The Little Wenlock ‘Wheeze’ – hmmm? Rather ironic?

But come on chaps – dangerous? So if they put a fence around it with a sign say “Warning – Ruddy Big Hole”, I assume then this objection is overcome.

And people wonder why this enquiry is costing the tax payer £500,000.

Honestly *tut*

Report abuse

Soon there’ll be no more money Huw .Taxation and public spending are going to be the only consideration of the next government. Sums being wasted on publc enquiries like this have no jutification, the sites proposed are existing mine fields ,neglected and abandoned former workings one way or another this coal and clay wil be mined .bisten thy listnin tut jockey lad?

Report abuse

Huw: One minute it’s the old people in society, then its child poverty and so on with you. There is not a bottomless pit of cash because only people like you support political parties that propose raising taxes and as you know all about democracy that you champion on every thread, as you are a minority, your wishes to increase taxation don’t matter.

I am merely pointing out how this enquiry is diverting scare funds to listen to trivial objections. Perhaps it could be better spent on the aging fox population as the majority decided they wanted it.

Report abuse

Coal produces 1153 grammes of Co2 per kilowatt hour.

Wind produces 24 grammes.

Questioning the burning of yet another 900,000 tonnes of coal is therefore not a ‘trivial objection’, Lucy W, especially when one considers the UK’s international, legally binding obligations to be moving away from fossil fuels.

Renewables create MORE JOBS than coal-mining.

Pointing this out at a time when masses of people are losong their jobs (over 2,400 in shropshire in the last 8 months) is not a ‘trivial objection’, either.

Did you make your ‘bottomless pit’ comments when Trident was proposed or when the House of Commons voted in favour of war in Iraq?

I would argue that the sum of money spent on this inquiry is trivial compared to the sums involved in the latter.

And I would argue that it is easier to demonstrate that the interests of ordinary taxpayers are being defended by the thousands spent on this inquiry than by the billions spent on Trident and war.

Report abuse

OK, I understand that, Lucy W.

But you have not responded to the point I made.

The sum being spent on this enquiry (a vital element of living in a democracy) is relatively trivial in the bigger scheme of things.

This money is earmarked to guarantee locals who would be affected by an opencast mine or those advocating a more sustainable energy policy a hearing in public.

You would clearly rather that locals had NO right to question this development, but I wonder how rigidly you stick to this undemocratic principle.

If you question the thousands spent on this enquiry, do you also question the BILLIONS of taxpayers’ money that is being spent on renewing the nuclear deterrent, on wars and on subsidising the aviation industry ( ttp://www.shropshirestar.com/2009/01/20/everyone-will-pay-for-airport/ )?

2 million taxpayers marched against the Iraq War in February 2003.

By March 2006 the war had cost us all £4.6bn.

Did you oppose this use of taxpayers’ money, Lucy W?

Report abuse