NO TOXIC SHIP

[Grooter]

Wasn't it Buff, I mean Kreepy, that really loved poodles like this:



Each to their own I guess

[otway1949]

In summary then whatever floats your boat

[matt...]

Out of interest, is there a group of people who want the ship sunk closer to shore? As i diver, i would like to see this happen.

Cheers,
Coops.

i'll take your post on face value, without looking too deeply for any sarcasm that may be lurking just below the surface.
yeah, 3 groups, probably more, coops!

Cumberland Press - who prints Advocate Express local paper, which just happens to run the ads for the local radio stations, charter boats, etc. ie, commercial interest.

2 local radio stations - who have invested a lot of time & money in publicity the scuttling. who took the risk totally upon themselves before the minister of backflips signed off on it. they lost on the risk! ie, commercial interest.

CCARP - the dive group at terrigal. they have declared "war" on no ship. ie, commercial interest.

toowoon bay is lovely for snorkeling, coops! you get to check out the cungy covered slab that most people bounce off when a solid swell hits!! he he he ...

[oldman]

However, there is one kind of foul misfit that our society should never tolerate- dog haters. People who hate dogs are sick fcuks who cannot be trusted.

Well I don't exactly hate dogs, those environment befouling brain dead poop machines. But really I just reserve my hatred for dog owners.

I totally DON'T get folks who call NIMBY at others for giving a shit about their homes

As Matt says, it isn't a NIMBY fight.

That's because it's 1.7 kms off shore.

Matt, regardless, Avoca Beach is not going to recede 5 metres because of this. Find an argument that isn't a fairy tale and go with that.

[matt...]

hey olds, if you read a few posts back, i struggle to come to terms with the receding shoreline, as well.
i'll spell it out for you, so even a labour sympathiser can understand: i agree with you on that one.

meanwhile, get this up ya:

A JUDGE has criticised the Keneally government for its haste in trying to scuttle a decommissioned warship off the Central Coast, without waiting for proper permits or allowing enough time for appeals against the plan.

The government planned to sink the former HMAS Adelaide off Avoca Beach on Saturday but late last week, the president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Justice Garry Downes, granted a stay on the scuttling until a full hearing on May 5.

In his reasons for the decision, Justice Downes said the NSW government was too hasty in setting a date for the sinking and organising festivities - including a beach party and a black-tie dinner - to create a local ''spectacle''.

On March 22, the federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, had issued the sea dumping certificate. Justice Downes said the government had made extensive plans for the event well before the approval.

''The problem that lies behind this case seems to me to be that those who were involved in the process of planning decided to fix a date more or less firmly in place for the scuttling of the ship at a time when they had no permit and continued to keep the date in place although they were perilously close to reaching a point at which the plans would have to be called off because there still was no permit,'' he said.

In 2008, the federal government decommissioned HMAS Adelaide and gave it to the NSW government to be used as an artificial reef for scuba divers. The government commissioned an Adelaide company, McMahon Services Australia, to prepare the ship for sinking by stripping it of toxic material, including polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs.

But the No Ship Action Group, backed by several scientific opinions, questioned the thoroughness of the clean-up, especially because only five samples were tested for PCBs.

As recently as last Wednesday, the day Justice Downes was hearing the case in the tribunal, the NSW Minister for Lands, Tony Kelly, was making public appearances and issuing statements insisting the sinking would go ahead and promoting the day as a tourist event.

But Justice Downes criticised the rush to sink the vessel without leaving time for an appeal. ''If some decision had been made which postponed the scuttling of this ship until a month or more after the granting of the permit there would have been an opportunity for that process to occur,'' he said.

''But to propose the scuttling of a ship which would otherwise have been unlawful, and plan that it should take place when there is no permit in existence, and persist in the proposal to carry out the scuttling, even though the date is only a few days after the granting of a permit, seems to me to be a course of action that decision-makers ought to think carefully about in the future.''

A spokesman for Mr Kelly said the ''process of obtaining the sea dumping permit'' occurred over two years.

It was prudent to ensure that once the vessel was ready to scuttle, the time between the issue of the permit and the sinking be as short as possible.

[oldman]

hey olds, if you read a few posts back, i struggle to come to terms with the receding shoreline, as well.
i'll spell it out for you, so even a labour sympathiser can understand: i agree with you on that one.

Good for you matt.

meanwhile, get this up ya:

Ouch, all those big bold letters hurt my eyes.

Somebody make him stop!

[Animal_Chin]

hey olds, if you read a few posts back, i struggle to come to terms with the receding shoreline, as well.
i'll spell it out for you, so even a labour sympathiser can understand: i agree with you on that one.

meanwhile, get this up ya:

A JUDGE has criticised the Keneally government for its haste in trying to scuttle a decommissioned warship off the Central Coast, without waiting for proper permits or allowing enough time for appeals against the plan.

The government planned to sink the former HMAS Adelaide off Avoca Beach on Saturday but late last week, the president of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Justice Garry Downes, granted a stay on the scuttling until a full hearing on May 5.

In his reasons for the decision, Justice Downes said the NSW government was too hasty in setting a date for the sinking and organising festivities - including a beach party and a black-tie dinner - to create a local ''spectacle''.

On March 22, the federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, had issued the sea dumping certificate. Justice Downes said the government had made extensive plans for the event well before the approval.

''The problem that lies behind this case seems to me to be that those who were involved in the process of planning decided to fix a date more or less firmly in place for the scuttling of the ship at a time when they had no permit and continued to keep the date in place although they were perilously close to reaching a point at which the plans would have to be called off because there still was no permit,'' he said.

In 2008, the federal government decommissioned HMAS Adelaide and gave it to the NSW government to be used as an artificial reef for scuba divers. The government commissioned an Adelaide company, McMahon Services Australia, to prepare the ship for sinking by stripping it of toxic material, including polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs.

But the No Ship Action Group, backed by several scientific opinions, questioned the thoroughness of the clean-up, especially because only five samples were tested for PCBs.

As recently as last Wednesday, the day Justice Downes was hearing the case in the tribunal, the NSW Minister for Lands, Tony Kelly, was making public appearances and issuing statements insisting the sinking would go ahead and promoting the day as a tourist event.

But Justice Downes criticised the rush to sink the vessel without leaving time for an appeal. ''If some decision had been made which postponed the scuttling of this ship until a month or more after the granting of the permit there would have been an opportunity for that process to occur,'' he said.

''But to propose the scuttling of a ship which would otherwise have been unlawful, and plan that it should take place when there is no permit in existence, and persist in the proposal to carry out the scuttling, even though the date is only a few days after the granting of a permit, seems to me to be a course of action that decision-makers ought to think carefully about in the future.''

A spokesman for Mr Kelly said the ''process of obtaining the sea dumping permit'' occurred over two years.

It was prudent to ensure that once the vessel was ready to scuttle, the time between the issue of the permit and the sinking be as short as possible.

tl;dr

[matt...]

hey olds, if you read a few posts back, i struggle to come to terms with the receding shoreline, as well.
i'll spell it out for you, so even a labour sympathiser can understand: i agree with you on that one.

Good for you matt.

meanwhile, get this up ya:

Ouch, all those big bold letters hurt my eyes.

Somebody make him stop!

yes, sorry olds, i should be more considerate to the elderly, like yourself, and your poor eyesight...

[matt...]

The Execution of the Adelaide

My interest is as a Terrigal resident.

I realise you are fighting the cause on narrow and legally sustainable grounds and perhaps of no concern to the Group is the impact on the local area by the necessary access to the dive area. Advertisements offering dive tickets and a ferry serviceI are/will be offered by the Haven dive shop, perhaps the real and certainly the most voiciferest vested interest. No information on how the “many thousands” of divers will get to the dive area. Divers do not arrive by public transport and once dressed and equipped they have a problem moving on land.They will arrive by car and will require parking for the car and for a trailer if they bring their own boat. Many will bring a boat as this allows them to change air bottles and stay over the dive site for longer. I don’t think Avoca has a boat ramp and at Terrigal we have what is effectively a single ramp at the South end. The Terrigal ramp usually has a queue in the summer months.

Gosford Council has not said what provision is to be made for parking and bearing in mind the need to change into diving gear close to the point of entry in the water the multi story car park at Terrigal will not be suitable. It is too far away. The Haven is already under parking pressure from local people. The Haven is a good and safe spot for children to learn to swim, learn water skills and for the Nippers to be taught first lessons. It is also a good spot for families and seniors (I am 81) to meet, picnic and splash about a bit without having to fight the surf. Try parking at the Haven during a holiday weekend.

The Council has not said how cars and trailers of the two disparate groups, divers and the other present users are to be accommodated, maybe that would be negative thinking. Given the way the council has “upgraded” the esplanade and given half the roadway to the restaurants to the extent that locals do not even try to drive through there. Frankly it is a shambles. Locals and visitors quickly learn that Ocean Drive is the best way to reach Terrigal. Can you imagine the traffic down the hill into Terrigal, many cars with trailers.

I know you are arguing your case on environmental issues and good on you but the Haven is part of my environment and I am damned if I will give it to divers, the dive shop and a few restaurants. The thinking is skewed. Frankly I can’t see a financial advantage case for “the Coast”. It will benefit a few, it will disadvantage many, in the Haven and on the roads. It has all the hallmarks of a monumental stuff up, quite irreversible when the consequences become obvious. No doubt our Council has carefully evaluated the proposition (insert laugh) as has the approval by Peter pink batts Garret. The present thinking is skewed and the right questions have not been asked.

Why is the subject of this email the execution of the Adelaide? That’s what it is. Navy ships are meant to stay afloat. We train to make sure it happens. On active service a ship is scuttled only to prevent it falling into enemy hands. Seems to me the divers are the enemy..new rules perhaps. Steel can and should be recycled. We are told that frequently. It is also environmentally friendly. I am sure a majority of environmentally concerned people would favour recycling. If and when she is scuttled I shall shed a few quiet tears on behalf of the men and women she gave safe passage to. The enthusiastic crowds will be there for the bang and death. In olden times public executions were also good for a day out. I will not celebrate her execution by having her innards blown out.

Email sent to No Ship website by Dennis Warlum
Terrigal resident, aged 81 years

no one wants it, not even terrigal residents...
traffic chaos at the jewel in the central coast tourism crown [plaza]...
the traffic will be the fishbone in terrigal's throat, starving it's stomach of a decent tourism livelihood.
down with a minority of commercial interest groups.
the residents momentum is building...
the tide is turning...
[how do we sleep while our beds are burning?]
listen to the people, or bear the brunt of the mistake forever.
the unfortunate thing is that in this instance, everyone will wear YOUR mistake, not just you.
you are finished, Belinda, go home. no one wants to hear your ugly bellowing voice any more.
chris holstein, you did well with the stadium. why ruin a good thing?

"the colours red & blue": the knife, "heartbeats" from the 2006 "Deep Cuts" album.

the Adelaide will put deep cuts into the coast, spilling the red blood of residents & tourists alike, all in the name of a few "new money" blue blood imitators.
red blood for humans... the residents, the tourists, the people who want to enjoy a good holiday with their family...
blue blood for the cold, heartless, emotionless reptiles...
blue is the face of terrigal when it chokes in the traffic...

outside we wait 'til face turns blue pixies: "here comes your man", doolittle album.

doolittle & the coast will choke on the mistakes of the misguided few...