email to inspector chester - justify why you will no pursue fraud over airport lies to justify expansion

Dear Inspector Chester,


I refer you to your letter of the 26th Oct 2009, which was in response to my request to have charges of fraud brought against Gloucestershire Airport’s directors under the Fraud Act 2006.

As you are no doubt aware, the charge of fraud is serious, but the evidence of fraud, as defined by Fraud Act 2006, against the airport is overwhelming. It is clear that this development will result in severe environmental damage due to increased greenhouse gas emissions despite the airport claiming this will not happen. The alternative is that the airport sticks to its greenhouse gas commitments and there will be no return on investment. This will result in the taxpayers of Gloucestershire being forced to pay the £2.3 million pounds loan. Either way the taxpayers are being defrauded.


This absurd position comes about because the council’s of Gloucester and Cheltenham being owners of the airport have a conflict of interest. This forces them to maximise the profits of the airport rather than represent the views and long term interests of their constituents.


Further to the initial dossier I submitted to PC Dill in September, I have also prepared a report at the request of the Gloucestershire Echo to quantify the CO2 emissions. This has been circulated around all of Cheltenham’s councillors.

A copy of the report is attached to this email. It adds further evidence to the case that the airport’s directors and their supporters within Gloucester and Cheltenham falsely represented the case for the airport and did so knowingly.


The report categorically demonstrates the Green Management plan cannot be complied with whilst simultaneously meeting the flight programme necessary to make an appropriate return on investment. The Green Management plan stated that the current CO2 emissions from the airport are 3,700 tonnes per annum and will be capped at 4,000 tonnes, thus allowing for a maximum increase in CO2 emissions of 300 tonnes per year.

The simple analysis in the report shows 8,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions are likely to be produced to meet the flight programme necessary for the predicted return on investment. This far exceeds the permissible 300 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions that are allowed under the green management plan.

It is also important to note that Councillor Les Godwin omitted to include the CO2 targets in the business plan that he submitted to Cheltenham and Gloucester councils, yet he included the other less onerous commitments in the Green Management plan. This selective quoting of the Green Management Plan points to a deliberate attempt to mislead the councillors into supporting the proposals for the airport. It is in violation of section 3.a of the Fraud Act, which states “A person is in breach of this section if he — dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose.” As the planning application was granted on agreement that the Green Management plan would be implemented, then there was a legal duty to fully disclose the full implications of the CO2 targets.

Following this latest manoeuvring of the airport and its supporters, the case for a fraud investigation is mounting. If this mounting evidence of fraud is still not adequate for you to start proceeding, then you need to justify to us why you are not prepared to instigate proceedings.

We look forward to your reply.


Yours sincerely,

Kevin Lister

Complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about Express

This complaint relates to the front-page report of the Daily Express that headlined “CLIMATE NUT BROWN WILL RUIN BRITAIN.”


The complaint is being made under Article 1 of the editors code of the practise – “The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information.”

The article claims that the Gordon Brown’s proposed cut of CO2 emissions “was made despite a continuing debate about whether mankind is to blame for climate change.”

This is incorrect. There is no debate about whether mankind is to blame for climate change. It is a fact that since the industrial revolution, CO2 emissions have increased by 40% from 280 parts per million to 390 parts per millions and given the current trajectory they will soon rise to well beyond 450 parts per millions. It is a fact that basic science shows a CO2 rich atmosphere warms more quickly. It is a fact that all temperature trends over any statistically significant period show warming has happened and is continuing to happen.

No scientist has yet been able to provide any suitable alternative hypothesis to explain the observed warming trends. No peer-reviewed work has been produced to disprove mankind’s influence in climate change.

The only debate about whether mankind is to blame is fuelled on by those with either no scientific understanding or with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.

The article goes on to quote the taxpayers alliance claiming that the cuts would “require the economy to be slashed by 30 per cent from expected levels.” However there is no counter balancing view to argue that if we do not make deep and urgent cuts in our CO2 emissions the consequences of climate change will result in a far more serious societal collapse.

The article closes with the statistic that, “Daily Express readers showed their distrust of Mr Brown’s sweeping plans this week, with an overwhelming 98 per cent of those taking part in a phone vote agreeing that the nation was being conned over global warming.”

This quote is aimed at demonstrating that the public does not believe in climate change, and therefore by implication that climate change either does not exist or is not a serious issue. Without knowing exactly what questions were asked or who the questions were asked to, this is a misleading and inaccurate reflection of public opinion. As a group, Express readers are more likely than most others to be dismissive of climate change. Finally, there is no reference to the size of the sample taken.

It is clear that this article does not provide any accurate and factual report of the debate on the climate change. It merely perpetuates the arguments of the climate change deniers using half-truths and biased arguments.

As such the article is inaccurate, misleading and presents distorted information.

Parlimentary action needed on lying aviation adverts (Email to David Drew MP)

Dear David,

Good to meet up again this morning.

As discussed, I am now getting no response from the Advertising Standards Agency following my complaints against the misleading adverts of the aviation industry. All the adverts that I have complained about erroneously claim that flying can be made environmentally friendly. Claims of this nature are becoming increasingly common.

I have pointed out to the ASA that the marketing strategy of the aviation industry is the same as that employed by the cigarette industry in the late 1940s when they claimed smoking filtered cigarettes was safe. We know that it is preposterous to think cigarettes can be safe, in the same way that we know aviations claim of environmentally friendly flying is also preposterous. However, we also know that the cigarette advertising strategy was overwhelmingly successful, making Marlboro the most highly valued brand in history. By employing the same methods, the aviation industry is being equally successful in getting people to ignore the clear and present dangers of climate change and to continue flying regardless.

As I am unable to make any further progress with the ASA in having adverts that are making deliberately misleading environmental claims banned, I would therefore ask that you raise this critical issue in parliament with other like-minded MPs.

I would further appreciate that you question in parliament the merit of having a self-regulating body policing the critical issue of advertisers consistently flouting the science on climate change. Page 3 of ASA code of practise states, “The Committee of Advertising Practice members include organisations that represent the advertising, sales promotion, direct marketing and media businesses.” The lack of action on the aviation adverts demonstrates a clear and dangerous conflict of interest as advertising for business expansion is given preference over truthful statements on climate change impacts.

The adverts that I have recently complained about and the ASA responses that I have received follow below. In each case the advert is in clear breach of sections 49.1 and 49.2 of ASA code of conduct.  

• Finnair claimed on London Underground bill boards that flying with them is “Eco-smart.” I complained, but did not even receive an acknowledgement.

• Airbus  claimed in a National Geographic advert they “see the bigger picture, and work to minimize environmental impact by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”  This is unequivocal rubbish. Airbus will never work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and every efficiency improvement the aviation industry has introduced since the Wright brothers has never reduced CO₂ emissions. Despite this plain logic, the ASA rejected my complaint. I then had the matter referred to the Independent Reviewer of ASA Adjudications. However he backed the council’s initial decision, which raises serious questions about his independence. Amongst the bizarre justifications he made was National Geographic readers would understand it to be false, irrespective of the advert being targeted towards children. Again, targeting adverts at children is a case of the aviation industry borrowing another tactic from the cigarette industry. It is outrageous that the ASA are still allowing this tactic.

• Easyjet claimed that we should demand a “more intelligent approach to aviation,” with the suggestion that flying EasyJet was environmentally intelligent. Easyjet’s advert also suggested that we pressurise airlines to fly the most fuel-efficient planes. My complaint to the ASA was again rejected, despite having no response from my letter to Easyjet suggesting that they change their fleet to fuel-efficient turboprops.

I have complained about three other adverts were aviation companies made erroneous claims about being environmentally friendly. In each case the ASA has upheld the advert and rejected my complaint.

In light of the events at Copenhagen this week, it is vital as a society we demand major companies and CO₂ emitters are truthful with their adverts and are not allowed to maximise profits by subverting the science.

Regards and best wishes,

Kevin Lister

Napoleon tries to quell the rebellion

Dear Mr Godwin,

Thank you for your condescending email, in which you have continued to demonstrate your ability to distort the facts and believe your own lies. I said to you at the meeting on Wednesday that I would create as much bad publicity for you as possible. I had no idea that you would help by circulating such a pathetic email to such a wide audience.

To take your points (in red):

You suggest that I think that I am the only person in Gloucestershire that is concerned about global warming.

Not for one moment do I believe that I am the only person in Gloucestershire, there are many more. You should reflect that many of these people are becoming increasingly angry with people such as yourself who choose to ignore the science of climate change and destroy the future for short-term gains.

You say, “Global warming and better protection of the environment has been discussed ad nauseam by the Council and others for many years, which is why most of us decided a long time ago to become councillors and argue the case from inside the Council rather than continually bleat like you do from the outside.”

To suggest that you became a councillor to take effective action on climate change from the inside is nonsense. You are after all backing the airport which only relatively recently issued a report denying climate change even existed. To put the matter to rest, you might want to clarify what significant action your silly little organisation “People against Bureaucracy” has ever taken on climate change.

I point you again to Animal Farm, "No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?" As Napoleon consolidated the decision making process, then so have you.

In case you have not realised, it is impossible to expand an airport and double its "enterprise value" without massively increasing CO2 emissions. But maybe you do realise this, and have deliberately removed the CO2 targets from your report to mislead the scrutiny committee about the potential financial returns of the airport. I ask you again, please confirm if it was a deliberte omission, or were you not curious enought to enquire how the finanical targets could be achieved with the green management plan in place.

Your say, “Carping and making snide remarks at people who are doing their best to balance the arguments for and against progress is unhelpful.”

You have never made any attempt to find a balance.  Even if you did you might want to explain how that balance between expanding an airport and making cuts of 80% in CO2 emissions can be achieved.  

You say, “I would have thought that your time could have been better spent putting your concerns to the world leaders at Copenhagen who are striving to reach agreement to control global emissions.”

Well I do, and also if you bother to read to the newspapers you will learn that the prognosis for any meaningful agreement coming out of Copenhagen is virtually zero. This is why we have to take local action to stop fools like you.

You say, “Whilst the report to the Scrutiny Committee contained a summary of the main points of the approved Runway Safety Project document, it was not the intention to 're-invent the wheel' and go back over the RSP details but solely to seek approval for the funding of the project.”

You again distort the facts so much you believe your own lies. Much of the meeting was taken up with glorious claims as to how much additional business was going to be attracted to the airport.  As you say, this meeting was not about reinventing the wheel,  it was about validating the business plan before funding was approved. Unfortunately your well trained sheep bleated in your support and not one of them asked how the business plan objectives could be achieved within the constraints of the green management plan.

Also, as the airport still can not provide any documentation to demonstrate that this development will increase the safety of the people living in the public safety zone, then please stop referring to it as a Runway Safety Project.

You say "Surprisingly, there were no public questions from you or anyone else, which is why I was taken aback by your attitude after we left the committee room. It is not the way to make a point once a meeting has been concluded. Your manner was offensive to say the least."

Why should we bother asking any more questions?  We have asked hundreds in the past and not one of them has had any impact on the final outcome. Submission of formal questions merely legitimises the fraudulent way in which this development is being pursued and allows you to pretend consultation with the public has been carried out.

You say, "Finally, you know as well as I do that the figure concerning CO2 emissions contained in the approved Runway Safety Project document will be monitored from day one, as will all the other conditions in the document. If we fail to do this, but I can assure you we will, then that will be the time for you to start posing more questions"

I have already asked the question what will happen if the ceilings are exceeded. I was told, "Good management would ensure that they do get exceeded." This give no assureance especially when the the Green Management policy imposes no penalties on the airport in the event that the celing is breached and the same good management will simultanously be tasked with maximising profits. So in the inevitable event of the ceiling being breached, the best that we can do is have another round of questions, which on the basis of past experience will be totally fruitless.  

So given the lies that you have peddled, the lack of an effective democratic process, the publication of a meaningless green management plan and the inability of councillors to understand even basic science, I make no apology for my manner, which you unfortunately found offensive.

The lack of accountable process and the vested interests involved means that we are left with direct action as the only option and advise that you are a legitimate target of future protests.

Finally on your words of wisdon on flies; just because millions of flies eat shit, it does no mean it is a good thing to do.  In the same way as surrounding yourself with  many fools that agree with you does not make you right.

Kevin Lister

---

From: Les Godwin
To: cllr.garth.barnes@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.robin.macdonald@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.pat.thornton@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.andrew.wall@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.paul.massey@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.tim.cooper@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.paul.wheeldon@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.bernard.fisher@cheltenham.gov.uk; cllr.stuart.hutton@cheltenham.gov.uk; malcolm_stennett@o2.co.uk; Kevin Lister
Cc: Mark Ryan ; "Pratley, Pat" ; "Whittaker, Freddie" ; Michael Corely
Sent: Sunday, 15 November, 2009 19:59:41
Subject: Re: Behaving like sheep over the airport



Dear Mr Lister,

I don't usually respond to emails such as yours but on this occasion I am going to break my golden rule.

Why on earth you think that you are the only person in Gloucestershire who is concerned about CO2 emissions has amazed me since I first read your views on the matter some months ago. I can assure you that some of us have been concerned about this long before you thought of the idea.

Global warming and better protection of the environment has been discussed ad nauseam by the Council and others for many years, which is why most of us decided a long time ago to become councillors and argue the case from inside the Council rather than continually bleat like you do from the outside.

Carping and making snide remarks at people who are doing their best to balance the arguments for and against progress is unhelpful.

I would have thought that your time could have been better spent putting your concerns to the world leaders at Copenhagen who are striving to reach  agreement to control global emissions, which, if the newspaper reports are correct, are going to find it hard to satisfy the demands of every nation and an Agreement might not be forthcoming.

The Joint Airport Scrutiny Working Group have done an excellent job of coming to a sensible conclusion regarding the needs of the Airport and the needs of the wider public.

Following months of deliberation, alterations and amendments to a Green Policy resulted in the policy being included in the Runway Safety Project document that was presented and approved by Gloucester City Council and Cheltenham Borough Council earlier this year.

At both venues and on each occasion members of the public were able to put their questions to members of the committees.

Since those times, council meetings have taken place to discuss the funding of the project, which became necessary once Tewkesbury Borough Council planners decided to grant permission on the four outstanding planning applications. The council discussions were successfully concluded.

On Wednesday, 11th November I presented the JASWG report to the E, B & I Overview and Scrutiny Committee seeking their approval of the funding method.

Whilst the report to the Scrutiny Committee contained a summary of the main points of the approved Runway Safety Project document, it was not the intention to 're-invent the wheel' and go back over the RSP details but solely to seek approval for the funding of the project.

Surprisingly, there were no public questions from you or anyone else, which is why I was taken aback by your attitude after we left the committee room. It is not the way to make a point once a meeting has been concluded. Your manner was offensive to say the least.

If you were so concerned about emissions and you wanted confirmation that the ceiling in the original document still stood , why didn't you put your question?  

I am not sure whether the Chairman would have allowed questions unless they were about the funding proposals contained in the recommendations, but that would have been his decision..

Finally, you know as well as I do that the figure concerning CO2 emissions contained in the approved Runway Safety Project document will be monitored from day one, as will all the other conditions in the document.

If we fail to do this, but I can assure you we will, then that will be the time for you to start posing more questions.

There is an old saying that 'you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.' You should reflect on that.

Cllr Godwin.

Chairman JASWG,

Cheltenham Borough Council.

Email to the sheep in Cheltenham Scrutiny committee

Dear Councillors,


I attended the scrutiny committee this week to hear the debate on the airport. I can only say how appalled I was at the level of scrutiny you showed on the business case put forward by Councillor Les Godwin.

In fact there was no scrutiny at all. You merely agreed with everything said by Les Godwin and you were all unanimous in your praise of his paper.

It seems that many of you need reminding of the history of this proposal. The airport was forced to produce a “Green Management Plan” to address the genuine concerns that this development would result in significant CO2 emissions at a time when the rest of the population are being told to do everything possible to reduce their emissions and be ready to pay increased utility bills as a consequence. A key part of the Airport’s green management plan was to impose a CO2 ceiling of 4,000 tonnes annum and a commitment to an annual review.

However, section 7.3 (extract attached) of Les Godwin’s business case which covers the environment, completely ignores the CO2 ceiling and there is no reference to any annual review of the “Green management plan.”

When I asked Les Godwin why this was not included and how he expected the airport to make the returns he claimed while simultaneously staying within the CO2 targets, he pleaded ignorance and said that he did not know that the CO2 targets were not included. He is therefore either stupid or pretends to be stupid. I will leave if for you to decide.

As it does not take much intelligence to work out that it would be impossible to make the returns claimed whilst staying within the CO2 limits, I would like you to explain to me and the other people that are equally concerned by this development why you did not ask the obvious question of how the airport was to stay within its Green Management target whilst making the returns claimed.

Your behaviour skilfully re-enacts George Orwell’s Animal Farm. We have the advocates of environmental destruction, such as Les Godwin, taking over our planet in the same way as Napoleon took over the farm. Napoleon’s take over was consolidated with the support of bleating sheep in the same was as you all unanimously praised Les Godwin.

Extract:

Section 7.3 of Joint Airport Scrutiny Working Group

Amongst the conditions are a number which capture and reflect aspects of the airport’s Green Policy. These conditions specifically relate to the airport operations and are set out below:


(a) The number of air movements at the airport shall not exceed 95,000 a year (excluding police, emergency and military related flights)
(b) The airports main hours of operation shall be restricted to between the hours of 0830 – 1930 with no more than 1.5 % of movements per annum outside of these hours (excluding police, emergency and military related flights, and those arriving late for operational reasons)


(c) The number of movements between the hours of 23.00 and 06.00 shall be limited to 100 per calendar year (excluding police, emergency and military related flights).

Comment to Chris Booker, Telegraph

To Chris (and the other global warming deniers at the Telegraph)

You are either liars or stupid.

You say that global temperatures have started to drop since 1998. They have not. The trend since 1998 has continued an upward trend with roughly the same gradient as it did since 1941. Taking the data from 1941 to present, and drawing a line of best fit shows the temperature to be increasing at the rate of 0.01 deg C per year. Taking the data from 1998 to today and again drawing a line of best fit, shows the temperature to be increasing at the rate of 0.013 deg C per year, i.e. the rate of increase is increasing, not decreasing as Chris claims.

What Chris is stupid enough to do, is to mix up correlation with trends. By taking the 1998 as a start point, he starts that period with a year that was exceptionally hot due to a severe El Nino. He then compares every other year against 1998 and ignores all the data in between. The effect of 1998 on the data set taken from that date to today simply reduces the correlation.

The rapid rise in temperature in 1998 during the El Nino shows how sensitive our climate is to perturbation. It should be seen as a warning of the risks we face, not an opportunity for imbeciles to distort the science further.

Chris’s basic argument that scientists don’t know what they are talking about when predicting climate change is a bit rich from someone who does not understand basic school boy statistics.

The temperature trends follow below:

 Data source for graphs, NASA

Another Chance the ASA to show they will not stand by

Complaint to the ASA about Finnair Advert

This advert is making the claim that by choosing to fly by Finnair, you can be “eco-smart.”

This is totally misleading and breaches the ASA code, sections 49.1 and 49.2.

Section 49.1 says “The basis of any claim should be explained clearly and should be qualified where necessary.” There is no explanation of this claim. To say that their planes are brand new is not an explanation of why it is eco-smart to fly with Finnair. Put simply, planes will always produce huge amounts of emissions, irrespective of how modern they are. If an airline expands its business as a result of a market shift towards modern planes then the emissions will increase accordingly. The extra emissions will outweigh the savings. None of this is eco-smart.

Also other airlines and airplane manufacturers are making similar claims about their environmental benefits, i.e. Easy Jet, Airbus, and Boeing. Finnair’s advert makes no comparison between the age of their planes and those of similar operators or no comparison against the most fuel efficient planes available today.

Section 49.2 says, “Claims such as ‘environmentally friendly’ or ‘wholly biodegradable’ should not be used without qualification unless marketers can provide convincing evidence that their product will cause no environmental damage when taking into account the full life cycle of the product.”

There is no qualification to this advert. It simply implies that the passenger is “eco-smart,” if they travel with Finnair. The advert does not provide any quantification of the CO2 emissions per person taking a flight and certainly does not put it into context, i.e. by comparing with emissions of a UK holiday.

Furthermore, the advert is aimed at users of London Underground. In general the users of Lonn Underground will not be as well versed about the issues surrounding climate change and the impact of aviation as readers of publications such as the National Geographic. As such they are more likely to be persuaded by the lie that flying by Finnair was in actual fact eco-smart, rather than highly environmentally damaging.