"Community Partnerships" Will Not Talk About Negatives of Hosting Deep High Level Nuclear Dump



Image from the "Working in Partnership" propaganda colouring book "GDF's Heroes" for children. This goes beyond greenwashing into propaganda for children and it is what those joining the Community Partnerships and those taking the bribes are putting their names to.


We Need to Talk About "Ray." According to the propaganda aimed at children by the GDF "Working in Partnership" colouring book, Radioactive Ray is "a nice kid really, I just need a long time to cool off underground!"


At the latest South Copeland Community Partnership meeting it was revealed that the so-called Partnership does not want to talk about the negatives of hosting a GDF. This is not a Partnership in any sense of the word.


The following write up has been posted on the South Copeland Against GDF blog - thanks to Jan Bridget.


Negatives of Hosting a GDF?



At the South Copeland GDF Community Partnership held in the Guide Hall in Millom on 9th November, Jan Bridget asked the following questions of the Community representatives:

  1. What community do you represent?

  2. How do you communicate with them to ensure you represent their views?

  3. How are you representing those members of your community who are opposed to the GDF being sited here?

It is clear from the responses that different reps have different beliefs about their roles on, and the role of, the CP. However, the main takeaway was that it was up to groups that oppose the GDF to provide information on the negative effects of a GDF on our area. By the way, it was noted there was no representation from Millom Town Council. Here is an extract from the Community Partnership Agreement, 2.1, about the role of the CP:

  • to facilitate discussion with the community.

  • to identify relevant information that people in the communities benefitting from the formation of the Community Partnership want or need about the siting process

  • to agree a programme of activities to develop the community’s understanding of the siting process and the potential implications of hosting a GDF (a ‘Programme of Activities’)

At the moment the only information being distributed by the CP concerns the so-called benefits to the community. Nowhere is there information about the possible negative impacts of a GDF. The CP have yet to agree their Programme of Activities (should have been agreed within the first six months so it is now six months late). It was made clear at the meeting that the CP can commission independent reports. So why do they not commission an independent report on the possible negative impacts of a GDF on the host community given that community members are asking these questions? But this must be from a totally independent source such as the Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates.

57 views0 comments