A waste dealer has been sentenced to 16 months in prison for illegally exporting tonnes of hazardous electrical waste to Africa, the Environment Agency said.
The agency's investigators found broken cathode ray tube televisions and ozone-depleting fridge freezers in four containers intercepted at ports between September 2012 and April 2013.
Joe Benson, 54, of Broad Street, Loughton, Essex, was sentenced to 16 months in prison at Snaresbrook Crown Court for illegally exporting 46 tonnes of hazardous waste to Nigeria, Ghana, the Ivory Coast and the Congo. He had earlier pleaded guilty.
He collected the electrical waste from civic amenity sites in London and the Home Counties and took it to his licensed waste site in Walthamstow, where it should have been tested for functionality and safety before being exported, the Environment Agency said.
It is thought he stood to make around £32,000 from the export of the intercepted containers, making money by collecting the waste and selling it on, and avoiding the costs of dealing with it safely.
Monday, 7 July 2014
Sunday, 6 July 2014
Saturday, 5 July 2014
What would the UK be called without Scotland?
Just a thought???
In reality the country could, and probably would, continue to be known as the UK. It's difficult to imagine a Westminster government advocating anything else.
But the suggestion that "UK" might need replacing if Scotland becomes independent after the referendum on 18 September has already led to some alternative shorthands being bandied about.
"The rest of the UK"
Are you ready for the printing costs of changing all that government stationary to rUK
Well that's allright because Scotland is not going to vote yes, and if they do will foot the bill!!
In reality the country could, and probably would, continue to be known as the UK. It's difficult to imagine a Westminster government advocating anything else.
But the suggestion that "UK" might need replacing if Scotland becomes independent after the referendum on 18 September has already led to some alternative shorthands being bandied about.
"The rest of the UK"
Are you ready for the printing costs of changing all that government stationary to rUK
Well that's allright because Scotland is not going to vote yes, and if they do will foot the bill!!
Friday, 4 July 2014
Thursday, 3 July 2014
Chevy Volt drivers want
Chevy Volt customers are telling General Motors they want three things
Larry Nitz, GM's executive director of hybrid and electric powertrain engineering, said GM is working on the next generation of the Volt, expected in 2016, but he wouldn't say how the car will evolve.
A recent study of 300 Volts in use in California showed that 63 percent of all driving is done in electric mode, 15 percent of drivers are exceeding the car's rated 40-mile electric range, and Volt owners who charge regularly go about 970 miles between fill-ups. They visit the gas station about once a month.
GM is readying a turbocharged 1.0-litre engine for its small cars, but it won't say whether the new smaller and lighter three-cylinder engine will replace the Volt's current 1.4-litre four-cylinder. GM also is working on improving the performance of the Volt's batteries.
- a fifth seat,
- a longer electric driving range
- a lower price.
Larry Nitz, GM's executive director of hybrid and electric powertrain engineering, said GM is working on the next generation of the Volt, expected in 2016, but he wouldn't say how the car will evolve.
A recent study of 300 Volts in use in California showed that 63 percent of all driving is done in electric mode, 15 percent of drivers are exceeding the car's rated 40-mile electric range, and Volt owners who charge regularly go about 970 miles between fill-ups. They visit the gas station about once a month.
GM is readying a turbocharged 1.0-litre engine for its small cars, but it won't say whether the new smaller and lighter three-cylinder engine will replace the Volt's current 1.4-litre four-cylinder. GM also is working on improving the performance of the Volt's batteries.
Wednesday, 2 July 2014
Two Indian restaurant owners who breached fire regulations may face prison
Owners of an Indian restaurant in Coventry who have pleaded guilty to 12 charges of breaching fire regulations, and a further two charges of failing to comply with a prohibition notice, may be sentenced to a prison term.
As well as a broken fire alarm system, lack of working smoke alarms and virtually no lighting on emergency exits, fire officers also found that self closing doors had been propped open, putting the safety customers and staff at risk.
In addition, fire alarm manual call points did not work and first floor entrances were not operational, plus there were no suitable maintenance systems in force either for fire detection or fighting a fire.
Among the charges admitted by the couple, Mohammed Uddin and his wife Monowara Begum, was the fact that they had not carried out a suitable fire risk assessment or complied with the prohibition notice that had been issued after a visit by West Midlands Fire Service in 2012.
The notice, which was issued after several inspections, prohibited the use of the floors above ground level for any purpose other than remedial fire safety work. Despite that, the couple then went on to lease out the third floor in blatant disregard of the notice.
Aside from breaching fire safety regulations in the ground floor restaurant, the couple also put lives at risk on the second floor, which was used as sleeping accommodation. Fire doors were held open, there were no smoke detectors and no emergency lighting.
The couple accepted that they had failed to take general fire precautions, placing both employees and non-employees at risk of death or injury in the event of a fire and the judge warned them that they could each be facing a custodial sentence.
Both Uddin and Begum have been bailed to await sentencing.
Commercial buildings, non-domestic and multi-occupancy premises in England and Wales are already forced to undertake a 'suitable and sufficient' fire risk assessment carried out under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
While the overwhelming majority of premises do this, if the assessment is thought to have been carried out to an insufficient extent, the Responsible Person can face an unlimited fine or up to two years in prison.
Story original source: Coventry Telegraph
As well as a broken fire alarm system, lack of working smoke alarms and virtually no lighting on emergency exits, fire officers also found that self closing doors had been propped open, putting the safety customers and staff at risk.
In addition, fire alarm manual call points did not work and first floor entrances were not operational, plus there were no suitable maintenance systems in force either for fire detection or fighting a fire.
Among the charges admitted by the couple, Mohammed Uddin and his wife Monowara Begum, was the fact that they had not carried out a suitable fire risk assessment or complied with the prohibition notice that had been issued after a visit by West Midlands Fire Service in 2012.
The notice, which was issued after several inspections, prohibited the use of the floors above ground level for any purpose other than remedial fire safety work. Despite that, the couple then went on to lease out the third floor in blatant disregard of the notice.
Aside from breaching fire safety regulations in the ground floor restaurant, the couple also put lives at risk on the second floor, which was used as sleeping accommodation. Fire doors were held open, there were no smoke detectors and no emergency lighting.
The couple accepted that they had failed to take general fire precautions, placing both employees and non-employees at risk of death or injury in the event of a fire and the judge warned them that they could each be facing a custodial sentence.
Both Uddin and Begum have been bailed to await sentencing.
Commercial buildings, non-domestic and multi-occupancy premises in England and Wales are already forced to undertake a 'suitable and sufficient' fire risk assessment carried out under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
While the overwhelming majority of premises do this, if the assessment is thought to have been carried out to an insufficient extent, the Responsible Person can face an unlimited fine or up to two years in prison.
Story original source: Coventry Telegraph
Tuesday, 1 July 2014
Would you consider an Electric Car?
Its a typical chicken and eggs conundrum sparked by of the Government survey, “Public attitudes to electric vehicles”.
They might as well have called the report “Just Don't Bother" because no one is listening. or if they are listening they don't trust or understand the message. its a leap of faith that so few are willing to make.
The public reported that the most important factors putting them off buying an electric car or van were recharging (40 per cent), and the distance travelled on a battery (39 per cent) followed by cost (33 per cent) and lack of knowledge (16 per cent).
Less than one per cent (0.3 per cent) of respondents already owned an electric car or van and only five per cent of respondents said that they were thinking about buying an electric car or van.
The most dispiriting finding of the DfT report though, is surely the 69 per cent of drivers, who when asked if they were thinking about buying an electric car or van, answered not “yes” or “no”, but “I haven’t really thought about it”.
its quite clear that on the whole 'average Joe' or Josephine is feeling ambivalent.
14 per cent of those surveyed had considered the vehicles and decided against buying into the technology, over half of the sample simply hadn’t even thought about it.
when we do a proposal for a LED lighting upgrade we do a payback time, so we can demonstrate the benefits of the upgrade.
maybe the industry are stuck in the mud note because they don't detail the benefits, but maybe because they don't see an electric car as an upgrade but more as an environmental compromise that will place more restrictions on their freedom - i.e. range anxiety.
or is it that they think that you never see them on the road and EV is Betamax and they are waiting to see they VHS will be?
They might as well have called the report “Just Don't Bother" because no one is listening. or if they are listening they don't trust or understand the message. its a leap of faith that so few are willing to make.
The public reported that the most important factors putting them off buying an electric car or van were recharging (40 per cent), and the distance travelled on a battery (39 per cent) followed by cost (33 per cent) and lack of knowledge (16 per cent).
Less than one per cent (0.3 per cent) of respondents already owned an electric car or van and only five per cent of respondents said that they were thinking about buying an electric car or van.
The most dispiriting finding of the DfT report though, is surely the 69 per cent of drivers, who when asked if they were thinking about buying an electric car or van, answered not “yes” or “no”, but “I haven’t really thought about it”.
its quite clear that on the whole 'average Joe' or Josephine is feeling ambivalent.
14 per cent of those surveyed had considered the vehicles and decided against buying into the technology, over half of the sample simply hadn’t even thought about it.
when we do a proposal for a LED lighting upgrade we do a payback time, so we can demonstrate the benefits of the upgrade.
maybe the industry are stuck in the mud note because they don't detail the benefits, but maybe because they don't see an electric car as an upgrade but more as an environmental compromise that will place more restrictions on their freedom - i.e. range anxiety.
or is it that they think that you never see them on the road and EV is Betamax and they are waiting to see they VHS will be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)