Thanks for all the comments – one thing though… October 19th, 2009 by teamstroud5050

Some of the comments being submitted recently to this blog contravene our blog guidelines. We do not believe in censorship – we want an open, honest and frank discussion. After much internal discussion we have published these comments – with no real content removed, just the offensive parts.

The tone of much of the conversation has sunk well below what we’d deem acceptable. Apart from using unfounded and unsubstantiated ‘facts’, many have decided to resort to personal attacks. This is not conducive to grown up discussion, which is, after all, the reason we have any commenting system at all.

This website is about climate change, it’s about local solutions, it’s about the future and finding out what the people of Stroud REALLY want.

In future all comments not adhering to the comment guidelines will not be published. What we need is an informed debate, one backed up with reason. Not plain old tit-for-tat mud-slinging.

We have decided to ‘flip’ the order of this blog over. So that new content doesn’t get lost and we can bring other voices and arguments into the debate that need to be heard. We have some exciting posts coming up from leading voices in the region which we’ll post in the next few days.

In the meantime we’re looking into the issue of the missing postal coupons. We have used a company we had good faith in. We’re going through the votes we’ve had in to see where the gaps are in responses – anyone out there who didn’t receive a postal vote, can you just email team@stroud5050.org with your post code so we can look into it in more detail?

The bottom line is this IS about the planet where we all have to live. This is our planet and everywhere is our back yard.

26 Responses to “Thanks for all the comments – one thing though…”

1. 
   rotator - October 19, 2009 at 6:33 pm In Ecotricity's Progress Report 2008 the following appears. "We attribute our planning success in large part to our Good Neighbour policy through which we only commit to build turbines where we can be sure they will be good neighbours throughout their lifetime. If we can’t be sure, we walk away." Since virtually all the near (and not so near) neighbours of the proposed wind farm in the Stinchcombe area are opposed (see the 200+ objections on the Planning website) can you be as good as your word and walk away please? Since the dictionary definition of "neighbour" is "a person (or thing) who lives near or next to another" it seems quite clear cut to me, with no wriggle room whatsoever.
   • 
     TR - October 20, 2009 at 10:31 am rotator, the whole point of this is to see what the majority of stroud wants. 200+ is not the majority. As I've mentioned in comments in the "have your say" post democracy isn't about the volume of the voice, isn't about the volume of votes.
     
     From what I can see, the Stroud 5050 campaign is an extension of the Good Neighbour policy. Ecotricity is looking to see whether Stroud is as green as it prides itself on being.
     • 
       rotator - October 20, 2009 at 10:39 am You are playing with the word 'neighbour', that is why I referred to the dictionary definition. Many of the 200 plus objectors are the neighbours. Not one is in favour - except two landowners who will profit greatly. If you are talking about a wider neighbourhood then Ecotricity should have made this clear in the progress report. They do not appear to empathise with the concerns of the immediate neighbourhood otherwise they would never have considered the Stinchcombe area as a suitable location. They should therefore change their wording - if words are to have any meaning.
       • 
         Xena - October 20, 2009 at 11:14 am I have to quote Ecotricity's website as I think you may have misunderstood the policy
         "We adhere rigorously to our own Good Neighbour policy which means that if we cannot be certain a turbine will not adversely impact it’s neighbours, we won’t proceed."
         What they mean I believe is that they are researched thoroughly to ensure no danger to people or wildlife, no shadow flicker, minimal noise... etc...
         • 
           rotator - October 20, 2009 at 4:36 pm There are a plethora of other issues besides the ones you mention, such as proposing to build wind turbines on the very edge of an AONB and close to people's houses and businesses. You simply cannot wriggle out of the original quote (above) from the Progress Report and to do so shows you fail to understand two very simple English sentences. Any neutral reader, reading this would take it that Ecotricity would walk away if it failed to be a good neighbour. Building huge wind turbines close to people's houses in a beautiful area is not being a good neighbour to either the people or the landscape.
         • 
           TR - October 23, 2009 at 8:32 am Ecotricity walking away if the turbine would fail to be a"good neighbour" is exactly right... Ecotricity takes measures to ensure that any turbine would not adversely affect anybody. Whether it's from noise, shadow flicker, ice etc. There have been planned sites for turbines that have abandoned due to this policy and it is one that ecotricity has stuck by. I hardly think not liking the way they look can be considered as being adversely affected, that is personal opinion and not one that's universally shared.
2. 
   Dave Angel - October 20, 2009 at 8:44 am I'm guessing what they mean by 'Good Neighbour' is that it wont cause any problems .. ie. all issues will be looked at in the planning application ie. noise, shadow flicker, birds, bats. If they're not satisfied with what they find from their indepth studies they wont go ahead.
3. 
   terraverde - October 20, 2009 at 11:21 am “We cannot let the squires and the gentry stop us meeting our moral obligation to pass this world on in a better state to our children and our children's children.”
   
   and
   
   "We see ambitious and worthy wind turbine applications defeated by a vocal minority of landowners and nimbys. They hire professional consultants to delay, obstruct and ultimately defeat these applications.
   
   "It's all very well arguing that a wind turbine might spoil the chocolate box view for a few homeowners. But did these same people campaign against the mobile phone masts that allow them to call locals to organize their protests? Did they moan about the pylons that bring electricity to their hamlets to power their computers that sent out emails to lobby the councils against wind farm applications? Of course they didn't! They accepted them because they were necessary."
   
   John Prescott - The Independant
   • 
     Xena - October 20, 2009 at 11:44 am The last one especially is an excellent quote.
     
     Thanks for that
   • 
     rotator - October 20, 2009 at 4:15 pm Whoever took '2 Jags Prescott' and his ill thought out, incoherent arguments seriously? The following is much more to the point.... 'The anti-wind farm National Alliance of Wind Farm Action Groups (Nawag) said Mr Prescott's speech was a "puerile attack on 'Nimbyism'" and said in a statement: "Those of us campaigning against inappropriately sited onshore wind turbine proposals believe that the current gold-rush to wind represents a scandalous scam against the British taxpayer.
     
     "Nawag believes there should be a much more balanced renewable energy policy with a significant increase in Government and private industry investment in renewable sources other than wind including solar, wave and tidal power."
4. 
   fifi black - October 20, 2009 at 6:04 pm Terraverde,
   Your quotations from Prescott thinly disguise your "ad hominem" comments(see blog guidelines) regarding nimbys,squires and gentry.Actually we're normal people who disagree with Ecotricity and its greenwash. According to Ecotricity's rules this should be struck off by the Ecotricity censors. Or do the censors only censor what suits them?
   • 
     Pauleco - October 20, 2009 at 6:08 pm Hiya Fifi,
     
     Paul here, blog manager. Just to clarify, I haven't censored any comments - only replaced an unacceptable phrase with asterisks.
     
     Best regards
     Paul
   • 
     terraverde - October 20, 2009 at 7:50 pm Fifi
     
     No offense intended - I was being topical. Personally I would have avoided using all those phrases, but Prescott didn't. At least I provided a source ;)
     
     However, I don't even live in Stroud - I'll get my coat.
5. 
   rotator - October 20, 2009 at 8:17 pm That's odd. I thought I saw Ecotricity proudly claiming David Drew (Stroud MP) was in favour of Stroud5050 campaign but can't seem to find that piece on the website now. Am I looking in the wrong place?
   • 
     Xena - October 22, 2009 at 8:31 am David Drew is backing the Stroud 5050 campaign
     
     http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/stroud/stroud5050/David-Drew-backs-Stroud-5050/article-1341399-detail/article.html
     • 
       rotator - October 22, 2009 at 2:43 pm Doesn't say anything about Berkeley Vale/Stinchcombe.
       • 
         Xena - October 22, 2009 at 3:21 pm It doesn't. But you only asked about the Stroud5050 campaign in your post above....
         • 
           rotator - October 22, 2009 at 4:40 pm Just thought it was odd that it was on the website, Xena, but then it seems to have been removed.
6. 
   rotator - October 23, 2009 at 12:09 pm Replying to TR's post above. You are being disingenouously selective. Of course appearance matters. It is of major importance in planning procedures. If your neighbour was to build a skyscraper in the garden next to yours and overlooked you and all around then would you regard your neighbour to be a good neighbour? I suspect not. It is ridiculous to assert only noise, falling ice and flicker should be taken into account. If any proposed turbines' neighbours are not happy then in your own words you should "walk away". It is quite clear and unambiguous.
   • 
     Simba - October 26, 2009 at 4:14 pm @rotator
     since no one could possibly argue the definition of neighbour (it is what it is) you would have to look a little more closely at what is defined as good, one option could be 'morally admirable'.
     But regardless of my take on the English dictionary and as previous people have mentioned, for Ecotricity, this encompasses a wide range of considerations; the most contentious (and to my mind the only arguable one) being visual impact. If a site meets all of these then, for Ecotricity, it is a 'good neighbour'.
     
     It is ridiculous to criticise this policy based solely on it's name (something about book and cover...)
     • 
       rotator - October 26, 2009 at 11:20 pm In the same way you agree that no-one can argue the definition of being a neighbour, it is futile arguing that Ecotricity can be a 'good neighbour' by proposing to plonk eight unwanted and uninvited 120m monsters close to neighbouring houses and businesses. And of course 'this policy based on its name' can be criticised because it doesn't do what it says on the tin! It is inaccurate, misleading and hypocritical.
7. 
   Gerard Gilbert Vaughan - November 9, 2009 at 6:04 pm It depends upon what is inferred by "local wind-energy" If this is gigabtic "wind-turbines" returning a small fraction of one percent p.a. of their cost, then you make your own mind-up, but do so in the light of knowledge, not schpiel from the windfarm people. They are an economic and thereby environmental "millstone" - as in around the neck, despite, as I say, the technospiel.
   Domestic Turbine-Alternator Devices, are quite different in that not only can a good one return a self-sustaining percentage p.a. of its cost, but neither does it (/ do they - you can 't have too many of a GOOD thing) horrify the landscape, NOR require extra "grid" to connect to them.
   See my blog on "Copenhagen here we .. to see why this should be
   Hello to any at AStroud who remember me in the 80's and up to '96 - I lived in a wood at Elcombe and developed (by 2006 !!) a very effective TAD, which just happens to be of a domesticly convenient size As will any worthwhile TAD. See blog.
8. 
   Peter Pannier - November 18, 2009 at 12:37 pm Personally, I love looking at the Nympsfield Turbine, it seems quiet too, and it's certainly a hell of a lot more aesthetically pleasing that the Coal-fired power stations I've seen (Drax, Racliffe-on-Soar, Didcot), and even more so than the Open Cast coal mine at Mrythr Tydfil. I'd like to see the anti's explain their aestheic objections to the poor sods in Merthyr who have to put up with a vision of hell on earth as a result of their refusals.
   
   I urge antis to read the article below... 50% of energy from clean wind sound like a fanciful notion? Not at all - established fact:
   (and Spain has much less wind resouce than the UK - we have 40% of Europe's wind resource if memory serves)
   
   "Spain's windfarms set new national record for electricity generation
   
   High winds over the weekend supplied 53% of Spain's electricity – equivalent to the power output of 11 nuclear plants
   
   http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/spain-national-record-power-windfarms
   
   best bit: "José Donoso, head of the Spanish Wind Energy Association, recalled that just five years ago critics had claimed the grid could never cope with more than 14% of its supply from wind.
   
   "We think that we can keep growing and go from the present 17GW megawatts to reach 40GW in 2020," he told El País newspaper.
   
   Windfarms have this month outperformed other forms of electricity generation in Spain, beating gas into second place and producing 80% more than the country's nuclear plants."
   • 
     fifi black - November 19, 2009 at 7:41 pm I think I read that this happened for a total of 5 hours, when the Spaniards happened to have a very windy day. This doesn't mean that they get 53% generally. But they have obviously used this statistic to justify their wind turbines.
9. 
   Kate - December 17, 2009 at 7:28 pm How about having a ratings system for comments like the one on YouTube. Comments with -6 votes or more could then be hidden and it would show how many people really agree with what's being said.
10. 
    Pauleco - December 18, 2009 at 2:48 pm Hiya Kate,
    
    Sadly there are ways to cheat those types of systems (which people do on Guardian's CiF all the time). It involves a decent browser like Firefox, plus a plug-in that allows you to disable cookies at will...
    
    I wouldn't like to censor based on that kind of system for that reason...
    
    However - I think more and more comment systems will be tied to Facebook/Twitter profiles to discourage anonymous rants/trolling/flame-baiting...
    
    Cheers
    Paul