quote]Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"[/p][/quote]He doesn't need to explain............. .......the one that just arrived here from Brighton should be an explanation to everyone and everything. She has impeccable qualifications . Has just bailed out of a failing looney left authority and jumped straight into an equally looney left authority. Welcome welcome, lets see what damage she can do here. Wont be long before we see. julia brica
  • Score: 18

4:15pm Sat 14 Jun 14

Flabbergob says...

Good old Mark-Down Muppet, stay busy.

You may very well be hearing from the PCC in the near future.

http://www.pcc.org.u
k/complaints/form.ht
ml

Politically motivated misrepresentation, 5 articles, time and date stamped have been forwarded for investigation.

I suggest other posters register their complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (link above), we may very well be seeing the identity of the Mark-Down Muppets very soon.

Your IP address will be enough to identify you even if it's not a fixed one.
Good old Mark-Down Muppet, stay busy. You may very well be hearing from the PCC in the near future. http://www.pcc.org.u k/complaints/form.ht ml Politically motivated misrepresentation, 5 articles, time and date stamped have been forwarded for investigation. I suggest other posters register their complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (link above), we may very well be seeing the identity of the Mark-Down Muppets very soon. Your IP address will be enough to identify you even if it's not a fixed one. Flabbergob
  • Score: -1

5:42pm Sat 14 Jun 14

notpedallingpaul says...

marvell wrote:
For those of you who want to know - it was Cllr Steve Burton who had the casting vote - and chose to kill off any enquiry into Lendal Bridge.
Isn't he the Labrador group secretary?
Like many others I was at first sucked into this article, thinking at last something for the residents of York, but then started to realise after reading all the comments that it's just another looney left idea, sorry but I don't want to live in a socialist commune, the very idea that this historic city is being turned into one is frightening.
[quote][p][bold]marvell[/bold] wrote: For those of you who want to know - it was Cllr Steve Burton who had the casting vote - and chose to kill off any enquiry into Lendal Bridge.[/p][/quote]Isn't he the Labrador group secretary? Like many others I was at first sucked into this article, thinking at last something for the residents of York, but then started to realise after reading all the comments that it's just another looney left idea, sorry but I don't want to live in a socialist commune, the very idea that this historic city is being turned into one is frightening. notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -66

6:14pm Sat 14 Jun 14

uriahh says...

Yet more nonsense from those in power! The Council are clearly not understanding or are not wishing the electorate to understand the real costs of solar and wind turbine power; and are yet again driven by ideology and not even a basic understanding of the economics or engineering of options available - this time for Power Generation.

There is a desperate need for a radical change in our Energy Policy; this tinkering with options broadcast by the Green Brigade, with Solar and Wind Turbines, totally misrepresents the cost and scope of works involved. We have to completely re-examine our whole Energy Policy on a normal and sensible investment analysis basis, including costs properly allowed for environmental considerations including CO2 emissions. This should be part of the UK Economy and Strategic Industry Recovery Programme we desperately need but still await. We should not be making such decisions on the basis of environmental/green propaganda.

There is nothing difficult about accommodating claimed global warming aka
climate change, or how we are to respond to it, and particularly how we allow for it within our UK Energy Policy. The difficulties for us have arisen simply because no one in the DECC, or the HOC and HOL, let alone the Local Councils, have ever had either the common sense or the expertise needed to know how to properly and rationally accommodate any environmental problems that may be involved. Too often, and for too long, the debate has been swamped and distorted by opinions, claims and denials which have polarised attitudes and our Governments have panicked and simply proceeded on the basis of throwing unjustified massive amounts of our money at it for "Green" solutions in response to alarmist CAGW propaganda. The normal methods and rules of long term investment analysis have never been applied.

Any environment considerations, such as the consequences of CO2
emissions and consequent temperature rises and their effects, is just one of many functional requirements required to be accommodated within any Power Generation System selection. It has a cost, including a cost for if it is not accommodated now but left for all necessary consequential, remedial, disruption and repair/replacement actions to be accommodated sometime in the future.

Stern's Report to the Government has already fully identified this latter option by calculating an estimated cost per tonne of CO2 generated. Taking the tonnage of CO2 generated by each available System of Power Generation per Gwhr of power generated - as logged, maintained and updated annually in the UK by the DECC, provides a present day CO2 cost per Gwhr power generated for each Power Generated System available, even if the most extreme forecasts of man-made CO2 generated temperature rises actually occur. It has always been possible to rationally and fully allow for CAGW supporters' concerns by adding in this CO2 cost within any Powers Systems' total costs comparisons, without any histrionics or cat fights, within the free competitive market investment analyses that should be carried out when Suppliers are selecting the Power Systems to be used for additional and replacement Power Generation capacity. Simply allowing for Stern's CO2 costs as some centrally agreed unit rate cost within the total life cycle costings for each Power Generation system being considered provides the true overall "green" cost.

Wind Turbines and Solar Panel systems can also only be considered within any proper and honest total unit power cost comparisons on a base load power total cost basis, Such proper costs for Wind and Solar must include the blatantly ignored but extensive additional costs of almost equal capacity full time standby Gas Turbines needed to accommodate no/low wind and no/low sunshine conditions, and the extensive additional Power Generation systems, needed solely for Wind and Solar, to link remote Wind Turbine and Solar Panels to areas of actual Power Demand. Nuclear Power has to include for the full costs of toxic waste handling, storage and safe disposal and the total costs of future de-commissioning - both of which are substantial! Only then will we have a true comparison to enable the correct total costs of each Power System for choosing the best-cost and most secure and safe option selection of future power generation.

No subsidies, tax breaks or carbon tax considerations are needed, only an open free market. The tragedy is that such a simple solution has never been adopted, the Suppliers have exploited this and, as a result, markets have been intentionally distorted and even destroyed by Suppliers, including Renewable Energy Suppliers, demanding and getting subsidies and crony capitalism.As a result the costs to the consumer have unnecessarily escalated, damaging our competitiveness and driving up all our costs.

Remember also that the UK's Green Energy policies to date have effectively been totally ineffective in reducing global CO2 emissions - even if this was deemed necessary. For example the 20-30% annual rated capacity output from both on-shore and off-shore Wind Turbines means that 70-80% needs to provided by standby Gas Turbines to meet power demands and these create their own CO2 emissions. DECC have already admitted that Gas Turbines are the only system available that can provide the necessary standby Wind Turbine facilities which can safely and practically accommodate the ever variable power demand required to top up the ever varying Wind Turbine output which can vary from 0-100% of their rated outputs. The result is that UK Wind Turbines generate UK CO2 emission savings of only a miniscule amount of the ever increasing and uncontrolledCO2 emissions increases every year by Developing Countries new coal fired Plants such as in China, India and elsewhere. There isn't a huge glasshouse over the UK isolating our atmosphere from the rest of the World, so our massive investment in the UK Green Energy policy benefits neither the UK nor the rest of the World. It is just a totally over-expensive and unaffordable penalty cost to the UK, a totally unnecessary increase in the cost of power to the UK plc and UK families - driving up all our commercial and industrial overheads and domestic costs and driving down our competitiveness and critically needed export earnings.

Given such a true cost comparison basis, only Gas Turbines can provide the far cheapest power and quickly enough to feed the Energy Gap to avoid blackouts and reduce our costs and increase our exports, re-build and re-establish critical strategic industries, and buy us the time need to carry out urgently needed R&D and provision of new generation, far safer and far cheaper Nuclear and, even better, Thorium Reactor Systems.

To be fair, this is clearly too complicated and/or politically too inconvenient even for the DECC staff, the Government Ministers and our MP's to understand, let alone undertake. You would also not expect York City Football Club to beat Manchester United or City at football, and we should therefore expect YCC to perform no better than Whitehall and Westminster! That, however, does not excuse YCC even considering such ridiculous policies!
Yet more nonsense from those in power! The Council are clearly not understanding or are not wishing the electorate to understand the real costs of solar and wind turbine power; and are yet again driven by ideology and not even a basic understanding of the economics or engineering of options available - this time for Power Generation. There is a desperate need for a radical change in our Energy Policy; this tinkering with options broadcast by the Green Brigade, with Solar and Wind Turbines, totally misrepresents the cost and scope of works involved. We have to completely re-examine our whole Energy Policy on a normal and sensible investment analysis basis, including costs properly allowed for environmental considerations including CO2 emissions. This should be part of the UK Economy and Strategic Industry Recovery Programme we desperately need but still await. We should not be making such decisions on the basis of environmental/green propaganda. There is nothing difficult about accommodating claimed global warming aka climate change, or how we are to respond to it, and particularly how we allow for it within our UK Energy Policy. The difficulties for us have arisen simply because no one in the DECC, or the HOC and HOL, let alone the Local Councils, have ever had either the common sense or the expertise needed to know how to properly and rationally accommodate any environmental problems that may be involved. Too often, and for too long, the debate has been swamped and distorted by opinions, claims and denials which have polarised attitudes and our Governments have panicked and simply proceeded on the basis of throwing unjustified massive amounts of our money at it for "Green" solutions in response to alarmist CAGW propaganda. The normal methods and rules of long term investment analysis have never been applied. Any environment considerations, such as the consequences of CO2 emissions and consequent temperature rises and their effects, is just one of many functional requirements required to be accommodated within any Power Generation System selection. It has a cost, including a cost for if it is not accommodated now but left for all necessary consequential, remedial, disruption and repair/replacement actions to be accommodated sometime in the future. Stern's Report to the Government has already fully identified this latter option by calculating an estimated cost per tonne of CO2 generated. Taking the tonnage of CO2 generated by each available System of Power Generation per Gwhr of power generated - as logged, maintained and updated annually in the UK by the DECC, provides a present day CO2 cost per Gwhr power generated for each Power Generated System available, even if the most extreme forecasts of man-made CO2 generated temperature rises actually occur. It has always been possible to rationally and fully allow for CAGW supporters' concerns by adding in this CO2 cost within any Powers Systems' total costs comparisons, without any histrionics or cat fights, within the free competitive market investment analyses that should be carried out when Suppliers are selecting the Power Systems to be used for additional and replacement Power Generation capacity. Simply allowing for Stern's CO2 costs as some centrally agreed unit rate cost within the total life cycle costings for each Power Generation system being considered provides the true overall "green" cost. Wind Turbines and Solar Panel systems can also only be considered within any proper and honest total unit power cost comparisons on a base load power total cost basis, Such proper costs for Wind and Solar must include the blatantly ignored but extensive additional costs of almost equal capacity full time standby Gas Turbines needed to accommodate no/low wind and no/low sunshine conditions, and the extensive additional Power Generation systems, needed solely for Wind and Solar, to link remote Wind Turbine and Solar Panels to areas of actual Power Demand. Nuclear Power has to include for the full costs of toxic waste handling, storage and safe disposal and the total costs of future de-commissioning - both of which are substantial! Only then will we have a true comparison to enable the correct total costs of each Power System for choosing the best-cost and most secure and safe option selection of future power generation. No subsidies, tax breaks or carbon tax considerations are needed, only an open free market. The tragedy is that such a simple solution has never been adopted, the Suppliers have exploited this and, as a result, markets have been intentionally distorted and even destroyed by Suppliers, including Renewable Energy Suppliers, demanding and getting subsidies and crony capitalism.As a result the costs to the consumer have unnecessarily escalated, damaging our competitiveness and driving up all our costs. Remember also that the UK's Green Energy policies to date have effectively been totally ineffective in reducing global CO2 emissions - even if this was deemed necessary. For example the 20-30% annual rated capacity output from both on-shore and off-shore Wind Turbines means that 70-80% needs to provided by standby Gas Turbines to meet power demands and these create their own CO2 emissions. DECC have already admitted that Gas Turbines are the only system available that can provide the necessary standby Wind Turbine facilities which can safely and practically accommodate the ever variable power demand required to top up the ever varying Wind Turbine output which can vary from 0-100% of their rated outputs. The result is that UK Wind Turbines generate UK CO2 emission savings of only a miniscule amount of the ever increasing and uncontrolledCO2 emissions increases every year by Developing Countries new coal fired Plants such as in China, India and elsewhere. There isn't a huge glasshouse over the UK isolating our atmosphere from the rest of the World, so our massive investment in the UK Green Energy policy benefits neither the UK nor the rest of the World. It is just a totally over-expensive and unaffordable penalty cost to the UK, a totally unnecessary increase in the cost of power to the UK plc and UK families - driving up all our commercial and industrial overheads and domestic costs and driving down our competitiveness and critically needed export earnings. Given such a true cost comparison basis, only Gas Turbines can provide the far cheapest power and quickly enough to feed the Energy Gap to avoid blackouts and reduce our costs and increase our exports, re-build and re-establish critical strategic industries, and buy us the time need to carry out urgently needed R&D and provision of new generation, far safer and far cheaper Nuclear and, even better, Thorium Reactor Systems. To be fair, this is clearly too complicated and/or politically too inconvenient even for the DECC staff, the Government Ministers and our MP's to understand, let alone undertake. You would also not expect York City Football Club to beat Manchester United or City at football, and we should therefore expect YCC to perform no better than Whitehall and Westminster! That, however, does not excuse YCC even considering such ridiculous policies! uriahh
  • Score: -70

6:15pm Sat 14 Jun 14

pault42 says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Look out for more and more of these initiatives.

Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality'

We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold.

It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.
Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place?
Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"
What's wrong is its plainly a load of tosh. You'd have to be as thick as the council dictatorships skin to not recognise it's just more waffle.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.[/p][/quote]Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"[/p][/quote]What's wrong is its plainly a load of tosh. You'd have to be as thick as the council dictatorships skin to not recognise it's just more waffle. pault42
  • Score: -10

7:07pm Sat 14 Jun 14

dementia says...

Why is this the councils job? Can they buy petrol cheaper or food or...etc Why not try to reduce their area of involvement and do what they are supposed to do better?
Why is this the councils job? Can they buy petrol cheaper or food or...etc Why not try to reduce their area of involvement and do what they are supposed to do better? dementia
  • Score: -9

7:07pm Sat 14 Jun 14

uriahh says...

notpedallingpaul wrote:
marvell wrote:
For those of you who want to know - it was Cllr Steve Burton who had the casting vote - and chose to kill off any enquiry into Lendal Bridge.
Isn't he the Labrador group secretary?
Like many others I was at first sucked into this article, thinking at last something for the residents of York, but then started to realise after reading all the comments that it's just another looney left idea, sorry but I don't want to live in a socialist commune, the very idea that this historic city is being turned into one is frightening.
Let us hope that history repeats itself!

The citizens of York and other similarly ideologically driven councils and constituents with MP's similarly inclined, would provide the same grateful appreciation that the citizens of Paris and France once gave to Robespierre. It was a very apt and cutting event! Let us also hope that leaders of any such so called commune in the UK receive the same reward as that provided to the 1871 Commune of Paris!
[quote][p][bold]notpedallingpaul[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]marvell[/bold] wrote: For those of you who want to know - it was Cllr Steve Burton who had the casting vote - and chose to kill off any enquiry into Lendal Bridge.[/p][/quote]Isn't he the Labrador group secretary? Like many others I was at first sucked into this article, thinking at last something for the residents of York, but then started to realise after reading all the comments that it's just another looney left idea, sorry but I don't want to live in a socialist commune, the very idea that this historic city is being turned into one is frightening.[/p][/quote]Let us hope that history repeats itself! The citizens of York and other similarly ideologically driven councils and constituents with MP's similarly inclined, would provide the same grateful appreciation that the citizens of Paris and France once gave to Robespierre. It was a very apt and cutting event! Let us also hope that leaders of any such so called commune in the UK receive the same reward as that provided to the 1871 Commune of Paris! uriahh
  • Score: -127

7:26pm Sat 14 Jun 14

nearlyman says...

uriahh wrote:
Yet more nonsense from those in power! The Council are clearly not understanding or are not wishing the electorate to understand the real costs of solar and wind turbine power; and are yet again driven by ideology and not even a basic understanding of the economics or engineering of options available - this time for Power Generation.

There is a desperate need for a radical change in our Energy Policy; this tinkering with options broadcast by the Green Brigade, with Solar and Wind Turbines, totally misrepresents the cost and scope of works involved. We have to completely re-examine our whole Energy Policy on a normal and sensible investment analysis basis, including costs properly allowed for environmental considerations including CO2 emissions. This should be part of the UK Economy and Strategic Industry Recovery Programme we desperately need but still await. We should not be making such decisions on the basis of environmental/green propaganda.

There is nothing difficult about accommodating claimed global warming aka
climate change, or how we are to respond to it, and particularly how we allow for it within our UK Energy Policy. The difficulties for us have arisen simply because no one in the DECC, or the HOC and HOL, let alone the Local Councils, have ever had either the common sense or the expertise needed to know how to properly and rationally accommodate any environmental problems that may be involved. Too often, and for too long, the debate has been swamped and distorted by opinions, claims and denials which have polarised attitudes and our Governments have panicked and simply proceeded on the basis of throwing unjustified massive amounts of our money at it for "Green" solutions in response to alarmist CAGW propaganda. The normal methods and rules of long term investment analysis have never been applied.

Any environment considerations, such as the consequences of CO2
emissions and consequent temperature rises and their effects, is just one of many functional requirements required to be accommodated within any Power Generation System selection. It has a cost, including a cost for if it is not accommodated now but left for all necessary consequential, remedial, disruption and repair/replacement actions to be accommodated sometime in the future.

Stern's Report to the Government has already fully identified this latter option by calculating an estimated cost per tonne of CO2 generated. Taking the tonnage of CO2 generated by each available System of Power Generation per Gwhr of power generated - as logged, maintained and updated annually in the UK by the DECC, provides a present day CO2 cost per Gwhr power generated for each Power Generated System available, even if the most extreme forecasts of man-made CO2 generated temperature rises actually occur. It has always been possible to rationally and fully allow for CAGW supporters' concerns by adding in this CO2 cost within any Powers Systems' total costs comparisons, without any histrionics or cat fights, within the free competitive market investment analyses that should be carried out when Suppliers are selecting the Power Systems to be used for additional and replacement Power Generation capacity. Simply allowing for Stern's CO2 costs as some centrally agreed unit rate cost within the total life cycle costings for each Power Generation system being considered provides the true overall "green" cost.

Wind Turbines and Solar Panel systems can also only be considered within any proper and honest total unit power cost comparisons on a base load power total cost basis, Such proper costs for Wind and Solar must include the blatantly ignored but extensive additional costs of almost equal capacity full time standby Gas Turbines needed to accommodate no/low wind and no/low sunshine conditions, and the extensive additional Power Generation systems, needed solely for Wind and Solar, to link remote Wind Turbine and Solar Panels to areas of actual Power Demand. Nuclear Power has to include for the full costs of toxic waste handling, storage and safe disposal and the total costs of future de-commissioning - both of which are substantial! Only then will we have a true comparison to enable the correct total costs of each Power System for choosing the best-cost and most secure and safe option selection of future power generation.

No subsidies, tax breaks or carbon tax considerations are needed, only an open free market. The tragedy is that such a simple solution has never been adopted, the Suppliers have exploited this and, as a result, markets have been intentionally distorted and even destroyed by Suppliers, including Renewable Energy Suppliers, demanding and getting subsidies and crony capitalism.As a result the costs to the consumer have unnecessarily escalated, damaging our competitiveness and driving up all our costs.

Remember also that the UK's Green Energy policies to date have effectively been totally ineffective in reducing global CO2 emissions - even if this was deemed necessary. For example the 20-30% annual rated capacity output from both on-shore and off-shore Wind Turbines means that 70-80% needs to provided by standby Gas Turbines to meet power demands and these create their own CO2 emissions. DECC have already admitted that Gas Turbines are the only system available that can provide the necessary standby Wind Turbine facilities which can safely and practically accommodate the ever variable power demand required to top up the ever varying Wind Turbine output which can vary from 0-100% of their rated outputs. The result is that UK Wind Turbines generate UK CO2 emission savings of only a miniscule amount of the ever increasing and uncontrolledCO2 emissions increases every year by Developing Countries new coal fired Plants such as in China, India and elsewhere. There isn't a huge glasshouse over the UK isolating our atmosphere from the rest of the World, so our massive investment in the UK Green Energy policy benefits neither the UK nor the rest of the World. It is just a totally over-expensive and unaffordable penalty cost to the UK, a totally unnecessary increase in the cost of power to the UK plc and UK families - driving up all our commercial and industrial overheads and domestic costs and driving down our competitiveness and critically needed export earnings.

Given such a true cost comparison basis, only Gas Turbines can provide the far cheapest power and quickly enough to feed the Energy Gap to avoid blackouts and reduce our costs and increase our exports, re-build and re-establish critical strategic industries, and buy us the time need to carry out urgently needed R&D and provision of new generation, far safer and far cheaper Nuclear and, even better, Thorium Reactor Systems.

To be fair, this is clearly too complicated and/or politically too inconvenient even for the DECC staff, the Government Ministers and our MP's to understand, let alone undertake. You would also not expect York City Football Club to beat Manchester United or City at football, and we should therefore expect YCC to perform no better than Whitehall and Westminster! That, however, does not excuse YCC even considering such ridiculous policies!
Wow !
[quote][p][bold]uriahh[/bold] wrote: Yet more nonsense from those in power! The Council are clearly not understanding or are not wishing the electorate to understand the real costs of solar and wind turbine power; and are yet again driven by ideology and not even a basic understanding of the economics or engineering of options available - this time for Power Generation. There is a desperate need for a radical change in our Energy Policy; this tinkering with options broadcast by the Green Brigade, with Solar and Wind Turbines, totally misrepresents the cost and scope of works involved. We have to completely re-examine our whole Energy Policy on a normal and sensible investment analysis basis, including costs properly allowed for environmental considerations including CO2 emissions. This should be part of the UK Economy and Strategic Industry Recovery Programme we desperately need but still await. We should not be making such decisions on the basis of environmental/green propaganda. There is nothing difficult about accommodating claimed global warming aka climate change, or how we are to respond to it, and particularly how we allow for it within our UK Energy Policy. The difficulties for us have arisen simply because no one in the DECC, or the HOC and HOL, let alone the Local Councils, have ever had either the common sense or the expertise needed to know how to properly and rationally accommodate any environmental problems that may be involved. Too often, and for too long, the debate has been swamped and distorted by opinions, claims and denials which have polarised attitudes and our Governments have panicked and simply proceeded on the basis of throwing unjustified massive amounts of our money at it for "Green" solutions in response to alarmist CAGW propaganda. The normal methods and rules of long term investment analysis have never been applied. Any environment considerations, such as the consequences of CO2 emissions and consequent temperature rises and their effects, is just one of many functional requirements required to be accommodated within any Power Generation System selection. It has a cost, including a cost for if it is not accommodated now but left for all necessary consequential, remedial, disruption and repair/replacement actions to be accommodated sometime in the future. Stern's Report to the Government has already fully identified this latter option by calculating an estimated cost per tonne of CO2 generated. Taking the tonnage of CO2 generated by each available System of Power Generation per Gwhr of power generated - as logged, maintained and updated annually in the UK by the DECC, provides a present day CO2 cost per Gwhr power generated for each Power Generated System available, even if the most extreme forecasts of man-made CO2 generated temperature rises actually occur. It has always been possible to rationally and fully allow for CAGW supporters' concerns by adding in this CO2 cost within any Powers Systems' total costs comparisons, without any histrionics or cat fights, within the free competitive market investment analyses that should be carried out when Suppliers are selecting the Power Systems to be used for additional and replacement Power Generation capacity. Simply allowing for Stern's CO2 costs as some centrally agreed unit rate cost within the total life cycle costings for each Power Generation system being considered provides the true overall "green" cost. Wind Turbines and Solar Panel systems can also only be considered within any proper and honest total unit power cost comparisons on a base load power total cost basis, Such proper costs for Wind and Solar must include the blatantly ignored but extensive additional costs of almost equal capacity full time standby Gas Turbines needed to accommodate no/low wind and no/low sunshine conditions, and the extensive additional Power Generation systems, needed solely for Wind and Solar, to link remote Wind Turbine and Solar Panels to areas of actual Power Demand. Nuclear Power has to include for the full costs of toxic waste handling, storage and safe disposal and the total costs of future de-commissioning - both of which are substantial! Only then will we have a true comparison to enable the correct total costs of each Power System for choosing the best-cost and most secure and safe option selection of future power generation. No subsidies, tax breaks or carbon tax considerations are needed, only an open free market. The tragedy is that such a simple solution has never been adopted, the Suppliers have exploited this and, as a result, markets have been intentionally distorted and even destroyed by Suppliers, including Renewable Energy Suppliers, demanding and getting subsidies and crony capitalism.As a result the costs to the consumer have unnecessarily escalated, damaging our competitiveness and driving up all our costs. Remember also that the UK's Green Energy policies to date have effectively been totally ineffective in reducing global CO2 emissions - even if this was deemed necessary. For example the 20-30% annual rated capacity output from both on-shore and off-shore Wind Turbines means that 70-80% needs to provided by standby Gas Turbines to meet power demands and these create their own CO2 emissions. DECC have already admitted that Gas Turbines are the only system available that can provide the necessary standby Wind Turbine facilities which can safely and practically accommodate the ever variable power demand required to top up the ever varying Wind Turbine output which can vary from 0-100% of their rated outputs. The result is that UK Wind Turbines generate UK CO2 emission savings of only a miniscule amount of the ever increasing and uncontrolledCO2 emissions increases every year by Developing Countries new coal fired Plants such as in China, India and elsewhere. There isn't a huge glasshouse over the UK isolating our atmosphere from the rest of the World, so our massive investment in the UK Green Energy policy benefits neither the UK nor the rest of the World. It is just a totally over-expensive and unaffordable penalty cost to the UK, a totally unnecessary increase in the cost of power to the UK plc and UK families - driving up all our commercial and industrial overheads and domestic costs and driving down our competitiveness and critically needed export earnings. Given such a true cost comparison basis, only Gas Turbines can provide the far cheapest power and quickly enough to feed the Energy Gap to avoid blackouts and reduce our costs and increase our exports, re-build and re-establish critical strategic industries, and buy us the time need to carry out urgently needed R&D and provision of new generation, far safer and far cheaper Nuclear and, even better, Thorium Reactor Systems. To be fair, this is clearly too complicated and/or politically too inconvenient even for the DECC staff, the Government Ministers and our MP's to understand, let alone undertake. You would also not expect York City Football Club to beat Manchester United or City at football, and we should therefore expect YCC to perform no better than Whitehall and Westminster! That, however, does not excuse YCC even considering such ridiculous policies![/p][/quote]Wow ! nearlyman
  • Score: -6

8:14pm Sat 14 Jun 14

notpedallingpaul says...

nearlyman wrote:
uriahh wrote:
Yet more nonsense from those in power! The Council are clearly not understanding or are not wishing the electorate to understand the real costs of solar and wind turbine power; and are yet again driven by ideology and not even a basic understanding of the economics or engineering of options available - this time for Power Generation.

There is a desperate need for a radical change in our Energy Policy; this tinkering with options broadcast by the Green Brigade, with Solar and Wind Turbines, totally misrepresents the cost and scope of works involved. We have to completely re-examine our whole Energy Policy on a normal and sensible investment analysis basis, including costs properly allowed for environmental considerations including CO2 emissions. This should be part of the UK Economy and Strategic Industry Recovery Programme we desperately need but still await. We should not be making such decisions on the basis of environmental/green propaganda.

There is nothing difficult about accommodating claimed global warming aka
climate change, or how we are to respond to it, and particularly how we allow for it within our UK Energy Policy. The difficulties for us have arisen simply because no one in the DECC, or the HOC and HOL, let alone the Local Councils, have ever had either the common sense or the expertise needed to know how to properly and rationally accommodate any environmental problems that may be involved. Too often, and for too long, the debate has been swamped and distorted by opinions, claims and denials which have polarised attitudes and our Governments have panicked and simply proceeded on the basis of throwing unjustified massive amounts of our money at it for "Green" solutions in response to alarmist CAGW propaganda. The normal methods and rules of long term investment analysis have never been applied.

Any environment considerations, such as the consequences of CO2
emissions and consequent temperature rises and their effects, is just one of many functional requirements required to be accommodated within any Power Generation System selection. It has a cost, including a cost for if it is not accommodated now but left for all necessary consequential, remedial, disruption and repair/replacement actions to be accommodated sometime in the future.

Stern's Report to the Government has already fully identified this latter option by calculating an estimated cost per tonne of CO2 generated. Taking the tonnage of CO2 generated by each available System of Power Generation per Gwhr of power generated - as logged, maintained and updated annually in the UK by the DECC, provides a present day CO2 cost per Gwhr power generated for each Power Generated System available, even if the most extreme forecasts of man-made CO2 generated temperature rises actually occur. It has always been possible to rationally and fully allow for CAGW supporters' concerns by adding in this CO2 cost within any Powers Systems' total costs comparisons, without any histrionics or cat fights, within the free competitive market investment analyses that should be carried out when Suppliers are selecting the Power Systems to be used for additional and replacement Power Generation capacity. Simply allowing for Stern's CO2 costs as some centrally agreed unit rate cost within the total life cycle costings for each Power Generation system being considered provides the true overall "green" cost.

Wind Turbines and Solar Panel systems can also only be considered within any proper and honest total unit power cost comparisons on a base load power total cost basis, Such proper costs for Wind and Solar must include the blatantly ignored but extensive additional costs of almost equal capacity full time standby Gas Turbines needed to accommodate no/low wind and no/low sunshine conditions, and the extensive additional Power Generation systems, needed solely for Wind and Solar, to link remote Wind Turbine and Solar Panels to areas of actual Power Demand. Nuclear Power has to include for the full costs of toxic waste handling, storage and safe disposal and the total costs of future de-commissioning - both of which are substantial! Only then will we have a true comparison to enable the correct total costs of each Power System for choosing the best-cost and most secure and safe option selection of future power generation.

No subsidies, tax breaks or carbon tax considerations are needed, only an open free market. The tragedy is that such a simple solution has never been adopted, the Suppliers have exploited this and, as a result, markets have been intentionally distorted and even destroyed by Suppliers, including Renewable Energy Suppliers, demanding and getting subsidies and crony capitalism.As a result the costs to the consumer have unnecessarily escalated, damaging our competitiveness and driving up all our costs.

Remember also that the UK's Green Energy policies to date have effectively been totally ineffective in reducing global CO2 emissions - even if this was deemed necessary. For example the 20-30% annual rated capacity output from both on-shore and off-shore Wind Turbines means that 70-80% needs to provided by standby Gas Turbines to meet power demands and these create their own CO2 emissions. DECC have already admitted that Gas Turbines are the only system available that can provide the necessary standby Wind Turbine facilities which can safely and practically accommodate the ever variable power demand required to top up the ever varying Wind Turbine output which can vary from 0-100% of their rated outputs. The result is that UK Wind Turbines generate UK CO2 emission savings of only a miniscule amount of the ever increasing and uncontrolledCO2 emissions increases every year by Developing Countries new coal fired Plants such as in China, India and elsewhere. There isn't a huge glasshouse over the UK isolating our atmosphere from the rest of the World, so our massive investment in the UK Green Energy policy benefits neither the UK nor the rest of the World. It is just a totally over-expensive and unaffordable penalty cost to the UK, a totally unnecessary increase in the cost of power to the UK plc and UK families - driving up all our commercial and industrial overheads and domestic costs and driving down our competitiveness and critically needed export earnings.

Given such a true cost comparison basis, only Gas Turbines can provide the far cheapest power and quickly enough to feed the Energy Gap to avoid blackouts and reduce our costs and increase our exports, re-build and re-establish critical strategic industries, and buy us the time need to carry out urgently needed R&D and provision of new generation, far safer and far cheaper Nuclear and, even better, Thorium Reactor Systems.

To be fair, this is clearly too complicated and/or politically too inconvenient even for the DECC staff, the Government Ministers and our MP's to understand, let alone undertake. You would also not expect York City Football Club to beat Manchester United or City at football, and we should therefore expect YCC to perform no better than Whitehall and Westminster! That, however, does not excuse YCC even considering such ridiculous policies!
Wow !
Yes I bet that gave the council infiltrator score fixer a flipping headache, bet he got half way through reading it and thought I'll mark it down as it looks a bit too complicated for me to understand!
[quote][p][bold]nearlyman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]uriahh[/bold] wrote: Yet more nonsense from those in power! The Council are clearly not understanding or are not wishing the electorate to understand the real costs of solar and wind turbine power; and are yet again driven by ideology and not even a basic understanding of the economics or engineering of options available - this time for Power Generation. There is a desperate need for a radical change in our Energy Policy; this tinkering with options broadcast by the Green Brigade, with Solar and Wind Turbines, totally misrepresents the cost and scope of works involved. We have to completely re-examine our whole Energy Policy on a normal and sensible investment analysis basis, including costs properly allowed for environmental considerations including CO2 emissions. This should be part of the UK Economy and Strategic Industry Recovery Programme we desperately need but still await. We should not be making such decisions on the basis of environmental/green propaganda. There is nothing difficult about accommodating claimed global warming aka climate change, or how we are to respond to it, and particularly how we allow for it within our UK Energy Policy. The difficulties for us have arisen simply because no one in the DECC, or the HOC and HOL, let alone the Local Councils, have ever had either the common sense or the expertise needed to know how to properly and rationally accommodate any environmental problems that may be involved. Too often, and for too long, the debate has been swamped and distorted by opinions, claims and denials which have polarised attitudes and our Governments have panicked and simply proceeded on the basis of throwing unjustified massive amounts of our money at it for "Green" solutions in response to alarmist CAGW propaganda. The normal methods and rules of long term investment analysis have never been applied. Any environment considerations, such as the consequences of CO2 emissions and consequent temperature rises and their effects, is just one of many functional requirements required to be accommodated within any Power Generation System selection. It has a cost, including a cost for if it is not accommodated now but left for all necessary consequential, remedial, disruption and repair/replacement actions to be accommodated sometime in the future. Stern's Report to the Government has already fully identified this latter option by calculating an estimated cost per tonne of CO2 generated. Taking the tonnage of CO2 generated by each available System of Power Generation per Gwhr of power generated - as logged, maintained and updated annually in the UK by the DECC, provides a present day CO2 cost per Gwhr power generated for each Power Generated System available, even if the most extreme forecasts of man-made CO2 generated temperature rises actually occur. It has always been possible to rationally and fully allow for CAGW supporters' concerns by adding in this CO2 cost within any Powers Systems' total costs comparisons, without any histrionics or cat fights, within the free competitive market investment analyses that should be carried out when Suppliers are selecting the Power Systems to be used for additional and replacement Power Generation capacity. Simply allowing for Stern's CO2 costs as some centrally agreed unit rate cost within the total life cycle costings for each Power Generation system being considered provides the true overall "green" cost. Wind Turbines and Solar Panel systems can also only be considered within any proper and honest total unit power cost comparisons on a base load power total cost basis, Such proper costs for Wind and Solar must include the blatantly ignored but extensive additional costs of almost equal capacity full time standby Gas Turbines needed to accommodate no/low wind and no/low sunshine conditions, and the extensive additional Power Generation systems, needed solely for Wind and Solar, to link remote Wind Turbine and Solar Panels to areas of actual Power Demand. Nuclear Power has to include for the full costs of toxic waste handling, storage and safe disposal and the total costs of future de-commissioning - both of which are substantial! Only then will we have a true comparison to enable the correct total costs of each Power System for choosing the best-cost and most secure and safe option selection of future power generation. No subsidies, tax breaks or carbon tax considerations are needed, only an open free market. The tragedy is that such a simple solution has never been adopted, the Suppliers have exploited this and, as a result, markets have been intentionally distorted and even destroyed by Suppliers, including Renewable Energy Suppliers, demanding and getting subsidies and crony capitalism.As a result the costs to the consumer have unnecessarily escalated, damaging our competitiveness and driving up all our costs. Remember also that the UK's Green Energy policies to date have effectively been totally ineffective in reducing global CO2 emissions - even if this was deemed necessary. For example the 20-30% annual rated capacity output from both on-shore and off-shore Wind Turbines means that 70-80% needs to provided by standby Gas Turbines to meet power demands and these create their own CO2 emissions. DECC have already admitted that Gas Turbines are the only system available that can provide the necessary standby Wind Turbine facilities which can safely and practically accommodate the ever variable power demand required to top up the ever varying Wind Turbine output which can vary from 0-100% of their rated outputs. The result is that UK Wind Turbines generate UK CO2 emission savings of only a miniscule amount of the ever increasing and uncontrolledCO2 emissions increases every year by Developing Countries new coal fired Plants such as in China, India and elsewhere. There isn't a huge glasshouse over the UK isolating our atmosphere from the rest of the World, so our massive investment in the UK Green Energy policy benefits neither the UK nor the rest of the World. It is just a totally over-expensive and unaffordable penalty cost to the UK, a totally unnecessary increase in the cost of power to the UK plc and UK families - driving up all our commercial and industrial overheads and domestic costs and driving down our competitiveness and critically needed export earnings. Given such a true cost comparison basis, only Gas Turbines can provide the far cheapest power and quickly enough to feed the Energy Gap to avoid blackouts and reduce our costs and increase our exports, re-build and re-establish critical strategic industries, and buy us the time need to carry out urgently needed R&D and provision of new generation, far safer and far cheaper Nuclear and, even better, Thorium Reactor Systems. To be fair, this is clearly too complicated and/or politically too inconvenient even for the DECC staff, the Government Ministers and our MP's to understand, let alone undertake. You would also not expect York City Football Club to beat Manchester United or City at football, and we should therefore expect YCC to perform no better than Whitehall and Westminster! That, however, does not excuse YCC even considering such ridiculous policies![/p][/quote]Wow ![/p][/quote]Yes I bet that gave the council infiltrator score fixer a flipping headache, bet he got half way through reading it and thought I'll mark it down as it looks a bit too complicated for me to understand! notpedallingpaul
  • Score: -118

8:38pm Sat 14 Jun 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Looks like the Council's score adjuster has been rather busy!

But you would have thought that after wasting our cash on their James Street windmill they would have learned their lesson? Keeps the recyclers happy I suppose!
Looks like the Council's score adjuster has been rather busy! But you would have thought that after wasting our cash on their James Street windmill they would have learned their lesson? Keeps the recyclers happy I suppose! ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: -52

9:44pm Sat 14 Jun 14

Romjim says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Initially I thought this was a great effort to benefit residents in York.

Reading through the whole story, getting to the last paragraph and hey presto, burying the awaited review of the Lendal failure.

On a Saturday, at the end of what should be a good news story, just shows the contempt Labour Councillors have for York residents, but then you only have to look for the names in the story to realise it should be expected.

Try being open, honest instead of sneaky and underhand, but then a leopard never changes it's spots, so we should change the leopard.
Surely this is a report by Victoria Prest of a council Scrutiny meeting which covered a number of points at its meeting on 11th June 2014. You can access the agenda on line at York.gov.uk.
The comments about the possibility of benefits to citizens as a result of bulk buying of energy are correct in that other authorities have done this to good effect and hopefully, the same will be true in York.
Let's face it, the fact that there are criticisms of the big 6 energy suppliers for continuing to keep high prices despite a 38% reported drop in wholesale energy prices shows there is plenty of scope.
To then deduce that Labour councillors have contempt for citizens as a result of a couple of sentences in a report is stretching any sort of logic to extremes.
The reporter was trying (I suspect) to produce a relevant report from a committee meeting which covered a number of items. And if you are really that bothered, why not go to one of these meetings and look at the papers and come up with some positive ideas instead of carping all the time.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Initially I thought this was a great effort to benefit residents in York. Reading through the whole story, getting to the last paragraph and hey presto, burying the awaited review of the Lendal failure. On a Saturday, at the end of what should be a good news story, just shows the contempt Labour Councillors have for York residents, but then you only have to look for the names in the story to realise it should be expected. Try being open, honest instead of sneaky and underhand, but then a leopard never changes it's spots, so we should change the leopard.[/p][/quote]Surely this is a report by Victoria Prest of a council Scrutiny meeting which covered a number of points at its meeting on 11th June 2014. You can access the agenda on line at York.gov.uk. The comments about the possibility of benefits to citizens as a result of bulk buying of energy are correct in that other authorities have done this to good effect and hopefully, the same will be true in York. Let's face it, the fact that there are criticisms of the big 6 energy suppliers for continuing to keep high prices despite a 38% reported drop in wholesale energy prices shows there is plenty of scope. To then deduce that Labour councillors have contempt for citizens as a result of a couple of sentences in a report is stretching any sort of logic to extremes. The reporter was trying (I suspect) to produce a relevant report from a committee meeting which covered a number of items. And if you are really that bothered, why not go to one of these meetings and look at the papers and come up with some positive ideas instead of carping all the time. Romjim
  • Score: 37

10:53pm Sat 14 Jun 14

swh1963 says...

uriahh: "You would also not expect York City Football Club to beat Manchester United or City at football". You obviously have a memory as short as your post is long: we've beaten both at Bootham Crescent, and in the 90s not that long ago.
uriahh: "You would also not expect York City Football Club to beat Manchester United or City at football". You obviously have a memory as short as your post is long: we've beaten both at Bootham Crescent, and in the 90s not that long ago. swh1963
  • Score: 5

2:15am Sun 15 Jun 14

RingoStarr says...

"It also decided not to launch a review of the Lendal Bridge closure trial, with Labour councillors voting down a proposal supported by the Green, Conservative and Liberal Democrat members, by four votes to three"

Nearly missed this! C'mon 'Mark Down Tw*t' start you minus scores and prove that all of us who despise your Labour Council are right!
"It also decided not to launch a review of the Lendal Bridge closure trial, with Labour councillors voting down a proposal supported by the Green, Conservative and Liberal Democrat members, by four votes to three" Nearly missed this! C'mon 'Mark Down Tw*t' start you minus scores and prove that all of us who despise your Labour Council are right! RingoStarr
  • Score: -75

9:15am Sun 15 Jun 14

Alf Garnett says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Look out for more and more of these initiatives.

Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality'

We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold.

It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.
Better than a neo-liberal little America where only the fortunate and manipulative survive. Anyway, all you have to do to stop it is vote.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.[/p][/quote]Better than a neo-liberal little America where only the fortunate and manipulative survive. Anyway, all you have to do to stop it is vote. Alf Garnett
  • Score: -10

10:55am Sun 15 Jun 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

Romjim wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
Initially I thought this was a great effort to benefit residents in York.

Reading through the whole story, getting to the last paragraph and hey presto, burying the awaited review of the Lendal failure.

On a Saturday, at the end of what should be a good news story, just shows the contempt Labour Councillors have for York residents, but then you only have to look for the names in the story to realise it should be expected.

Try being open, honest instead of sneaky and underhand, but then a leopard never changes it's spots, so we should change the leopard.
Surely this is a report by Victoria Prest of a council Scrutiny meeting which covered a number of points at its meeting on 11th June 2014. You can access the agenda on line at York.gov.uk.
The comments about the possibility of benefits to citizens as a result of bulk buying of energy are correct in that other authorities have done this to good effect and hopefully, the same will be true in York.
Let's face it, the fact that there are criticisms of the big 6 energy suppliers for continuing to keep high prices despite a 38% reported drop in wholesale energy prices shows there is plenty of scope.
To then deduce that Labour councillors have contempt for citizens as a result of a couple of sentences in a report is stretching any sort of logic to extremes.
The reporter was trying (I suspect) to produce a relevant report from a committee meeting which covered a number of items. And if you are really that bothered, why not go to one of these meetings and look at the papers and come up with some positive ideas instead of carping all the time.
Interestingly the last paragraph is the most telling and important in this report by Victoria Prest. Forget about the headline grabbing resident focused clap trap, the real story here is about Labours use of its majority to deny access to open transparent investigation into a failed project that is likely to cost £Millions.

No surprises really, asking Labour to investigate its actions and report would be like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The investigation into the Lendal failure should be done as a matter of course not a matter of choice.

You make an assumption that I have never attended council meetings, which is wrong. Given the treatment of people like Gwen Swinburn the council should consider itself fortunate anyone turns up, the impression is poor the belief is strong the situation is temporary.

To deny transparency through open independent investigation into the failed Lendal project will only increase the need for due process to be demonstrated, the sooner the better. You may be delighted to accept incompetence and be ready to defend it by accusations of "carping on" but it doesn't change the facts.

If you were to ask the people of this city if they wanted to know how public money had been spent (regardless of it's source) without doubt the answer would be "yes". But its not just about the £value it is also about the justification, which is the bit that is being denied.
[quote][p][bold]Romjim[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: Initially I thought this was a great effort to benefit residents in York. Reading through the whole story, getting to the last paragraph and hey presto, burying the awaited review of the Lendal failure. On a Saturday, at the end of what should be a good news story, just shows the contempt Labour Councillors have for York residents, but then you only have to look for the names in the story to realise it should be expected. Try being open, honest instead of sneaky and underhand, but then a leopard never changes it's spots, so we should change the leopard.[/p][/quote]Surely this is a report by Victoria Prest of a council Scrutiny meeting which covered a number of points at its meeting on 11th June 2014. You can access the agenda on line at York.gov.uk. The comments about the possibility of benefits to citizens as a result of bulk buying of energy are correct in that other authorities have done this to good effect and hopefully, the same will be true in York. Let's face it, the fact that there are criticisms of the big 6 energy suppliers for continuing to keep high prices despite a 38% reported drop in wholesale energy prices shows there is plenty of scope. To then deduce that Labour councillors have contempt for citizens as a result of a couple of sentences in a report is stretching any sort of logic to extremes. The reporter was trying (I suspect) to produce a relevant report from a committee meeting which covered a number of items. And if you are really that bothered, why not go to one of these meetings and look at the papers and come up with some positive ideas instead of carping all the time.[/p][/quote]Interestingly the last paragraph is the most telling and important in this report by Victoria Prest. Forget about the headline grabbing resident focused clap trap, the real story here is about Labours use of its majority to deny access to open transparent investigation into a failed project that is likely to cost £Millions. No surprises really, asking Labour to investigate its actions and report would be like asking Turkeys to vote for Christmas. The investigation into the Lendal failure should be done as a matter of course not a matter of choice. You make an assumption that I have never attended council meetings, which is wrong. Given the treatment of people like Gwen Swinburn the council should consider itself fortunate anyone turns up, the impression is poor the belief is strong the situation is temporary. To deny transparency through open independent investigation into the failed Lendal project will only increase the need for due process to be demonstrated, the sooner the better. You may be delighted to accept incompetence and be ready to defend it by accusations of "carping on" but it doesn't change the facts. If you were to ask the people of this city if they wanted to know how public money had been spent (regardless of it's source) without doubt the answer would be "yes". But its not just about the £value it is also about the justification, which is the bit that is being denied. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 11

12:12pm Sun 15 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

julia brica wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Look out for more and more of these initiatives.

Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality'

We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold.

It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.
Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place?
Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"
He doesn't need to explain.............

.......the one that just arrived here from Brighton should be an explanation to everyone and everything.
She has impeccable qualifications . Has just bailed out of a failing looney left authority and jumped straight into an equally looney left authority.
Welcome welcome, lets see what damage she can do here. Wont be long before we see.
Well dude, I'm not as blinded by dogma as you so I don't see anything the same way as you.

Having seen all your troll-tastic playground postings I don't rightly care what you say anyway. Thought I asked Paul to explain.
[quote][p][bold]julia brica[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.[/p][/quote]Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"[/p][/quote]He doesn't need to explain............. .......the one that just arrived here from Brighton should be an explanation to everyone and everything. She has impeccable qualifications . Has just bailed out of a failing looney left authority and jumped straight into an equally looney left authority. Welcome welcome, lets see what damage she can do here. Wont be long before we see.[/p][/quote]Well dude, I'm not as blinded by dogma as you so I don't see anything the same way as you. Having seen all your troll-tastic playground postings I don't rightly care what you say anyway. Thought I asked Paul to explain. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -5

3:26pm Sun 15 Jun 14

ColdAsChristmas says...

Thinking about it, we may very well save money on our energy bills, though the council tax will of course rise.

Why might we save money? Think of a frosty night, no solar energy and no wind. Normally, without gas or a coal or log burner, we would have a bar or two on the electric fire glowing. Instead, the lights would be out and so would the electric heating. So you can sit in the dark and cold and if not battery radio, silence and saving money creating another hypothermia case if you are lucky.
Thinking about it, we may very well save money on our energy bills, though the council tax will of course rise. Why might we save money? Think of a frosty night, no solar energy and no wind. Normally, without gas or a coal or log burner, we would have a bar or two on the electric fire glowing. Instead, the lights would be out and so would the electric heating. So you can sit in the dark and cold and if not battery radio, silence and saving money creating another hypothermia case if you are lucky. ColdAsChristmas
  • Score: 5

5:40pm Sun 15 Jun 14

RoseD says...

The last sentence is PRICELESS, as CoYM aim to sweep their folly under the rug. However, this has cost us plenty. Court battles. Paperwork to refund illegal fines. The signs, the signs, the painting, the removal of road painting, I can hardly wait for a FOI request to go ignored til May 2015. GET SHREDDING, James!
The last sentence is PRICELESS, as CoYM aim to sweep their folly under the rug. However, this has cost us plenty. Court battles. Paperwork to refund illegal fines. The signs, the signs, the painting, the removal of road painting, I can hardly wait for a FOI request to go ignored til May 2015. GET SHREDDING, James! RoseD
  • Score: 10

9:27pm Sun 15 Jun 14

oi oi savaloy says...

you the consumer are the only person who can 'slash' your energy bill!
its down to you to be energy efficient, its down to you to turn the lights off, its down to you to turn the fire off!! you have a choice.... you can control your energy bill! is there any way the labour run council could help us 'slash' our council tax bill?? that one we have no control over, that one where the council keep cutting services BUT keep putting it up, that one that went up over 100% during the blair/brown years! that one thats gone up during the james alexander years , even tho he could have froze it!!!
you the consumer are the only person who can 'slash' your energy bill! its down to you to be energy efficient, its down to you to turn the lights off, its down to you to turn the fire off!! you have a choice.... you can control your energy bill! is there any way the labour run council could help us 'slash' our council tax bill?? that one we have no control over, that one where the council keep cutting services BUT keep putting it up, that one that went up over 100% during the blair/brown years! that one thats gone up during the james alexander years , even tho he could have froze it!!! oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 6

10:34pm Sun 15 Jun 14

Silver says...

RingoStarr wrote:
"It also decided not to launch a review of the Lendal Bridge closure trial, with Labour councillors voting down a proposal supported by the Green, Conservative and Liberal Democrat members, by four votes to three"

Nearly missed this! C'mon 'Mark Down Tw*t' start you minus scores and prove that all of us who despise your Labour Council are right!
Labour in York have come a long way away from the labour I remember. A group set up for providing power to the people. In York this means 7 people against a thousand get the majority.
That we try and sell assets which have by now paid the income they would have sold it at.
Ok I'll give them Lendal bridge trial as an attempt to sort out congestion but the execution of the idea was so horribly mismanaged that my friends not from York still worry about crossing the bridge.
To anyone in the labour party group reading this message.
You've forced us Labour voters here to completely distrust you, those who shared the same system of beliefs of you, we've got no choice but to vote back the Lib Dems. They were not great but didn't screw up as badly as you. Come back Waller you did far less harm to York then Labour did.
[quote][p][bold]RingoStarr[/bold] wrote: "It also decided not to launch a review of the Lendal Bridge closure trial, with Labour councillors voting down a proposal supported by the Green, Conservative and Liberal Democrat members, by four votes to three" Nearly missed this! C'mon 'Mark Down Tw*t' start you minus scores and prove that all of us who despise your Labour Council are right![/p][/quote]Labour in York have come a long way away from the labour I remember. A group set up for providing power to the people. In York this means 7 people against a thousand get the majority. That we try and sell assets which have by now paid the income they would have sold it at. Ok I'll give them Lendal bridge trial as an attempt to sort out congestion but the execution of the idea was so horribly mismanaged that my friends not from York still worry about crossing the bridge. To anyone in the labour party group reading this message. You've forced us Labour voters here to completely distrust you, those who shared the same system of beliefs of you, we've got no choice but to vote back the Lib Dems. They were not great but didn't screw up as badly as you. Come back Waller you did far less harm to York then Labour did. Silver
  • Score: 10

1:16am Mon 16 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.
Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"
It's fine that individuals use their time and money for the benefit of the community, but, when councils use public money and assets on initiatives which are intended to attack capitalism, and have no proven ROI or value for money, it's wrong.

The council should stick with it's remit to provide public services.

Spending £10m on a social media type system dressed up as a tool for demoracy is one such unacceptable deviation from its remit and an abuse of public money.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.[/p][/quote]Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"[/p][/quote]It's fine that individuals use their time and money for the benefit of the community, but, when councils use public money and assets on initiatives which are intended to attack capitalism, and have no proven ROI or value for money, it's wrong. The council should stick with it's remit to provide public services. Spending £10m on a social media type system dressed up as a tool for demoracy is one such unacceptable deviation from its remit and an abuse of public money. Badgers Drift
  • Score: 3

1:29am Mon 16 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Alf Garnett wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.
Better than a neo-liberal little America where only the fortunate and manipulative survive. Anyway, all you have to do to stop it is vote.
Wrong!

Councillors have no say on many of these initiatives.

Senior Council officers at CYC are colluding with certain politicised charities, think tanks, and NGO's who have a 'change' agenda which many councillors are oblivious about.

Look out for some of these; Nesta, FutureGov and the Young Foundation, who have a particular interest in York!
[quote][p][bold]Alf Garnett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.[/p][/quote]Better than a neo-liberal little America where only the fortunate and manipulative survive. Anyway, all you have to do to stop it is vote.[/p][/quote]Wrong! Councillors have no say on many of these initiatives. Senior Council officers at CYC are colluding with certain politicised charities, think tanks, and NGO's who have a 'change' agenda which many councillors are oblivious about. Look out for some of these; Nesta, FutureGov and the Young Foundation, who have a particular interest in York! Badgers Drift
  • Score: 8

8:34am Mon 16 Jun 14

anistasia says...

Council causing more headaches for its residents wind turbines in the city first I've heard of it have the residents been asked their views on this do you want to live in a city centre apartment overlooked by a wind turbine. eyesore for the skyline over the city.
Council causing more headaches for its residents wind turbines in the city first I've heard of it have the residents been asked their views on this do you want to live in a city centre apartment overlooked by a wind turbine. eyesore for the skyline over the city. anistasia
  • Score: 3

10:48am Mon 16 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.
Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"
It's fine that individuals use their time and money for the benefit of the community, but, when councils use public money and assets on initiatives which are intended to attack capitalism, and have no proven ROI or value for money, it's wrong. The council should stick with it's remit to provide public services. Spending £10m on a social media type system dressed up as a tool for demoracy is one such unacceptable deviation from its remit and an abuse of public money.
"Intended to attack capitalism"

Care to demonstrate exactly how that is so?
And I mean you Paul, not some made up playground fool.
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.[/p][/quote]Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"[/p][/quote]It's fine that individuals use their time and money for the benefit of the community, but, when councils use public money and assets on initiatives which are intended to attack capitalism, and have no proven ROI or value for money, it's wrong. The council should stick with it's remit to provide public services. Spending £10m on a social media type system dressed up as a tool for demoracy is one such unacceptable deviation from its remit and an abuse of public money.[/p][/quote]"Intended to attack capitalism" Care to demonstrate exactly how that is so? And I mean you Paul, not some made up playground fool. Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -3

1:42pm Mon 16 Jun 14

YorkPatrol says...

Why don’t they bulk buy tarmac so they can repair York’s potholes more
Why don’t they bulk buy tarmac so they can repair York’s potholes more YorkPatrol
  • Score: 3

8:48pm Mon 16 Jun 14

oi oi savaloy says...

YorkPatrol wrote:
Why don’t they bulk buy tarmac so they can repair York’s potholes more
why don't the council fill the potholes up with ****? they seem to have plenty of that in bulk!
[quote][p][bold]YorkPatrol[/bold] wrote: Why don’t they bulk buy tarmac so they can repair York’s potholes more[/p][/quote]why don't the council fill the potholes up with ****? they seem to have plenty of that in bulk! oi oi savaloy
  • Score: 4

1:49am Tue 17 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.
Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"
It's fine that individuals use their time and money for the benefit of the community, but, when councils use public money and assets on initiatives which are intended to attack capitalism, and have no proven ROI or value for money, it's wrong. The council should stick with it's remit to provide public services. Spending £10m on a social media type system dressed up as a tool for demoracy is one such unacceptable deviation from its remit and an abuse of public money.
"Intended to attack capitalism" Care to demonstrate exactly how that is so? And I mean you Paul, not some made up playground fool.
Read Kersten England's colleague, Geoff Mulgan's book; 'The Locust and the Bee', and the Demos paper he co-wrote; The Other Invisible Hand: remaking Charities for the 21st Century.

You should get the idea....
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.[/p][/quote]Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"[/p][/quote]It's fine that individuals use their time and money for the benefit of the community, but, when councils use public money and assets on initiatives which are intended to attack capitalism, and have no proven ROI or value for money, it's wrong. The council should stick with it's remit to provide public services. Spending £10m on a social media type system dressed up as a tool for demoracy is one such unacceptable deviation from its remit and an abuse of public money.[/p][/quote]"Intended to attack capitalism" Care to demonstrate exactly how that is so? And I mean you Paul, not some made up playground fool.[/p][/quote]Read Kersten England's colleague, Geoff Mulgan's book; 'The Locust and the Bee', and the Demos paper he co-wrote; The Other Invisible Hand: remaking Charities for the 21st Century. You should get the idea.... Badgers Drift
  • Score: 2

9:02am Tue 17 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.
Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"
It's fine that individuals use their time and money for the benefit of the community, but, when councils use public money and assets on initiatives which are intended to attack capitalism, and have no proven ROI or value for money, it's wrong. The council should stick with it's remit to provide public services. Spending £10m on a social media type system dressed up as a tool for demoracy is one such unacceptable deviation from its remit and an abuse of public money.
"Intended to attack capitalism" Care to demonstrate exactly how that is so? And I mean you Paul, not some made up playground fool.
Read Kersten England's colleague, Geoff Mulgan's book; 'The Locust and the Bee', and the Demos paper he co-wrote; The Other Invisible Hand: remaking Charities for the 21st Century.

You should get the idea....
No Paul.
Why should I do the legwork? I'm a busy man.
It's your crazy theory to prove, why don't you read it and offer us a summary?
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.[/p][/quote]Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"[/p][/quote]It's fine that individuals use their time and money for the benefit of the community, but, when councils use public money and assets on initiatives which are intended to attack capitalism, and have no proven ROI or value for money, it's wrong. The council should stick with it's remit to provide public services. Spending £10m on a social media type system dressed up as a tool for demoracy is one such unacceptable deviation from its remit and an abuse of public money.[/p][/quote]"Intended to attack capitalism" Care to demonstrate exactly how that is so? And I mean you Paul, not some made up playground fool.[/p][/quote]Read Kersten England's colleague, Geoff Mulgan's book; 'The Locust and the Bee', and the Demos paper he co-wrote; The Other Invisible Hand: remaking Charities for the 21st Century. You should get the idea....[/p][/quote]No Paul. Why should I do the legwork? I'm a busy man. It's your crazy theory to prove, why don't you read it and offer us a summary? Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

10:53am Tue 17 Jun 14

eeoodares says...

I have always thought wind farms to be quite beautiful in the landscape, then I stayed near some on holiday...noisy, noisy, noisy!
I have always thought wind farms to be quite beautiful in the landscape, then I stayed near some on holiday...noisy, noisy, noisy! eeoodares
  • Score: 2

1:22pm Tue 17 Jun 14

sounds weird but says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.
Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"
It's fine that individuals use their time and money for the benefit of the community, but, when councils use public money and assets on initiatives which are intended to attack capitalism, and have no proven ROI or value for money, it's wrong. The council should stick with it's remit to provide public services. Spending £10m on a social media type system dressed up as a tool for demoracy is one such unacceptable deviation from its remit and an abuse of public money.
Couldnt agree more..they need to stick to thier remit until they have proved themselves and been fair and transparant in what they do.

Then york citizens will have confidence in the council undertaking these types of initiatives. I would be interested in see any predicted value for money or ROI papers, but the numbers are no realistic!!
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.[/p][/quote]Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"[/p][/quote]It's fine that individuals use their time and money for the benefit of the community, but, when councils use public money and assets on initiatives which are intended to attack capitalism, and have no proven ROI or value for money, it's wrong. The council should stick with it's remit to provide public services. Spending £10m on a social media type system dressed up as a tool for demoracy is one such unacceptable deviation from its remit and an abuse of public money.[/p][/quote]Couldnt agree more..they need to stick to thier remit until they have proved themselves and been fair and transparant in what they do. Then york citizens will have confidence in the council undertaking these types of initiatives. I would be interested in see any predicted value for money or ROI papers, but the numbers are no realistic!! sounds weird but
  • Score: 2

3:42pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Badgers Drift says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.
Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"
It's fine that individuals use their time and money for the benefit of the community, but, when councils use public money and assets on initiatives which are intended to attack capitalism, and have no proven ROI or value for money, it's wrong. The council should stick with it's remit to provide public services. Spending £10m on a social media type system dressed up as a tool for demoracy is one such unacceptable deviation from its remit and an abuse of public money.
"Intended to attack capitalism" Care to demonstrate exactly how that is so? And I mean you Paul, not some made up playground fool.
Read Kersten England's colleague, Geoff Mulgan's book; 'The Locust and the Bee', and the Demos paper he co-wrote; The Other Invisible Hand: remaking Charities for the 21st Century. You should get the idea....
No Paul. Why should I do the legwork? I'm a busy man. It's your crazy theory to prove, why don't you read it and offer us a summary?
I'm sorry, I'm not your servant/slave.

I've referred you to publications by Kersten England's colleague, Geoff Mulgan, which attack capitalism. Mr Mulgan is the founder of Demos, ex-chief executive of the Young foundation, and currently chief executive of Nesta.

I don't have to prove anything to you.

You can't disprove my assertion, can you ?
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.[/p][/quote]Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"[/p][/quote]It's fine that individuals use their time and money for the benefit of the community, but, when councils use public money and assets on initiatives which are intended to attack capitalism, and have no proven ROI or value for money, it's wrong. The council should stick with it's remit to provide public services. Spending £10m on a social media type system dressed up as a tool for demoracy is one such unacceptable deviation from its remit and an abuse of public money.[/p][/quote]"Intended to attack capitalism" Care to demonstrate exactly how that is so? And I mean you Paul, not some made up playground fool.[/p][/quote]Read Kersten England's colleague, Geoff Mulgan's book; 'The Locust and the Bee', and the Demos paper he co-wrote; The Other Invisible Hand: remaking Charities for the 21st Century. You should get the idea....[/p][/quote]No Paul. Why should I do the legwork? I'm a busy man. It's your crazy theory to prove, why don't you read it and offer us a summary?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, I'm not your servant/slave. I've referred you to publications by Kersten England's colleague, Geoff Mulgan, which attack capitalism. Mr Mulgan is the founder of Demos, ex-chief executive of the Young foundation, and currently chief executive of Nesta. I don't have to prove anything to you. You can't disprove my assertion, can you ? Badgers Drift
  • Score: -1

6:16pm Tue 17 Jun 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
Badgers Drift wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.
Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"
It's fine that individuals use their time and money for the benefit of the community, but, when councils use public money and assets on initiatives which are intended to attack capitalism, and have no proven ROI or value for money, it's wrong. The council should stick with it's remit to provide public services. Spending £10m on a social media type system dressed up as a tool for demoracy is one such unacceptable deviation from its remit and an abuse of public money.
"Intended to attack capitalism" Care to demonstrate exactly how that is so? And I mean you Paul, not some made up playground fool.
Read Kersten England's colleague, Geoff Mulgan's book; 'The Locust and the Bee', and the Demos paper he co-wrote; The Other Invisible Hand: remaking Charities for the 21st Century. You should get the idea....
No Paul. Why should I do the legwork? I'm a busy man. It's your crazy theory to prove, why don't you read it and offer us a summary?
I'm sorry, I'm not your servant/slave.

I've referred you to publications by Kersten England's colleague, Geoff Mulgan, which attack capitalism. Mr Mulgan is the founder of Demos, ex-chief executive of the Young foundation, and currently chief executive of Nesta.

I don't have to prove anything to you.

You can't disprove my assertion, can you ?
As arrogant as ever.

No-one's asking you to be a servant or slave.

You came on here with the outlandish claims - it's up to you to prove it/back it up/explain yourself.

"Attacking capitalism" ??
[quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Badgers Drift[/bold] wrote: Look out for more and more of these initiatives. Not for profit, cooperatives, mutuals, community interest groups, all looking at ways of combatting 'poverty' and 'inequality' We are under attack in york by a group of cultural political charitable elite seeking to 'transform' York into a socialist stronghold. It's time that this was looked into, opposed and stopped.[/p][/quote]Um..... Care to explain what's so wrong with people working to make their community a better place? Better still, can you explain how that is an "attack?"[/p][/quote]It's fine that individuals use their time and money for the benefit of the community, but, when councils use public money and assets on initiatives which are intended to attack capitalism, and have no proven ROI or value for money, it's wrong. The council should stick with it's remit to provide public services. Spending £10m on a social media type system dressed up as a tool for demoracy is one such unacceptable deviation from its remit and an abuse of public money.[/p][/quote]"Intended to attack capitalism" Care to demonstrate exactly how that is so? And I mean you Paul, not some made up playground fool.[/p][/quote]Read Kersten England's colleague, Geoff Mulgan's book; 'The Locust and the Bee', and the Demos paper he co-wrote; The Other Invisible Hand: remaking Charities for the 21st Century. You should get the idea....[/p][/quote]No Paul. Why should I do the legwork? I'm a busy man. It's your crazy theory to prove, why don't you read it and offer us a summary?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry, I'm not your servant/slave. I've referred you to publications by Kersten England's colleague, Geoff Mulgan, which attack capitalism. Mr Mulgan is the founder of Demos, ex-chief executive of the Young foundation, and currently chief executive of Nesta. I don't have to prove anything to you. You can't disprove my assertion, can you ?[/p][/quote]As arrogant as ever. No-one's asking you to be a servant or slave. You came on here with the outlandish claims - it's up to you to prove it/back it up/explain yourself. "Attacking capitalism" ?? Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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