« Tax heist | Main | Milliband PM »

January 19, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Roger Jardine Thomas

Thanks Paul

I posted letter yesterday afternoon so should be there today Friday (HoC). But as a Berwick MP he may have travelled early.

Things are more complex than I have put here. But that is life.

http://thecelticlion.blogspot.com/2008/02/celtic-lion-fooding-and-national.html

paulflynn

Thanks Roger, Good luck. let me know when you write to Alan Beith. I will try to have a word with him. The committee are deluged with information. Good luck.

Roger Jardine Thomas

Paul

thank you for your time and advice.

I saw Alan Beith MP on Channel 4 news (Tues 29th) re this committee.

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/intelligence/committee_membership.aspx

implications of flooding and national security. This is one committee my work should have been presented to.

It seems everyone is going round in circles, back tracking. Looking for information and more importantly solutions which already exist.

As such it would be in the national interest if I did give evidence to one or more committees. and/or produced report.

Phoned Mr Beiths office. PA said best to write in to him.

i have referenced your site as the information past placed her prior to their assessment. Will also now put info together on my site.

Hope that OK. Will write to you re these matters.

Roger Jardine Thomas

Just a brief addition to the above I forgot. Downing Street accepts the facts. You just can't petition for the solutions to flooding etc as this would be a commercial endorsement.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ecodome/

Roger Thomas

Thanks Paul

This is the committee

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/environment__food_and_rural_affairs/efraflooding.cfm

This might be of more interest to you. The competition for the Dome coincided with the outbreak of FMD in 2001.

The Government model in March was nothing like mine. The PM had to decide the date of the election. In the national interest I sent him my model in time, before he went to Chequers. (End March).

http://celticlion.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/foot-and-mouth-assessment/

His thanks were sent by return of post. I have been told by the head of an organisation very involved with the outbreak that my model was the only accurate one available in the UK in March. They had not been supplied one and mine was not supplied to them.

His view was if they had had my model it would have saved 'a lot of late nights'.

I am 99% certain this was supplied to or Nic Brown was briefed on it from 2nd April 2001 onwards. I wrote it for the 'informed layperson' eg a PM or Cabinet Minister. This may be the model that help contribute to Labour winning the 2001 election.

Again it was not supplied to the inquiries neither was I called to give evidence. Note in Land Use Scenarios though March 2001 I am introducing the basics of flood management. (Which went into the Dome proposal produced in parallel)

Somebody suggested and sent it to Alex Salmond so Scotland could understand the August 2001 outbreak. This preamble was requested.

http://celticlion.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/background-foot-and-mouth-assessment/

I think my assessment might fit in with your perspectives of countryside management. There again I was learning what I know from the age of 18 months from a Welsh grandfather from Pembrokeshire.

there is a bit there but it should interest you putting FMD and UK countryside mnagement in one neat report.

Thanks for views on Dome many people think the same. Will get back. Enjoy the FMD report from March 2001.

paulflynn

Many thanks Roger Thomas, for fascinating submission.

I have read all the references you give. I cannot think of a better use for the Dome.

I'm sorry to read that you were not called for the Inquiry. Was it a Select Committee? Usually there is a mountain of written evidence and only a handful of witnesses are called to give oral evidence. It might have helped if you had let me know and I could have tried to persuade the committee members of the importance of your submission.

If there is anything practical I can do to advance your ideas let me know. I serve on the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and a Select Committee. Both have responsibility for anticipating future needs.

Roger Thomas

Paul

You're so very close.

this is the proposal the Governments consultant's wanted to back for the Millennium Dome.

http://millenniumprojecttwo.blogspot.com/2007/01/millennium-dome-2001-proposal.html

A global environmental management centre at the Dome.

100% indisputable. I have all the letters emails etc. In the competition criteria it should have won. Venture capital wa going to put up the initil money. Then a project team was going to approach the big re-insurers etc.

You already have this. The climate change risk assessment.

http://www.mp2.worldfriend.com/sustainable_development_forum.htm

Read it again. It refers to the UNEP IPCC 3rd assessment draft. The back story is this was part of the business proposal/plan.

Note he article ends with MP2. Millennium Project Two, the proposal for the Dome. The climate change terrorism risk assessment and agenda for G8, were derived from the proposal for the Dome.

Note the article also refers to work done for the Cabinet Office on Regulatory Impact Assessment. This is part of it from Dec 2002.

http://celticlion.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/sd-and-the-legislative-process/

Sustainable flood prevention used as an example. Where did this come from? The proposal for running the Dome as a environmental centre.

I had already modelled the UK and I had the approx dates for flooding. Absolutely indisputable as a Cheshire newspaper wrote an article on it, (by the editor). Too long to explain how it is done, but HRH PoW has read the methodology and given permission for his quotes to be used.

This was in the Dome proposal. It was decided to have a venue instead and the UK got £ 5 billion of predicted and preventable flooding.

the entire story is documented in letters emails and newspaper reports.

All that flooding, your and everybody elses increase in insurance. All preventable and known about. All so true you couldn't make it up.

As they say, any inspection.

I submitted written evidence to the inquiry but was never asked to give evidence.

Parliament and the country have not been told the truth.

paulflynn

Thanks Mike. Andrew Rawnsley in the Observer yesterday said,Most British Scandals re 'pretty trivial.'
It's impossible to explain to European MPs outside of the UK scandals such as Peter Hain and Peter Mandelson.
Of course it's important to maintain the highest standards, but parading and exaggerating sins of omission and forgetfulness into major crimes demeans politics and the reputatio of th UK.

Mike Dawson

Being in the top rank of non corrupt nations in the world doesnt give us more reason to just let things go. Missing out on the basic rules of finance because they are two complicated or your too busy is no defence. It merely confirms there is no adaquate system in place to process cash. In contrast many members of the public are capable of running numerous businesses and at the same time navigate the complicated tax laws. We cannot evade the law on ignorance? However the best solutions are often the simlest. Fear not as technology brings a simple solution. All parties simply upload each donation to a public access web page for perusal from the good public/press, should they have a mind too. Once this minor task is complete pop down to the bank and pay it in to party funds etc. hey presto a free and open finance system

The comments to this entry are closed.