AGM and Recycling options

May Meeting

The AGM has taken place and there has been a slight reshuffle. Make sure to read the minutes when they are released. The main discussion at the meeting focused on waste costs and future waste‑management planning.

To our surprise, more people privately make use of recycling than we first thought, and of course they pay for this convenience themselves. We need to keep pushing forward. As I’ve written many times before, there is real money in handling our own tin collection.

At present, WCAS was receiving 50 pence per tonne, which means we are being robbed quite literally.

The real push to keep costs down is to establish mini‑recycling centres at strategic points throughout the parish. Some people say, “We don’t own any land, how is this possible?” That can be solved. We have a working relationship with DOI, and they need more practical engagement from us in getting our roads up to date. A project of this scale is small enough to sit comfortably within our scope.

Once we have mini‑recycling centres, there has been one in Dalby for years, we will ultimately produce less rubbish as a parish. With waste collections moving to weight‑based charging, now is the perfect time to start planning.

However, you will need to make noise. While I’ve been pushing for this for ever and a day, I am only one vote. I would encourage you to write to your preferred Commissioner and show support for undertaking a trial (one site) aimed at reducing the cost of waste management. This would put us well ahead of the curve for lower rates and first‑class service.

A Call for Accountability in Patrick

It has been an interesting week in local politics, and significant change may be on the horizon. I have submitted a Standing Order for our next meeting to discuss a mission statement and a program for the four years remaining in this term.

To the residents of Patrick: your input is vital. This program must reflect your priorities, even if your priority is that such a program should not exist at all.

The Problem with the Pen

One issue that has become clear this week is that minutes are often open to interpretation. The old expression “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” and of course many men rock the cradle too, now — feels uncomfortably apt when it comes to how minutes are kept in many parishes. It has certainly been at the forefront of discussion in Peel.

Too often, minutes can be shaped in a way that makes actions appear better or worse than they actually were. The result is an endless waste of time debating what was or wasn’t said, rather than dealing with the substance of the matter.

A Move Toward True Accountability

To end these disputes and ensure real accountability, I believe we must move toward audio or video recording our meetings. A recording is the only true, objective record of account.

However, true accountability only happens when people take an active interest in the things that matter to them. I encourage you to come along, discuss these topics, and let me know your views through whichever means is easiest for you.

A couple of other things have caught my attention regarding the management of our local waste site:

PS. The Scrap Metal “Giveaway”

Metal is not being properly recycled at the WCAS site. Different types of scrap metal have considerably different market values, yet currently, these materials are being almost literally given away to collectors as a mixed load. By failing to sort high-value metals, we are quite simply throwing money away.

2. Site Logistics and the “Totter”

Furthermore, the recycling containers should be positioned next to the “totter” (the salvage/reuse area) on the site. Better placement would encourage more efficient sorting and ensure that items with value are captured properly. Outside outstanding issues already raised.

The Energy Sovereignty Dilemma

Sometimes I notice a “big oil” barrage on social media, often led by figures like Trump, suggesting that all the world’s problems can be solved just by producing more oil. But “oil” is really just a placeholder for energy; that is the real name of the game. It’s about ensuring you have enough when you need it. Currently, the world is facing a deficit, and history shows this won’t be the last time.

The Nuclear and Fusion Reality

Some believe building more nuclear fission reactors is the answer. While possible, the lead times are massive, and the safety concerns, especially as potential targets during conflict are significant.

The real “game-changer” is commercial fusion, which is finally turning the corner. We are seeing a massive shift from lab science to industry:

  • Helion Energy is already constructing a plant in Washington to provide fusion power to Microsoft’s data centers by 2028.
  • Commonwealth Fusion Systems is on track to demonstrate net energy gain with its SPARC reactor by 2027.
  • Even the UK Government just launched a 2026 Fusion Strategy, backing the sector with £2.5 billion to lead this “new energy revolution.”

Once fusion is scaled, the energy crisis as we know it will cease to exist—but it will require us to fully commit to an electric society.

Controlling Our Own Destiny: The Solar Mandate

We often fail to think about the future because we assume a “drill, baby, drill” approach allows us to relax. But imagine how different life would be if every government had one coherent policy: every building being built or having its roof repaired must be converted to solar.

We are finally seeing the first steps toward this:

  • In England, the new “Future Homes Standard” (finalized March 2026) will soon make solar panels and heat pumps the default for nearly all new builds.
  • The Isle of Man is pushing for 30MW of local renewable generation by the end of this year to gain “full control” over its own energy supplies and stop relying on volatile imported fossil fuels.

If we utilized the daytime sun on every rooftop to power our lives, we wouldn’t be at the whim of global energy crises. We would finally control our own destiny.

The Friction of Accountability: Why Local Governance Shouldn’t Be a “Quiet Club”

Public service is often described as a thankless task, usually undertaken by volunteers or those with a deep-seated desire to help their community. However, there is a dangerous misconception that because local representatives are often “part-time,” the standards of their work should be anything less than professional.

Lately, I have been reflecting on just how difficult it is to uphold the principles of accountability within a small local authority. It is a painful learning process, and it requires a thick skin.

The “Duty of the Record”

At the heart of any democracy is the public record—the minutes. These are not just notes; they are the legal history of how public money is spent and how decisions are made. If the minutes are inaccurate, incomplete, or “sanitized” to avoid controversy, the public loses its ability to hold its representatives to account.

Insisting on accuracy is often seen as “being difficult.” It creates friction. It makes meetings longer. But as public servants, our primary duty is to the residents, not to the comfort of the boardroom. If we cannot get the record of our meetings right, how can the public trust us to get the big decisions right?

Transparency vs. “Private Sessions”

There is a growing, concerning trend toward moving difficult discussions into “private sessions.” While the law allows for privacy in specific cases—such as personnel matters or legal advice—transparency must remain the default.

When public business is moved behind closed doors without a strict legal necessity, it risks becoming a “quiet club” where accountability is traded for convenience. A board that is afraid of public scrutiny is a board that is failing its mandate. We are elected to serve in the light, not to orchestrate outcomes in the dark.

The Road to Outstanding

My ultimate goal has never been about “winning” an argument; it has been about service. I firmly believe that our parish has the potential to move from ‘satisfactory’ to ‘outstanding.’ However, this transformation requires a board that is willing to acknowledge its own errors, correct its records, and prioritize transparency above personal defense.

If the price of moving our services forward is my own departure, provided the public record is corrected and our governance is set on the right path then I am prepared to pay that price. True public service is not about holding onto a seat; it is about ensuring that the systems we leave behind are better, more transparent, and more effective than the ones we found.

The High Price of Standing Up

Advocating for higher standards is not a popular path. It often results in internal pushback, procedural maneuvers, or even formal warnings intended to stifle dissent.

I acknowledge that this pursuit of accuracy can be intense. It is a challenge to balance the need for collaboration with the absolute necessity of procedural integrity. However, the alternative, silence in the face of mediocrity, is a far greater risk to our community.

Moving Forward

The residents of Patrick deserve a local authority that is beyond reproach. We should welcome the friction of debate and the scrutiny of the public. Accountability isn’t a burden to be managed; it is the very foundation of the trust the public places in us.

If we want to move our community forward, we must first ensure we are standing on a foundation of truth and transparency. Anything less is a disservice to the people we represent.