wilsywilsy

Thought there was plenty grit and effort on display on Saturday but the quality with the ball was again really poor. On another day the Arabs run out comfortable winners - they wasted a lot of good chances and Ridgers made a few decent saves. Disappointing to waste another gift goal and not sneak a win. A points a point though and every one of them is important regardless of how they are secured. Still 18 to play for and with Morton and Ayr both struggling to get any rhythm going too, theres still lots of room to escape the play offs yet.

This is virtue signalling and greenwashing to try and wish away some understandable concerns. Maybe the clubs expert buddies could have helped them front run the concerns and mitigate them as part of their shoestring budget planning application.

Sorry to hear that - I did not know.

This is sample bias.

Of course it is. But it doesn't mean its wrong, or surprising, when a bunch of folk stand up and say "here, I don't really like this new risk..... so what are you going to do about mitigating it?" "chemical factories, oil refineries, nuclear power plants" don't get planning permission on protected green space in the middle of houses (well the ones that haven't burnt down due to all the statistical fire risks).

This is false equivelance. Is that statistically plausible when there's probably more houses in Dingwall (apparently they have some) than there are BESS installations around the world?

Absolutely. IMHO they were recklessly casual about it going into the council meeting last year (was it November?) with 4 open statutory objections unaddressed. This was at the some time as they were mewling in the media about how a planning rejection would be an existential threat to the club. If it was a sh1t or bust situation, there is no way you would do that (unless you were an entitled arrogant idiot).

To be fair to the NIMBYs, building houses is a weak comparison to use - houses aren't packed to the rafters with explosive chemical compounds (well, mine isn't..... although I dunno what my youngest keeps under that bed of his).

Assuming it's actually fully used (the national grid skip rates for batteries have been grim) and remains optimal (batteries generally don't), the ICT bahh’rhee farm will allegedly save 20,000 tonnes of CO2 a year. At its very best it will save 0.006% of the UKs emission. That is about 0.00005% of global emissions. We just need to build 2 million of these to save the world. The green wet dream. Interesting link in the doc above to that EPRI wiki of BESS failures. Looks like there has been more than a few issues. First page shows a fire at a BESS in Australia a few months ago which was using Tesla batteries that Morrison said was planned for this site. The UK HSE considers the monster batteries in BESS as the same as a lithium battery you might put in your TV remote, which is hilarious. How bad must the regulations be in the countries you say are "less regulated than the UK"?

Absolutely true. Scrutiny comes with the territory of public office. I think the club and media being so direct and barbed about it opened the door to those intimidation claims. And I agree today’s statement was less bad. Certainly a big step forward from yesterday’s cry-bully junk from Gardiner.

Ach it’s subjective, isn’t it. Unfortunately the club personalised it with regular barbed digs at Oldham and MacLennan in the media. I don’t think it’s a leap to think they in particular found it all a bit intimidating.

I just knew this thread wouldn’t disappoint tonight. Lots of hand wringing about the council and the ICT characters behind this planning application - some very justified and some utterly wild takes too. Great read nonetheless. Hat tip to @DoofersDad for consistently being a voice of reason.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think anyone has suggested the components and installation would not meet BS guidelines. The concerns we have heard over the last few days were about operational failures and if the site layout and design was prepared to mitigate those possibilities...... it seems not.

Fair point. I could be wrong but I understood that it was just an idea/concept at this stage. From what I recall the prospective location was the old Torvean Quarry, which is in the development plan as open for industrial use. By the time the council ever get round to moving something forward, ScotGov might have some BESS legislation/guidelines in place. Dunno.

I'm not sure I would go that far and say it's scaremongering. There were some reasonable concerns highlighted today about fire safety and the environment that was all under lined by the lack of legislation that could offer any comfort. At least petrol stations have tight regulations and controls from HSE and other regulatory bodies that planners and councils can lean in to.

How do you know they were lying or how they felt when reading the messages they received? They mentioned the emails because they were correspondence specific to this planning application. Macpherson was trying to break into some warped whataboutery mode and for his own good was put back in his box.

Macpherson is a cartoon-councillor. Nobody takes him seriously. He was desperate to parrot what Ross Morrison said about Oldham, which was a really weak comparison anyway. He was rightly shut down for havering irrelevant crap.

I'm onboard with this. Saturday is obviously a massive opportunity to jump up the table but with the home form being so abject and two tough away fixtures right after, I would settle for going into April with the points gap to 4th/5th being the same as today. That should make the run in interesting....... if this team can (finally) peak at the right time.

I presume this relates to some idea the council previously had about proposing one at these at Torvean quary? Speaking of slides...... this might have already been posted and I missed it. My normally good for nothing Wilsy Jnr showed me last night that Lochardil council have shared all their slides on social media here https://drive.google.com/file/d/17IM85misgFxNm8Uun14ns2Y_GnmxrZ6C/view?fbclid=IwAR0mlocg8ln9rl4l66w1T1X3VfMAySTe6Zz2kNQRg2wRRzzbqNmKR3SfPBc At first reading they seem to make some reasonable points. Very surprised they left the socio-economic benefits unchallenged. Will be interesting to see if any of this cuts through to the underlying loss of green space debate tomorrow.

Agree with that. I think everyone is jumping to the conclusion that this has gone to a full council vote because loads of the councillors are against it (as well as Bezos and the illuminati). That could be the case but I don't think its a given. As Michael Cameron says a decision on something that is clearly a bit divisive needs to stand up to scrutiny. As for the chat about party lines - nae idea. I reckon it's impossible to read. You could refer to manifesto pointers in either direction for this one.

Considering the public objections around fire safety, the discussions in the last planning meeting about fire safety, now the communuty councils saying "would ya look at all these fire safety guidance issues", it is odd that the club didn't publish or attach to the planning application whatever they have in writing from Scottish Fire and Rescue to try and debunk any of that. Unless the letter is a nothingburger. Instead, the template email the club sent everyone said "Fire risk etc is not a material planning consideration."

Deary me . That is quite a wild leap you are making here Mr Morrison. If you are not 100% with us, you are against us. Or something like that. Add Wilsy to the Councillor Oldham and Jeff Bezos ICT vendetta conspiracy.

Exactly. Many of us said the same on here earlier this year. Rather than try and win hearts and minds with the merits of the proposal they have gone with a victim mentality and personalised their criticism of anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Over and over and over. At the meeting on Wednesday Morrison responded to your question by saying something along the lines of “what did you expect me to do?”. The answer should have been “be a f*ckin adult about it”.

Out of interest, what law has been broken?

Ehh? Are you trying to imply a statement of fact based on a quote from the planning application sounding similar to another statement of fact around the same quote must be from the same person? It sounds like the team who knocked this together are above my station. Maybe they got there inspiration from reading this thread?