Hey Webmasters! New Photo Album Service Launched - Check it out!
|
|
|
WIND farms are more than just an eyesore. They can cause epileptic fits.
The flickering of sunlight through the turbines’ spinning blades can trigger seizures in the most vulnerable, an expert warned yesterday.
Professor Arnold Wilkins, who believes the link has been overlooked, is calling on engineers to consider the risk when building farms.
Epileptics are in danger of a seizure if light flickers are at three or more times a second.
Wind turbines usually create three flickers a second, prompting the professor to say: ‘we don’t want more than that. But there may be instances where turbines are close together and their blades cross over, leading to a greater frequency of flickers. You wouldn’t want the shadow to fall on a public place.
‘The biggest risk is for epileptics living or working in the shadow of blades,’ he said.
(Article from Daily Mail April 30, 2008)
Wimblebury & Heath Hayes Parish Council
Dear Mr Smythe,
I am writing in reply to your letter that you sent to my home on the 25th June 2008.
Firstly, let me inform you that if that was yourself or one of the councillors that delivered the documents, next time that happens in those circumstances I will telephone the police immediately.
I do not appreciate a fully hooded and disguised individual whom was rather threatening intimidating my family in that manner. My two-year-old daughter was distressed with this episode and also my wife.
To walk up to a young child in what my wife and I felt a threatening and aggressive behaviour is totally unacceptable.
It seems that our requests for information has brought out an aggressive side in the parish council in the way they handle their own residents is somewhat beyond our comprehension.
To my reply to your letter and indeed your demands, please let me respond:
The gentleman I spoke to in the council was connected to the office of freedom of information and his name that was given was Darren Edwards. I find it amazing that you have now gone through hours of telephone calls to see if I called this gentleman. I am not the liar here Mr Smythe and can provide telephone records to prove my calls.
Obviously I did not record the conversation, but now I understand what is expected I will ensure that happens in future. It seems calling me a liar is bringing my name into disrepute and could seek legal action if I was small minded enough to do so.
On the £8000 donation, this was somewhere on your website, if you were unable to clarify the £8000 donation/s then you should possibly consider hiring a professional webmaster whom can properly communicate these matters properly. However I have noticed this has now been altered.
In regard to your demand of recognising there has been no undisclosed donations, I have emailed you on numerous occasions see enclosed, requesting clarification on certain sections of the financial documents you provided me with so politely, I have had no reply to these repeated emails. Indeed I have never had a reply from you at all in any emails I have sent to you!
Once I receive the requested documents and clarification then I will consider my opinion. Please AGAIN see a copy of the enclosed email and request AND can you please furnish me with these documents?
Regarding my repeated requests to you on the financial dealings of the Parish Council, please see enclosed all emails sent to you from my personal and business email proving that I asked you for these documents PRIOR to contacting the press. It was your ignorance and refusal to respond that caused these unfortunate episodes for the Parish Council. Surprising for a Clerk that has accordingly been named a one of the best!
In my email (see enclosed) dated the 19th May prior to any contact to the press I kindly and politely asked without inference if you could supply your financial records, this was of course ignored. It was not that you did not receive my emails as you did reply to an email sent previously; well you emailed all councillors and CCd it to my email address, once again quite ignorant.
Let me remind you that authority has a legal duty to provide information on request made in writing. The authority should comply with request with in 20 working days. If the authority needs to extend time limit, it should inform me in writing and indicate reasons why it is necessary to extend time and indication of when it expects to respond.
So please take your threats elsewhere, as it is simply against Human rights law and
Freedom of speech law. As you have been informed previously we are considering
taking legal action against you for defamation and threatening behaviour.
In 1993 the House of Lords ruled that government bodies cannot sue for defamation. This covers organs of local and central government including Crown and government departments. They consider it was of the “ highest importance that a democratically elected body or any government body, should be open to unlimited public criticism”.
In closing this reply, it is sad to hear of a parish council that feels it is beyond question and when an individual( Parish resident) does ask for clarification, he is attacked in such a manner. Unfortunately, in the way some of the councillors have behaved, including your self Mr Smythe, with such an aggressive response and attitude, it does however beggar the question- Why!
Finally once again all this unpleasant business could have been avoided should you have chosen to respond to my private emails previously.
Colin Thompson
Any residents who can put posters outside their house to raise awareness or hand out leaflets, please contact us at
and we would be more than happy to provide you with the necessary materials.
Any residents who are available to attend the planning committee meeting (date to be confirmed) are urged to attend, to join together to make our stand!
bravenet.com