Argyll's online broadsheet.

I am not ‘attacking’ ForArgyll, I am merely …

Comment posted on Major environmental groups seriously compromised by wind developers’ cash by Webcraft

I am not ‘attacking’ ForArgyll, I am merely ‘reporting’ on the involvement of one of ForArgyll’s directors with a bid to erect a windfarm.

There is some rank hypocracy here. At least FOE, WWF and RSPB are open in their sujpport of wind. To condemn it in one place then actively seek to support and benefit from it in another is considerably worse.
From THIS WEBSITE on June 17th:

Charles Dixon-Spain, Chair of the Development Trust says: ‘The scope of the Forest is enormous and our ambitious plans include investigation of wind and hydro sites, the most promising involving creation of a community owned 30 MW/h extension to the Cruach Mhor windfarm.

‘With national renewable targets to reach and our commitment to help achieve these, there is much to accomplish in the 18 months in which we have to raise the finance.

Webcraft also commented

  • WWF, FOE and RSPB have always been publicly in favour of wind power, subject to what each deems as suitable environmental constraints. No real conflict there.
  • This whole thread has become very silly

    I beg to differ – it has been silly since the start.

    Silly first beause of the faux outrage that triggered the headline. Many (most?) businesses donate to charities. It is entirely logical that that they would give to charities who’s objectives they agree with, or even share!

    Silly secondly because of Newsroom’s sweeping statement We now discount – without reading or listening – anything or anyone promoting wind as ‘clean green energy’. – a clear trumpeting of a closed mind if I ever heard one.

    And silly thirdly – of course – because of the increasingly banal remarks by Malcolm Kirk.

    Best let this ‘discussion’ sink into the obscurity it so richly deserves.

  • . . . please remember this is still (just) a debate – not a mutual anti-wind backslapping forum.

    I think you could be mistaken 🙁

  • ForArgyll posed as a news site but has turned into an endless series of higly slanted opinion pieces dominated entirely by one voice and one opinion, Newsroom’s.

    As long as we are all aware of that . . .

  • I already ‘named names’ in my first post on the subject, which was widely ignored.

    ForArgyll’s ‘Internet Director’, Charles Dixon-Spain is involved in the community aquisition of Stronafian Forest with a view to putting up a windfarm and making lots of money (for the community) from it.

    The Trust are hoping to purchase the forest in Spring/Summer 2012 by a combination of commercial forest lease and grant funding. (Grant funding means public money Malcolm).

    The windfarm will be an extension to Cruach Mhor Windfarm and will be 49.9% owned by the Trust and 50.1% by Carbon Free.

    Mr. Dixon-Spain is one of the prime movers behind this project. He also owns Dunans Castle, the bridge to which has been maintained by contributions to the Dunans Charitable Trust from the existing Cruach Mhor windfarm community benefit fund.In addition, the windfarm fund has also paid for signage at Dunans Castle, which Mr. Dixon-Spain runs as a commercial enterprise selling titles and ‘lairdships’ over the internet.

    Now, unlike you Malcolm I have no objection to the community in Glendaruel getting involved in a windfarm project, and I am pleased to see that the community – including Mr. Dixon-Spain – is benefiting from the existing community benefit fund (or ‘bribe’ as you and Newsroom would probably prefer to call it).

    What I do object to is the hypocracy of ForArgyll in taking a ‘no-compromise’ anti-wind stance in light of this. It is obvious that this stance is being driven soley by ‘Newsroom’ and that ForArgyll’s internet director is unaware of or prepared to ignore these increasingly strident anti-wind policy statements.

Recent comments by Webcraft

powered by SEO Super Comments

· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

Related Articles & Comments