Ludicrous bureaucrats
It is utterly, utterly, mind-bogglingly stupid of the Civil Servants to assume that those who tick the confidentiality box when objecting to the planning permission for Eishken, means that they are not allowed to make representations to the PLI.
You can just imagine the forms being filled, boxes ticked and civil service brains being left at the door.
Much as I may support the proposal, I want to see all the aspects of the application discussed openly, and without any suggestion that the matter is being dealt with on the quiet.
Apparently you can remove your right to confidentiality by contacting the Government, and I hope that as many as possible do so. So
long as the PLI doesn't turn into a repetitive stream of the same basic objections, which will waste everyone's time.
Between this Government and the last, it is almost as if they are trying to antagonise as many people as possible on every side of the renewables argument, before coming to a conclusion. Or more likely trying to be all things to all men.
You can just imagine the forms being filled, boxes ticked and civil service brains being left at the door.
Much as I may support the proposal, I want to see all the aspects of the application discussed openly, and without any suggestion that the matter is being dealt with on the quiet.
Apparently you can remove your right to confidentiality by contacting the Government, and I hope that as many as possible do so. So
long as the PLI doesn't turn into a repetitive stream of the same basic objections, which will waste everyone's time.
Between this Government and the last, it is almost as if they are trying to antagonise as many people as possible on every side of the renewables argument, before coming to a conclusion. Or more likely trying to be all things to all men.
14 comments:
This one loooks like it has judical review written all over it.
Oppenheimer must be worried. Not only is it an iffy scheme but the Exec seem to be masters at bungling.
Yet more ammo for MWT and their allies.
remind me again what PLI stands for?
Public Local Inquiry
Can we assume that all those anonymous concerned citizens will be wearing bags over their heads when they give ‘evidence’. Paranoid freaks!
"Anonymous said...
Can we assume that all those anonymous concerned citizens will be wearing bags over their heads when they give ‘evidence’. Paranoid freaks!"
Oh the irony...
knowing one person who has been initmated by their employer about their personal stance on the wind farm issue, I ma not surprised people want to keep their heads down.
Here was me thinking we lived in a fair and open democracy.
Eyoop: Very pithy and not lost on me, however, my anonymity on this blog will not affect the island economy by one penny.
I see, Anon 3:47, so those wishing to preserve anonymity for whatever reason such as, let's say, being a Council employee, are now to be held responsible for "affecting" the island economy by dint of actually objecting to a proposal to which they are perfectly entitled to object, as part of whatever is left of the democratic process?
Would you wish everyone who objects to a proposal on this scale to cease objecting on the basis that it might "affect" the economy of the island? Should we all just up and move to North Korea? What about the negative effects of these so-called developments on the economy? Is it in fact just your particular part of the economy of the island that you don't want disturbed?
Your first comment is as senseless as it is insulting - what you say actually has little relation to Angus's post. In any case, there are good reasons for people preserving their anonymity when objecting, as you well know, or should know by now.
That's exactly the way the DPA is supposed to work Angus. People ticked a box saying they wanted their details kept private. As such they automatically gain protection from their details being released into the public domain, through like say a PUBLIC inquiry.
IOf people want to object anonymously then they are entitled to, however they cannot then expect to be allowed to make public representations and still stay anonymous.
In fact going by the spirit of the DPA, this privacy should actually have been the default with people actually ticking a box to waive their privacy right in this case.
I see, Anon 3:47, so those wishing to preserve anonymity for whatever reason such as, let's say, being a Council employee, are now to be held responsible for "affecting" the island economy by dint of actually objecting to a proposal to which they are perfectly entitled to object.
No those responsible for “affecting” the island economy are not just the anonymous but all those who simply state: No, never.
Would you wish everyone who objects to a proposal on this scale to cease objecting on the basis that it might "affect" the economy of the island?
Yes.
Should we all just up and move to North Korea?
No, just those who put birds and bog before people.
What about the negative effects of these so-called developments on the economy?
Which are? Please don’t include bird watchers in your arithmetic.
Is it in fact just your particular part of the economy of the island that you don't want disturbed?
What economy! We are already far far behind the rest of Scotland in what we contribute.
Your first comment is as senseless as it is insulting.
Insult intended.
What you say actually has little relation to Angus's post.
Nothing new there then.
Thank you Anon 11:36, your reply, such as there is of it, is very enlightening.
Face it. There is plently of land here for people to work without going onto the moor.
Its called crofting.
If whingers actually had a work ethic and got back to doing a spot of farming we might move on.
Anon 2:20, I don't know if it's me you're addressing, but I totally agree with your comment!
not addressing anyone in particular - rather everyone!
Get some crops growing and stop whinging.
Why aren't the Council pushing that?
Post a Comment