We didn't want to prejudice or poison the process and for three years we've essentially kept "mum" about the actual details of the to-ing and fro-ing of things between us and the EA hoping to resolve things - it seems that approach was doomed...
Trouble is, the EA don't appear to want to modify the way they discharge their statutory duties - which in essence seems to be arbitrarily "our way or no way" regardless of their clear statutory duty - and to reinforce that approach with a haughtily delivered blizzard of distortions, misdirections, procedural deviations coupled to a persistent stubborn refusal to communicate what is actually going on - an appetite for threatening language is in there too.
We wrote to Dr Paul Leinster over a month ago (advising that we would publish the letter if no attempt was made to address our concerns)
we urge you to have a look at that letter (opens in Google viewer)
and the subsequent
Dr. Leinster's reply (opens in Google viewer)
as you can see - simply ignores the issues we raised in our letter of complaint.
We've asked what's going on with the latest round of licence determinations (which are going to fail - that much is clear) and the EA have refused point blank to communicate with us and have stuck a £37,500 price tag on supplying information via Freedom of Information and demanded that the applicants at Avoncliff supply an extraordinary and unprecedented range of information to them - some of which can't be honestly supplied without access to a functional crystal ball and much of which is intrusive and irrelevant to the determination of a water licence.
Given what we know of previous EA intrigue and scheming - it's clear that the information demanded (non supply of which "could be detrimental to your application") is a bit like the besiegers demanding to know of the besieged "how many bullets do you have left?"