Login Register

Glosvain carol video mocks Gloucestershire council's incinerator plans

By Gloucestershire Echo  |  Posted: December 18, 2012

Mocking video:   A still image from the video made by Glosvain to county councillors

Mocking video: A still image from the video made by Glosvain to county councillors

Comments (0)

ANTI-INCINERATOR campaigners have poked fun at council bosses by sending them a humorous Christmas greetings video.

The video by campaign group Glosvain mocks the Christmas carol Good King Wenceslas and has been dubbed "Old King Waste Less".

The lyrics set out the campaign group's arguments against Gloucestershire County Council's £500 million burner plans against the backdrop of the famous melody.

Sue Oppenheimer, chairman of Glosvain, said: "The lyrics have been adapted to draw attention to the various dubious statements and practices emanating from parts of the council.

"This message is a continuation of Glosvain's campaign for recycling and new technologies against mass burn incineration in Gloucestershire."

The video, which was posted on YouTube on Sunday, has already been watched more than 100 times.

It features lyrics such as: "Old King Waste Less had no doubt, Glos waste was receding, Yet the words he did spout, Were downright deceiving."

The council's waste guru, Councillor Stan Waddington, is portrayed as Saint Wenceslaus I, Duke of Bohemia in the tenth century, who is also the subject of the Christmas carol.

In 1853, English hymn writer John Mason Neale wrote the Wenceslas lyrics, in collaboration with his music editor Thomas Helmore, and the carol first appeared in Carols for Christmas-Tide, 1853.

The spoof video comes just weeks before county councillors will decide the fate of waste firm Urbaser Balfour Beatty's plans to build the council's energy-from-waste facility at Javelin Park near Haresfield.

The plans are due to be considered by the planning committee in February.

But councillors are already facing strong opposition over concerns about the impact on human health.

When asked what he thought about the video, Mr Waddington declined to comment.

No one was available from Urbaser Balfour Beatty to comment.

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters
  • Ysedra  |  December 22 2012, 8:23PM

    Yes, but I'd still like to hear what his concerns were...

    Rate 0
  • Shireresident  |  December 21 2012, 6:12PM

    Well Mr. Ysedra, it seems iffy to me that the case officer for the project asked to be taken off it due to concerns-----see this site elsewhere.

    Rate   -1
  • CommsGuy  |  December 19 2012, 2:34AM

    That URL should be https://tinyurl.com/czlhbaa

    Rate   -1
  • CommsGuy  |  December 19 2012, 2:30AM

    As for daft - you decide. In the recent floods Javelin Park was flooded two to three feet deep. See here: https://http://tinyurl.com/czlhbaa Gloucestershire County Council spent £7million acquiring this site. It is now completely worthless, they can't sell it or do anything with it now the flooding risk is well known. No one in their right mind would spend any money on developing this site. Unless they were daft, of course.

    Rate   -1
  • Ysedra  |  December 18 2012, 11:42AM

    'I never said Mr. Waddington was daft' You seem to be strongly implying it, if you think you can keep making that accusation without, it seems now, any proof, and that he will just sit on his thumbs. Last I heard, people could still sue people in a democracy, and free speech is no defence against libel or slander. Have you heard differently? You might want to check that. And if you think there was anything 'iffy' about a decision being made after an election, complain, in detail. The council don't hide their contact details.

    Rate   -1
  • geraint2010  |  December 18 2012, 11:25AM

    At first I thought this was one car crash of a production until I realised that, true to form, TIG had c*cked up the video!

    Rate   -1
  • Shireresident  |  December 18 2012, 11:13AM

    I never said Mr. Waddington was daft, you'd have to be if you didn't cover your tracks and I'm sure nothing was ever committed to paper, that's how these things work, we all know that surely. As for people having no right to express a view on what happened without fear of litigation, last I heard this was still a democracy and free speech was still the norm. You must admit that the speed with which the "no decision made" stance changed to "done deal" after the election was a bit iffy.

    Rate   -1
  • Lecorche  |  December 18 2012, 11:09AM

    We'll see if Stan Waddington's claim that no waste will be imported. It's down near the bottom of this article. http://tinyurl.com/d8r85dp

    Rate   1
  • Ysedra  |  December 18 2012, 10:44AM

    And there you go. I would never suggest that Stan Waddington was as open about the process as he could have been, and there are serious issues to be raised directly, not crowed about on Youtube, but anyone who wants to perpetuate this canard about him being dishonest should provide the evidence that it *was* a 'done deal' when he said it wasn't. If they can't do that, they are looking at a law suit for libel. Even if it *did* turn out to be a done deal, if they're making the claim without being able to back it up, they're stuffed like a Xmas turkey.

    Rate   1
  • Shireresident  |  December 18 2012, 10:29AM

    I think people will remember that Mr. Waddington denied the incinerator was a done deal throughout the last election campaign and announced it was a fait accompli as soon as they won.

    Rate   1