What Lies Beneath Rattlechain Lagoon?

“SHEEPWASH” FFS!

And so to week 2 of the Sandwell local Plan examination. Week one and my participation in that I looked at HERE.

This week saw “the big one” as I see it, discussion of soundness of the plan regards site allocations, principally sites SH35 and SH36 involving the lagoon and the other land around it in separate ownership.

I made a big point of separating the two sites in submissions with two appendices of the two tip histories which can be read  HERE. 

There is much to break down in this, but this post is just a “precis” update, and I will do a legacy page post and full rebuttal of matters at a later date. Matter 9  was the inspector’s questions following the hearing statements and a chance to comment on those in light of her further questions.

Examination in session

The submission statement I made in relation to these questions can be read at the link below.

Matter9 SH35 AND SH36 UNSOUND

In response to Sandwell Council’s hearing statement, there are some new elements which I will look at here which are most important, and as stated, will do a full break down at a later date. These elements were discussed at the examination which I will reference here.

The key issue is that the council are now proposing the two sites as one package as a “strategic site”. This is a jargon aimed at getting a tax payer bailout for “cleaning up” private land where the polluter- (The Hurst Family et al) have not paid. The fact that “Rattlechain Redevelopments Limited” (the Kelly family) made a shite investment in buying the land from the tax avoidance “Denver Limited” for £1.2 million, (Mintworth in disguise), is not our problem, it is theirs. We had over a decade in the 1990’s of supercilious arrogant demands from one company, under many names, who felt entitled to have everything their own way and believe that everyone should just roll over for their ambitions of “private open space” with multiple drawn out planning applications. Well fuck that, it is not going to happen again as long as I am drawing breath. 

It is not Sandwell Council’s problem either, but it is now clear that this authority is just purporting for private land banking investors not from our area in order to meet the housing figures of the bent “Labour Growth Group”= political class fingers in the pies with the development construction industry and malfeasance in public office. It is a pitch for man in glasses Parker and the combined authority which has already shelled out money for the Kelly family and their also former Mintworth abandoned land at Coneygree as well as the Shidas Lane Mintworth debacle that became an ambulance base in another crooked deal.

Sandwell_Council_Matter_9_statement

This is a lengthy document so do not be put off reading the important pages which start at page 14 concerning SH35 and SH36 which the council are now calling a combined site allocation of   “SHO12″ – I would call it a  “SHIT SHO” in line with former planning officer John Baylay’s description of the former sewage works site and its residential adequacy. 

The other main issue is that Sandwell Council included comments from the agents of RRL (The Kelly family) as part of their promotion. At no time have Elias Topping or RRL made any representations at any stage of this process , and of course SMBC referred frustrated residents to the lies of the aforementioned in connection with the fake leaflets which were never delivered before the ecocide that took place in January.

It is stated that SMBC entered a formal protocol, a “memorandum of understanding” with RRL as well as the “charity” known as the CRT- once again an apparent reboot homage to the corrupt cabal goings on of the late 1980’s and the BCDC. This was unsigned it is stated, and I made an FOI request in relation to that matter, which SMBC have once again refused as they did the bogus “environmental survey” that it was claimed had been undertaken before the massacre of trees. More on that further on in this post.

Does this not show how this plan appears to be evolving as a rolling overtime show because it was rushed through without adequate preparation? They have also now claimed it is a “strategic site”, and so tie the whole plan’s soundness into this site being able to be delivered by 2041.  In 2011, the same site that never came forward, and it was never proven that it could be, has not gone any further in 14 years. That planning inspector at that examination of site allocations said that this sites omission from the plan as a whole would not demonstrably make the then plan unsound. THIS IS NOW NOT THE CASE NOW BECAUSE THE COUNCIL HAVE NOW MADE IT CRUCIAL TO THEIR PLAN. The inspector in 2025 did confirm that she is examining the original site allocations and not this new one.

The council cannot make the claims of availability regards this site as one whole unit as it requires

• Permission from Rhodia- not given –what is their position in writing, and where is their evidence of this? They have called it “rattlechain” but it is not one site to do this at present. Why did Elias Topping not partake in this matter? Are they that arrogant that they think they can just submit a Hail Mary plan at the last minute and Sandwell council will dutifully submit this prejudicially BEFORE any planning application? At the examination I asked for this and also the comments of The Environment Agency. I am not going to take the word of already proven liars. 
• What was this memo of understanding, and why is there only reference to this now- Noted that Rhodia have not been involved in any such understanding. Why was it not signed, and who would sign it?
• NO STRATEGY AGREED, AND YET THEY CLAIM IT VIABLE! Disgraceful that SMBC are trying to involve ET and a private business in this at this stage. I MADE A POINT OF ORDER ON THIS MATTER- THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK OR HAVE REPRESENTATIONS AT THE HEARING STAGE. I MADE THIS POINT STRAIGHT AWAY AS THE EXAMINATION SHOWS. 
• 

Page 6 paragraphs 30 and 31 make it quite clear that only those who made representations at the Regulation 19 stage have a right to appear, and therefore no one else does. In light of this, The Inspector clarified that she wanted to hear their position for clarity. 

• The Council claim they do not endorse the strategy or comments, and yet they have tacked them on to their statement- so they obviously and prejudicially do. The evidence is not “detailed” at all. They ignore p4 chemistry and the lagoon owners who make no comment- as usual as I pointed out, Rhodia are gutless yellow fucking cowards, as were Albright and Wilson .

“In short, their preferred strategy has been presented to the council without detailed evidence of its achievability and without evidence that other options for remediating and delivering the site have been fully explored.”

• The Council then attempt to subvert the exam process by introducing the latecomers. THEY APPEAR TO BE PROMOTING THE AGENTS OF THE LAND OWNERS!
• “Lead party” who says they have any relevant experience or credibility in this field for such a site, in terms of p4 site remediation? What experience do they have? They are only willing if the WMCA cough up public money for which the polluter who is known never paid! “In the near future”- they have had years, and yet we are now supposed to believe that in the last few months they have a “strategy”.
• I once again and hopefully finally for the benefit of doubt prove that neither of these two sites are “brownfield land” as the council keep referring to them as.

I made the distinction that they had in fact passed a planning application for certificate of lawful use to the lagoon operating as a tip in 2004 on the basis that it had been operating as such for a very long time. The RRL land is of course also a former tipping area and both sites were before that within a quarry for Etruria marl extraction.

I also reminded the council that one officer who was indeed present at the examination made a definition of what was excluded from brownfield land which makes a complete nonsense of their claims in this plan regards rattlechain.

Council response to Portway Hill landowner in 2016

• The council above make a very simple version of the history of the two tips, and are wrong concerning “fuel ash”. I have no idea where they have got this from, but the former Mintworth site is of course a foundry sand dump which they well know. Fuel ash is not foundry sand. Foundry sand is a high quality silica sand used in metal casting processes, while fuel ash is a by-product of burning coal or other fuels. Foundry sand is typically reused multiple times in casting, whereas fuel ash is often classified as “hazardous waste” and has different disposal and recycling considerations. Are the prospective dumpers therefore going to tip this hazardous waste into a void within feet of local residents homes, under the gaze of the EA? Or are they just using this fake claim to extract money from the public purse by claiming it is too expensive to remove off site?
• The council has never investigated the RRL land site itself ! It has failed to look at digging it up in 2011 which exposed hazardous packaging waste! It was previously developed as “private open space” ,SMBC gave a string of planning applications to do this which caused “misery” for local residents!

• It is absurd calling this “a garden city”, and an increase on previous plans the council were submitting. During the hearing session Andy Miller in fact admitted that this long used phrase appears to have been “superseded” by the mass house building that the “strategic site” now defines. Why then is The Sandwell Local plan still littered with the phrase that was trotted out by the Black Country Core strategy? It “Benefits”  who? Not permanent when building on contaminated land by leaving p4 under the houses- phosphine gas. Rather than removing monitoring it will in fact add decades of future risk which the council cannot possibly know. The site is not capable of being remediated- how can they say this if they have no plan?
• Council ignore all the other paragraphs which we have pointed out in NPPF Dec2023 and mentioned in the soundness test to the inspectors questions.

Other points of rebuttal to the council’s nonsense.

• It is not an acceptable use of land to build homes on a site which the council have not been able to determine under part 2 a! FFS! Planning decisions have assumed but they have failed to operate effectively given the 12 year operation on the land in question that supposed to take 2!
• Failure to know that p4 would poison birds and receptors- The comments of the CHaIRS group.
• NPPF is not fit for purpose in this regard.
• The assessments of the council regards infrastructure defy realistic experience of real people and their opinions. We talked to families with children and pressures of school places, infrastructure etc when collecting signatures on streets in The Temple Way estate rather than the glossy hurriedly prepared “masterplan” of architects who have unlikely ever visited the area themselves let alone live there!
• The council also mention that one area along the John’s Lane track is less than seven metres. They mean seven feet not meters FFS! So they will have to buy land they don’t even own that is also contaminated! Will this cost also be expected to be from the public purse? 

RRL comments

We then get several pages promoted by Sandwell council from this private business not even based in the West Midlands county  from their ET agents. Most of this is bullshit, which I will rebut in full at a later date, but on some points I do wish to comment here.

They mention yet another consultancy involved could not find relevant evidence which is contained within the Sandwell plan examination library, and for that clarification, here is that submission below.

All of the statements that I made are backed up and may not be convenient for their Irish clients but are for the plan examination.

Sandwell local plan FOSNR evidence and references to submissions

The definition of “strategic site” differs on how many houses and is not sound on this basis.

The council  now introduce modifications at the 11^th hour for over 500 homes, and yet this is contradicted later on by the site owners agents who state 415. On this basis this point was raised by myself and I think appreciated by the inspector who asked for clarification. This then drew out proposed “strategic site policies” which we have yet to see the detail of. 

Ecological Considerations

At the examination, the inspector firstly wanted to hear more on this matter. Dr Paulson from the BBCWT confirmed that the RRL land is now considered a “potential site of importance for nature conservation” , based on the presence of the small blue butterfly which has been known to be present on the site since at least 2016. Local recorders and site surveys meet that threshold as far as they are concerned and that previous considerations and the environmental destruction seen earlier in the year did not appreciate this.

I mentioned my refused FOI request concerning the claimed environmental survey which took place prior to the clearance of trees in January and slighting comments made by Sandwell council once again parroting Elias Topping in that refusal.

“The developer is aware of the long-standing objections relating to the proposed use of land and asserts that objectors have sought to adversely harm their interests through the spreading of misinformation and inaccurate statements, relating to the potential development of the site, with particular emphasis on the ground conditions and ecological implications of the same. “

NO “MISINFORMATION” HAS BEEN SPREAD, I CAN AND HAVE BACKED UP EVERYTHING WITH DIRECT EVIDENCE- SO GO AND  FUCK YOURSELVES YOU LIARS! 

I highlighted how Sandwell council via MP Sarah Coombes letter had in fact altered the narrative of the claimed survey with semantics.

Appendix G SC01730-Sarah-Coombes-response-rattlechain

On this point, ET firstly stated that the survey was conducted in April 25- after the tree clearance, then backtracked saying it was carried out in December 2024. Of course it was pointed out that you would not expect to find much at all in that month of the year.

I think it was accepted that the claims that this site has little ecological value was misguided by the owners of the RRL land.

Other matters regards habitats and BNG sites were touched upon which was considered in week three- post coming soon.

The biggest nonsense concerns the financial claims of clean up- a figure of £50 million appears out of thin air as though touted like a straw in the wind, only to then claim that the use of the lagoon would cost US far less to dump it all into. I did point out again that Mintworth and the players in that operation should pay for the clean up that they created and left, where they were quite aware of how the BCDC rejected this idea in 1991 from the Cremer and Warner survey.

The C&W report considers options for the site, which are shown below. It is clear that the Hazardous Waste Unit and the National Rivers Authority were totally against any idea of dumping foundry sand on top of this chemical time bomb bath. They state that it would increase ground and surface water contamination.

The levels of sulphide and sulphate at the site amongst other things lead the authors to conclude-

Mr Berry of Portway claimed that remediation had come on since this time, but he would say that wouldn’t he being in this business, but I bet he would not want to live their like any members of The Kelly family paying his wages.

Rhodia rejected the idea when drawn out about it in 2011, (see PDF evidence base again above in this post), and this third instalment I stated was the final in the trilogy of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, but just the bad and the ugly.

Contamination and Remediation

The discussion then turned to the most important issue of the case and if this proposed scheme would be achievable by 2041. Obviously I think it is bullshit that it ever could be in terms of the lagoon and its inclusion in this scheme.

I made the point that the lagoon has only been partially “remediated” if you could call it that by burying waste, which I do not. The Eastern and Western sides of the lagoon including the Eastern border of the RRL land where Rhodia used to claim that landfill gas was coming from into their site has never seen anything done at all. I also made the point that the historic AW site went off the current one and included part of the now Autobase site, so historic contamination does not end at the current fence line!

On white phosphorus, I reiterated the dangers of this chemical and its associated breakdown products- most notably phosphine gas. That appendices and relevant links within it can be read below. I also explained my historic knowledge of the site and the issues surrounding the P4 systemically poisoned birds.

Appendix C white phosphorus and legacy

I mentioned the involvement of Marianne Walsh and her comments regards Rattlechain made to the EA previously (see also evidence base PDF above in this post), and us in light of her experience of this chemical in a remediation setting.

I also reminded the inspector of comments the EA had made in 2011 regards the scheme where they had expressed the same concerns – notably in the US superfund site at East Michaud where phosphine gas had been generated after capping.

17P_-_Environment_Agency

In terms of ET and newcomers Portway Remediation, I found their comments pretty vague as to how they intend to carry out works on a site they have yet to even examine let alone their clients! Certainly I do hope the inspector considers this as a soundness test of achievability by 2041.

Another matter I raised concerned air quality, a big buzz theme of late to local authorities and their war on cars and creation of fascistic “15 minute cities”.

The video on the council website lasts for some time, but the first two and a half hours are the discussion are about this site.

Sandwell Local Plan Examination Matter 9: Site Allocations – Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council – Civico

I have had a great deal of positive feedback from residents and other observers about the points I made, thank you for that,  and I don’t think that much more can have been said. 

A lethal dose of white phosphorus fits on the end of the nose of the Queen or now King on a 1p piece. Is it acceptable to bury tens of tonnes of this material under peoples homes and forget it is there?

With Rattlechain lagoon again being in focus of late regards the ill conceived Sandwell local plan and its examination-( a further update on that for weeks 2 and 3 coming soon), it is with interest that a new sign has magically appeared prior to this on those infamous turquoise gates.

I looked at how Rhodia’s consultants ERM had added new signage around the fence perimeter in this post. 

The Environment Agency sign is a new addition however with their contact numbers- something missing for some time off the main gates, and possibly a licence/permit breach that has only just been discovered and corrected?

Added 4/9/25

It is perhaps a bit laughably late for this as the EA have never been a competent regulator for this site and are unable to real time track the environmental fate of white phosphorus in this lagoon or historically into the water pumped to the Birmingham Mainline canal. They also make little in the way of comment as to the future of this site and are no doubt under pressure from political scum to allow developments that will harm future occupiers as well as existing residents- whatever failed “safeguards” they claim will be retained from changes to the planning regime.

Now viewed by a posse of Kents, rattlechain retains its belated cctv but yet the eye of Sauron appears fixed in gaze at land on the Duport’s tip, the scene of ecocide earlier in the year. Maybe the “discussions” between Rhodia and the other site owners are not as clear cut as the latter try to make out and they are safeguarding their own site from the prospective tippers.

The “chemically treated water” remains in situ in the lagoon even if the faded sign about that is now not so clear.

Time does not erase the “danger” of manmade chemicals and their environmental fate.

Albright and Wilson’s 1950’s advertising was somewhat creepy as well as bizarre, as I looked at on this page, and also in the previous post in their 1954 annual accounts.

Another ad however I have found looks as though notorious reprobate Charles Salvador, aka Charlie Bronson has somehow gone back in time and is advertising Midand Silicones for the Oldbury based environmental crims!

I am having none of “Captain Reece”- that’s Charlie! Somewhere in a parallel universe he must have escaped in that plane after taking hostages , and maybe even asked them to call him “Captain” whilst tickling his feet. 😆

Midand silicones would end up doing less time than Chuck, lasting 25 years before AW departed.

The post war Albright and Wilson, having benefitted heavily from that war were at the peak of their controlling powers in the early 1950’s. They ran Oldbury, and had for some time with ratty Wilson and fan boy industrialists in political office. The Oldbury and Widnes operations stemmed other production units at Portishead as well as Kirby and a new venture in silicones in Barry, South Wales.  Abroad there were also plants at Varennes in Canada and Yarraville, Australia.

Another artefact I have come across from 1955 shows the accounts of AW from the previous year. Ratty Wilson is revealed to still be chairman of the board, and allied to this the managing director- the war dodger Bill Albright. By now familiar “home guard” employees like Sydney Barratt and Keith Piercy had given up playing soldiers and were also directors. Barratt had in fact replaced ratty 2 Wilson- Christopher as secretary that year, but remained on the board as he had for many years.

I have scanned most of this booklet minus the boring financial figures, but some interesting points come from the rest of it and rodent Wilson’s statement.

Wilson cooking the books

The production of their deadly white phosphorus was increasing, and their fingers were in many pies

Drawing looks like the iconic Oldbury phosphoric acid towers

Missing of course are details like The Oldbury smell, which had been a local concern since the end of the previous decade, and was at its most foul around this time.

By far the most interesting part of this for me are the advertisements at the end, showcasing the AW products at this time- their “chemicals for industry” mantra. I have seen most of these before and offered observations of them HERE. Some however are new.

The blight of phosphoric acid was not giving people what they needed in Oldbury

The picture on the right of a young Roger Moore I looked at HERE.  

Mr PVC man I had not seen before. Phthalates, lead and vinyl chloride- a carcinogen are all harmful materials associated with this common material from this time, making this product  far from safe or environmentally friendly, but of course industry does not care about that.

The much lauded calgon and the South Wales silicones plant. The site at Barry would make losses for AW for several years , as did the early production of p4 at Portishead.

The Carbon tetrachloride ad – another cancer product  I have looked at before, but the farmer and his crop is a new one which is of very great interest around this time. AW were Nazi heirs when it came to insecticide production. It is this exact production at Oldbury through malathion which produced “The Oldbury smell” and so how absurd that they include this in this brochure- a perfect example of how industry could not give a shit about the impacts of its effects on its residential neighbours.

fuck the “poor” millionaire farmers, what about local residents?

More Calgon. The dishwasher I have seen before , but “ernie” the milko is a new one for me. Of course phosphates would see the rise of environmental pollution in lakes and Rivers wherever they have been used. But that is exactly the problem with Albright and Wilson and the “problem-reaction-solution” (chemicals for industry) model which they used throughout their lifetime, and one which the chemical industry and its allied big pharma shills still employ today to dupe the public with their financial avarice fraud.

This town, still the centre of political life in Sandwell has at its core a legacy of the worst kind of chemical polluting industries, glorified by useful idiots but mainly the political class who in some form have benefitted financially from shilling for them or in the early days being from those vile polluting industries themselves.

The formation of the Municipal Borough in 1935 had the dirty fingerprints of Albright and Wilson and their fellow polluters all over them as the hapless folk who were employed by these scumbags were whipped up into a frenzy for “autonomy” , “self governance”, “localism democracy” or some other bullshit phrase just to get their manipulators into power- in this case directly the seed of John Edward Wilson- the founder of the company.

His rat faced grandson, Kenneth was the first mayor of the new borough.

I recently came across an original specimen of the “charter souvenir” for the occasion of the borough’s formation- now some 90 years later. Priced at 6 pence, it gives a very interesting observation into the control and coercion at work in this pre WW2 era, and of those pulling the strings.

I have scanned the whole thing which you can read as a PDF below. I’ll pick out and highlight a few things that interested me however in this post.

Olbury 1935 The Rotten Borough forms

The motto of the borough “Antiquum Decus Floreat” translates to “Let its ancient glory flourish.” The Old English translation of ‘Ealdenbyrig’, Eald is  for ‘old’, Byrig is the plural of ‘burh’ – a burh being a fortification or fortified town. I’m not sure it was ever a “glorious” place, but certainly wasn’t after the industrial polluters arrived on the scene.

A few familiar faces arise with the then town councillors, a right bunch of fiddlers some of them look as well. The names Pollock- of Accles and Pollock fame, as well as ratty Wilson are noted, as are the AW rimmer Smellsome, who would later of course go on to defend his fellow freemason friends in Trinity Street after the Oldbury smell fiasco.

The pussy whisperer

If you like your history, and how things have changed then do read the write up, but do beware that those in charge were glorifying themselves through masonic practices with maces, chains and badges- all donated by the said chemical polluters to pollute the minds as well as the lungs. Their successors in 2025 are little different. Hell I would not be surprised if some of the familiar names are even related to that scum.

The idea of attempting to relink the demise of two brickworks operations, filled over with toxic wastes and foundry sands into some co-disposal super tip to use as a foundation for housing is absurd, and yet here we are with this old chestnut rejected in 1990 but for some strange reason still flickering like a phoenix from the flames.

It should be made clear  that the only site with the provenance “rattlechain” at this point in time and at any time going forward from this point in time should be the lagoon, as all trace of brickmaking had long gone only to be replaced by appalling tipping operations over the remnants of a brickworks. Unfortunately the mistake in still associating this site as “rattlechain” by subsequent licences and authorities has been misused in trying to link the sites together to suit commercial activities.

These “two tips” are no longer linked, and nor should they ever be. THEY HAVE SEPARATE HISTORIES WHICH ARE SUMMARISED BELOW. We are where we are, so let no man nor any of their agents try to claim that the two are still linked. Only thoughts of avarice connect them. 

rattlechain lagoon site history

formerrattlechainbrickworksduportstip site history

The worst of times

BR7P51 Aerial view of white phosphorus chemical waste disposal in Rattlechain Lagoon, St John’s Lane, Tividale, Sandwell, England, Britain, Uk

Having been contacted by many frustrated and worried people across the country about landfill sites in their backyard, it is clear that the Government’s insane Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a recipe for irreversible environmental damage and future human health scandals that will probably only unravel into the 2060’s or beyond, that is of course after the decades of denial by political scum and others whom they serve in the developer industry.

Historic landfills are bad news, and should not be built on, EVER and not “cleaned up” as morons like Andy Street and Richard Parker appear to think is possible without serious consequences for those who live on the border of such sites, built because more morons claimed they were “safe” to do so. 

The Environment Agency defines an historic landfill as a site where there is no environmental permit in force.

“A historic (closed) landfill site is one where there is no PPC [Pollution Prevention and Control] permit or waste management licence currently in force. This includes sites that existed before the waste licensing regime, if a site has been licensed in the past, and this licence has been revoked, ceased to exist or surrendered and a certificate of completion has been issued” 

Rattlechain lagoon still does have an environmental permit but its adjacent neighbour does not. I have looked at the issues of how the EA buried and erased much information about such sites HERE.

Local authorities appear to have a dire record of disseminating information or responding to concerned residents about landfill sites which they are supposed to be monitoring under The Environmental Protection Act. My experiences with Sandwell Council have been abysmal to say the least in this regard.

There is too little info about historic wastes and the terms “inert” and commercial” just do not cut it with reliable information- for that you need to see the original licences, which I have made many available in the West Midlands, but as can be seen by those, the wording was so lousy and ambiguous that they were not adequate safe guards for anyone in the future to rely on.

The maps that the EA have provided on their website appear to have replaced some of the old what’s in your backyard feature that they previously removed, and which I also took them to task over in the FOI request I put in some years ago.

The maps can be viewed at the link below. Zoom in and view the pink cross hatched polygons and you will also find some very basic info within these pop ups as to when the site received waste and licence was surrendered etc. This is by no means accurate however, and should be read with caution, as rattlechain lagoon contains no information at all, even though the EA know bloody well what is in there, and if they don’t, well read this website FFS!

Untitled map

It is interesting to note the scale of polygons around the black country area compared to Birmingham and Smethwick and outskirts which escape the depravity of industrial wastes. It is a disproportionate burden around Oldbury and Tipton, where unscrupulous bastards sold off marl holes for this very purpose, only for more unscrupulous bastards to infill them with more solid wastes to build houses upon. The legacy of industry and its political supporters in boroughs like the very ironically named “Sandwell” have left us with nothing but blots on the landscape to replace the dug out pits that went before them.

Recently, the “tramp phosphorus” botherers were spotted on site doing their annual monitoring rounds of boreholes. This has been ongoing for some years but the reasons and rationale are not what they seem for the public point of view. The white phosphorus in this lake is not going to go away, long after any generations of anyone living today have also snuffed it. Bury it, pretend it isn’t there, but it is.

Environmental consultancies are about producing results, and not recording them for their clients. We have yet to see the “Rhodia” end game for this site, and yet ERM dutifully come back as the guardian’s that were never there when wildlife was being poisoned by their pay masters. Where the fuck were the checks and balances then?

More interestingly, it appears that whoever is in charge of this site now has decided to up the notices, and more interestingly, tweak some of the wording.

So the covered hoarding which has largely faded into memory next to the canal has a new buddy with other stick on signs stuck over that.

For the record, here is what that sign actually said when it was in more pristine condition.

They accepted “no responsibility” and yet the new signs have the bolt on

“except where caused by the negligence of the company.”

I wonder what that is all about?

Old sign still there- you have 15 seconds to comply

But gone are the old dialling code numbers that got you through to the lobby at Trinity Street. 01303 number is a Folkestone Kent number FFS!  Enter “Robowatch”.

So this site is now being “monitored” by AI from miles away down South.

According to their website, this outfit states

“We also offer security surveillance solutions for large construction sites, vacant properties, commercial buildings, and solar farms, providing top-rated site security surveillance services across diverse environments. Our 24/7 site security surveillance systems give you peace of mind, knowing that your property is under constant protection.” 

I’m not sure what “protection” rattlechain lagoon needs, though maybe the public needs protection from the arseholes that dumped dangerous toxic waste into their to start with.

As for the 1987 film inspired name of this company, I am not sure the site operators ever complied with the three primary directives.

Serve the public trust

You cannot trust any version of this company from Albright and Wilson to Rhodia- the same jokers at the helm and the same liars.

Protect the innocent

They poisoned their own staff, and poisoned birds on this lake.

Uphold the law. 

Broke it multiple times for site breaches and failures at their own site under The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

Of course Directive 4 means that “robowatch” will never act against its paymaster controller or allow them to be blamed by “except where caused by the negligence of the company.” 

You can see what you want to be seen with cctv, and you can also turn a blind eye when it suits you. 😉

Unfortunately, investigative journalism is a very rare thing these days, and few stories that aren’t verbatim given to many of these people never make the news. I have had great difficulty with some “journalists” over the years, who didn’t appear to understand that a banned rat poison buried in accessible waste that the birds could easily access was bad news, and somehow believed that there might be another cause of death!  😥

They also appeared more interested to take the story of the chemical polluter, my “claim” to their apparent “facts” of the case, when all it was was desperate lying spin. I don’t waste my time with these people anymore, or their pro business, anti environmentalist agenda. Fuck em! The point of this website was to put the evidence in the public domain, and almost everyone that I have come across believes the facts that I am telling on here and that this place and the activities that went on here should never have been allowed.

When the lying scum at Albright and Wilson applied to continue their British Government chemical weapon manufacture dumping at Rattlechain lagoon under the application for a licence, they had the audacity to proclaim that it was a “safe” method of dealing with “small quantities of phosphorus” by “natural oxidation”. None of these statements are factual or accurate, and that can be proven with direct evidence. This licence was waived through with Government help to continue their cover up of weapons of mass destruction- British made in Oldbury. 

What an absolute crock of shit! The process was neither “safe” and the amounts were not “small”. Albright and Wilson liars of the chemical industry.

This licence was of course passed in 1978 and numbered SL31 by a bunch of  imbecile councillors of West Midlands County Council under the direction of the cretin waste county disposal officer Ken Harvey.

An investigative FOI request to the site regulators , the environment agency by itself revealed that the quantities were “large amounts” as expressed in tonnes.

I did however manage to obtain information from a National newspaper journalist to probe the Rhodia liars and this is what they stated. Their statements are made in red and his follow ups in blue.

1) “Prior to 1974, we have estimations of levels of white phosphorus”. – what are these estimations?

The Cremer & Warner Report (I understand you already have a copy of this report) allows us to estimate the total quantity of waste deposited prior to 1974 as 375,000 tonnes. That report also analysed the sediments and derived an average concentration of white phosphorus of 0.0035%. Using this data we estimate the quantity of white phosphorus to be around 13 tonnes.”

2) From 1974 to 2006 all deposits have been recorded and figures have been shared and monitored by the EA. This information is publicly available. Note that we closed the site in 2006 following a change of technology which resulted in the elimination of the primary calcium phosphate waste stream. The landfill site is not full.  What is the total amount of waste dumped over this 32 year period and how much was white phosphorus?

The abstraction of the precise tonnage of waste deposited between 1974 and 2006 requires significant time to be spent processing the records. To answer your question in a time to meet your deadline we have used our experience to derive an estimated total tonnage of 265,000 tonnes and have applied the measured average concentration from the C&W report to estimate 9 tonnes of white phosphorus.

3) We have previously carried out some analytical tests on waste sediments. Results are entirely consistent with the requirements of our licence.
– when were these tests carried out and could we see the results?

The most extensive series of tests were carried out in 1990 by Cremer & Warner and the results are given on pages 38 and 50 of their report.
The results confirm high levels of calcium and phosphate (to be expected – calcium phosphate was the primary waste stream) and very low levels of white phosphorus (ranging from 0.00004% to 0.0122%, with an average of 0.0035%).”

The problem with Rhodia, and most likely Tom Dutton, who is now retired as a former director of this company is that the answers given are completely disingenuous. The Cremer and Warner report was a very poor analysis of the site, with limited readings taken for white phosphorus in the sediment. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THIS CONSULTANCY WERE APPRAISED OF THE LAGOON BY ALBRIGHT AND WILSON THEMSELVES, WITH THE LIAR PETER BLOORE BEING THE CONTACT AT THIS TIME.

For example, the small lagoon was not even probed for this chemical as it was falsely claimed that this was “the clean side” where water could be pumped out to the Birmingham Mainline Canal by discharge consent. The egregious report failed to examine that the site was once one pit, and this was only spilt into two when the water levels required raising because the waste mountain was getting too high to keep under water. THIS WAS BEFORE WASTE LICENSING, SO THE FIGURES OR “ESTIMATIONS” NEVER EVEN ACCOUNTED FOR THIS. 

Average concentrations are a joke, and another completely failed but useful lie. You cannot derive concentrations of a chemical that has been mixed, spread, pumped and repumped into different areas on a regular or semi regular basis, and some areas not at all. The discharge pipes into the lagoon were moved over time, and so any readings taken were transient and not accurate unless a total grid system across the site had been used. IT WAS NOT.  The calculation that Dutton applies here is totally bogus and is not accurate. NEITHER HE NOR RHODIA HAD GOT A FUCKING CLUE AS TO THE VOLUME OF WHITE PHOSPHORUS IN THE LAGOON, BUT IT LOOKS BETTER TO MAKE UP SOME PATHETIC SCIENTIFIC ATTEMPT TO DO SO, WHEN IN FACT THAT “SCIENCE” DOES NOT STAND UP TO REAL SCRUTINY OF THE FACTS. 

OBVIOUSLY DUTTON ATTEMPTED SIMILAR LIES WHEN BIRDS HAD INGESTED LETHAL AMOUNTS ON WHITE PHOSPHORUS, SYSTEMICALLY POISONED, WHICH WERE IN MICRO GRAM QUANTITIES.  

The evasiveness of this company can be measured in the email below to my genuine questions. I think it’s not unfair to conclude that  industrial scientists are not used to being asked awkward questions.

My advice to anyone with a similar issue of a toxic problem landfill in their back yard is to tell the story yourself and show all of your receipts, as at least then the story will not be spiked by a bunch of cocksucking industrial shillers .