Monday, 19 October 2009

sugar rush

finally, as a result of prompting by this blog and others, the fraudster's friend speaks out on the "deception" practised on Reading Buses:

Stuart Singleton-White, who chairs Reading Transport, said: “It is completely unacceptable that both the board of Reading Buses and the council have been deceived over the type of bio-ethanol fuel that has been used over the past year.”

Mr S S-W's "consultancy" work on behalf of various companies involved in "environmental" stuff is well known. Let us hope that he has removed the link to the company which supplied the fraudulent fuel to the bus company of which is he is chairman from his own company's website - or things would start to look a bit bad, wouldn't they?


howard thomas said...

Cost to RBC at £50,000/bus subsidy plus £200,000 for the fuel storage tank = £900,000

Cost to convert the buses to run on diesel, between £200,000 and £400,000

Cost of wiping the egg from certain councillor's faces --------------------Priceless!

Anonymous said...

In the summer weekends when the bio-ethanol buses were not operating, Reading Buses said it was because of work to the air-conditioning and heating and that the rumours about the expense of fuel were untrue. Now they admit the fuel is too expensive. Who runs their lies department?

Anonymous said...

As ever, another expensive waste of time and money. Crackers. And they stank. And it was obvious to anyone with a brain that it wasn't sugar "waste".

This, it occurs to me, is the problem when the method of getting elected to a local council is campaigning about bins and slippery pavements - that's hardly a CV driven competency based interview process to get hold of the brightest and the best is it?

Still, maybe the bus fares will drop now. I suggest £1 single. £2 busabout.

Park Ward voter.

Jonathan said...

I'm confused, because surely fuel made from paper pulp waste is more environmentally friendly than fuel made from sugar beet? I can't understand why the supplier would even want to lie about the source of their fuel.

Maybe it is just a face-saving way of admitting that converted petrol engines are fine for small cars, but completely unsuitable for large double decker buses on one of the busiest bus routes in the country.

digitaltoast said...

Sorry I'm a bit late to the party, I've been away but I'm totally surprised on returning to read that Reading Buses and Council had "only just" found out that their fuel was not what they thought - because I told them this in June 2008!

After getting no-where asking direct questions to Reading Buses, I spoke to Peter Watson of British Sugar on 24th June 2008, and he followed up with an email clarifying that it was never "sugar waste".

I then forwarded this to Reading Buses and Reading Borough Council - about 3 days later I got a very, let's say "robust", phone call from Sam Simpson from Reading Buses. He proceeded to launch into a hatchet job on Dr Paul Bardos (more on him later) basically saying he was Tory and therefore biased and incorrect and he hated the environment and wanted to kill fluffy bunnies and kittens with hoses run from exhaust pipes into their warrens etc (or something along those lines), and that bioethanol was definitely a waste by-product of growing sugar beet.

Also in June 2008 I had the following reply from Reading Buses board member Warren Swaine in reply to "were Reading Buses conning us?":
"As far as RTL is concerned, conned is not the right word. There was a misunderstanding which wasn't cleared up until after the initial publicity had gone out. Reading Buses acted in good faith when putting together the publicity as they were under the impression at the time that it was actually waste product."

Also, in the Reading Forum, on 24th June 2008, he also wrote in reply to further questioning on this:
"I will ask. They cannot lie, spin or whatever you wish to call it to me... I'm a director!"

It appears they were always going to be safe though - when I contacted the Advertising Standards Authority explaining that I felt this "sugar waste" claim to be misleading, I received a reply dated 22nd July 2008 explaining that they do not cover:
"statutory, public, police and other official notices/information, as opposed to marketing communications, produced by public authorities and the like".

I did try and persue this explaining that I felt the sign was a marketing communication, but they we steadfast.

I got a reply from Reading Trading Standards with an almost identical position - as Reading Buses was a council owned company, they could do nothing.

Around this time, I also made contact with this Paul Bardos who Sam Simpson had mentioned. Dr Bardos appeared to have had a similar experience to me - asking lots of questions but getting a lot of brush-offs in the process.
All of this, multiple emails etc, happening across June and July 2008 - unfortunately I moved and changed jobs at around that time, and having tried the best I could, this got pushed to the back of my mind.

But I don't believe for one second that this is a "surprise" to anyone at RTL or RBC - unless they had a two month long "flash forward" style amnesia moment during June and July 2008!

If anyone wants copies of the relevant notes and emails, feel free to ask.