19th March 2002

CANK's Chairman, supported by other members of the committee, addressed an attentive and lively audience of almost 200 people drawn from the local area and
from as far afield as Wrexham, Northop, Mold and Buckley.

The Chairman was at pains to stress that until the legal advisors had had time to go over the Inspector's full report, with all of the annexures and attachments, and then had had time to weigh the evidence against the conclusions and the apropriateness of each, there was no opportunity to state exactly what legal options for objection still remained open and what the steps and procedures were that might yet be taken.

He advised that it would probably be another week or so before full perusal of the report was completed.   At that time, there would still be a full four weeks of "window" available before the 6 week time bar came into effect.

The Chairman did express his personal view, having read the report, that even allowing for the necessary subjectivity of such a report, this one stretched the limits of subjectivity to new boundaries.  We particularly wondered how the visual impact decision  of "Neutral" had been achieved. The Inspector did record, accurately, that the old plant was an "X" while the new plant would be "X" plus 50% more in height and 20 times in building bulk, but despite that, it would have a neutral effect.  The Inspector is  perfectly entitled to his opinion our Chairman commented.  He also commented that we were equally entitled to make our own decision on the point.
Similarly, he picked out the praise heaped upn the Castle employees, who, according to the Inspector, had attended in large numbers each day.    No such comment for the many, many non-Castle people who bothered also to attend.
He also found the praise heaped upon Dr. Richard Roberts of the North Wales Health Authority rather interesting.  The inspector managed to note that his CV was "impressive".  He managed to dismiss the detailed evidence given for CANK by Dr. Vyvian Howard, whose own CV outweighs that of Dr. Richard Roberts in the eyes of many other people.

But that, as our Chairman commented, is subjectivity for you!

After a lively question and answer session, the Chairman closed the meeting with an assurance that another meeting and the CANK AGM would be arranged within a few weeks, once the legal decision on further action was made.

Webmaster Note:
Two interesting aspects to this meeting:
    Someone locked the doors shortly after the meeting started, temporarily preventing about 60 local residents from listening to what was being said.
    Quite apart from trying to stifle the debate, whoever did this had a flagrant disregard for the safety of the 100+ people inside.
    It seems that as well as trying to protect our environment, we now will need to monitor the doors to our meetings to ensure that they are not
    being tampered with!

    Cars outside had a flyer left under their windscreens - we reproduce it here, together with our observations.

    Flintshire County Council Supports it.
               The Labour controlled County Council clearly failed to read the will of the people.
                A majority of local councils, including Buckley, voted against it.

                That continuing strength of feeling is still hugely evident

    An Independant Inquiry Supports It
                Government Appointed

    The Welsh Assembly Supports it.
               Who controls the Assembly?

    There is statistically more chance of being run over and killed than from any pollutant.
               HOW DO THEY KNOW - the science of these most toxic chemicals is still evolving - all emerging data suggests dioxins, in
                particular, are much more dangerous than originally thought, so much so that it is recognised THAT THERE IS NO SAFE LOWER
                LIMIT.

                It is, therefore,  impossible to quantify the real statistical risk at this time.

               Being injured or dying by being run over is accidental, being hurt or killed by toxic effluent that is deposited on the community, is not;

                Is there is a more sinister side to this comment - could the powers that be have decided that the deaths of a few and the degraded health of
                many more, is a price worth paying to allow Castle to prosper?

   Ignorance is not an excuse to be against something
              WE COULD NOT AGREE MORE
               That is why we have looked at all the independant information we can get. ALL OF IT INDICATES A DEVELOPING DANGER.

               It is only those with something to gain: Castle Cement ; local and national government; and their departments, that say there is no danger.

               Strip away the vested interests and there is no question that this kiln should not be built
               The potential risks are just too great.
 

    Everybody who has the facts supports it, why not get the facts and support it as well.
           WRONG
           We have researched the available facts and  we  DO NOT SUPPORT IT.
            Our internationally renowned health expert probably is more learned in these matters than anyone else and HE DOES NOT  SUPPORT IT
.