Post by Mitch on Feb 16, 2005 10:18:46 GMT
www.pendletoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=365&ArticleID=944349
Letters week ending 11th February 2005
To submit letters by email to the Nelson Leader - send to:
andrew.spencer@eastlancsnews.co.uk
Brian Latimer's Letter:
Why don't you answer my points?
IN reply to the barrage of condemnation I have received from the organisers of the protest against a telecommunications mast near Walverden Reservoir, I would like to make the following response.
Firstly, none of the replies published in your newspaper of January 28th answered any of the points made in my letter.
Michelle Simmons's distorted comments are typical of what has occurred. I do not, as she claims, deplore the conduct of the protestors in Cloverhill and Walverden. They live in the area and have a democratic right to protest against anything they choose. What I do deplore, as I said earlier, is the irresponsible scaremongering used by the organisers of this protest in a crude attempt to win their case.
They have either lied about the methane gas level or they have failed to warn residents of dangerously high concentrations that must cover the area if these comments are true.
If they have told the truth, then there are some very serious consequences for a lot of people living and working in Nelson. Have these people completely ignored the real health concerns of the local people who presumably have suffered this methane gas entering their homes? Apart from the immediate danger of explosion, the effect on the health of the local population and on local house prices are obvious. Who would want to live, work or buy a house in an area where there is an ever-present danger of a catastrophic explosion, as suggested by them?
If there is no danger from methane in Nelson, why have the protest organisers and councillors lied about it in their campaign? They cannot have it both ways.
He also questions why I did not attend the planning committee meeting. It is simply this. I did not submit the planning application, H3G did and from the outset, I had no wish to influence any planning decision made by councillors. I preferred to stand back and let matters take their course. The committee is democratically elected, advised by qualified planning officers and I am perfectly happy with that, whatever the decision.
The letter from Ann Holmes implies that I posted my own leaflets around the area. I can state categorically I did no such thing. The defacing of notices by protest organisers that I mentioned occurred on the statutory public notices posted by the council. She states that, in her words: "He thinks he can do what he wants" with his own land, but I might remind her that this application has been submitted by H3G through the proper procedure and that, if I wished to wander over somebody else's land, I would at least have the courtesy of asking first, unlike the protest organisers.
Coun. Kath Shore wonders about my state of mind, but I might suggest she has a check up on her own state of mind if she is suggesting: "the whole of Nelson could go up if the beams come into contact with methane gas".
As for my brain being cooked, if it is, it is not from constantly using a mobile phone as she assumes. I do not own a mobile phone and have never owned one, but I can appreciate that many millions of people use them and many rely on them every day.
By the way, can Ann Holmes please explain what "normal gas" is?
BRIAN LATIMER
Lima Engineering, Brunswick Street, Nelson
Letters week ending 11th February 2005
To submit letters by email to the Nelson Leader - send to:
andrew.spencer@eastlancsnews.co.uk
Brian Latimer's Letter:
Why don't you answer my points?
IN reply to the barrage of condemnation I have received from the organisers of the protest against a telecommunications mast near Walverden Reservoir, I would like to make the following response.
Firstly, none of the replies published in your newspaper of January 28th answered any of the points made in my letter.
Michelle Simmons's distorted comments are typical of what has occurred. I do not, as she claims, deplore the conduct of the protestors in Cloverhill and Walverden. They live in the area and have a democratic right to protest against anything they choose. What I do deplore, as I said earlier, is the irresponsible scaremongering used by the organisers of this protest in a crude attempt to win their case.
They have either lied about the methane gas level or they have failed to warn residents of dangerously high concentrations that must cover the area if these comments are true.
If they have told the truth, then there are some very serious consequences for a lot of people living and working in Nelson. Have these people completely ignored the real health concerns of the local people who presumably have suffered this methane gas entering their homes? Apart from the immediate danger of explosion, the effect on the health of the local population and on local house prices are obvious. Who would want to live, work or buy a house in an area where there is an ever-present danger of a catastrophic explosion, as suggested by them?
If there is no danger from methane in Nelson, why have the protest organisers and councillors lied about it in their campaign? They cannot have it both ways.
He also questions why I did not attend the planning committee meeting. It is simply this. I did not submit the planning application, H3G did and from the outset, I had no wish to influence any planning decision made by councillors. I preferred to stand back and let matters take their course. The committee is democratically elected, advised by qualified planning officers and I am perfectly happy with that, whatever the decision.
The letter from Ann Holmes implies that I posted my own leaflets around the area. I can state categorically I did no such thing. The defacing of notices by protest organisers that I mentioned occurred on the statutory public notices posted by the council. She states that, in her words: "He thinks he can do what he wants" with his own land, but I might remind her that this application has been submitted by H3G through the proper procedure and that, if I wished to wander over somebody else's land, I would at least have the courtesy of asking first, unlike the protest organisers.
Coun. Kath Shore wonders about my state of mind, but I might suggest she has a check up on her own state of mind if she is suggesting: "the whole of Nelson could go up if the beams come into contact with methane gas".
As for my brain being cooked, if it is, it is not from constantly using a mobile phone as she assumes. I do not own a mobile phone and have never owned one, but I can appreciate that many millions of people use them and many rely on them every day.
By the way, can Ann Holmes please explain what "normal gas" is?
BRIAN LATIMER
Lima Engineering, Brunswick Street, Nelson
