A challenge to the ridiculous and ubiquitous Ken Wilkinson

I have been amused over the last few weeks to read the increasingly ridiculous comments made by retired physics teacher from Bristol, Ken Wilkinson.

The most ludicrous statement he has made though was this one from yesterday.

Now there is clearly a respectable debate about fracking to be had, and the science is still evolving. Only somebody of very limited intellect, or somebody deliberately setting out to browbeat people with misinformation could state publicly that “all of the research has been done“. Quite honestly it’s not surprising that the debate gets polarised when people like Ken Wilkinson are in the vanguard of the fracking PR machine. It’s a shame really as when reasoned debate does take place it can be quite illuminating.

As to “all of the laws being in place” I can only assume that he is referring to the laws that the government has put in place to ease the path for the fracking companies, rather than to the regulatory framework which is still woefully inadequate.

A good example of where regulations which are required are not in place is the issue of bonds for abandonment, where a company would be forced to put a sum in escrow before drilling to ensure that funds were available to cover any costs after the well has stopped producing.

This is Ken Wilkinson on this topic on 28th December 2015 in one of the many newspaper columns that he infests – this time it’s the Yorkshire Post

If Third Energy go broke this is all covered by a bond. They are required for licencing.

This is absolute rubbish as stated in my response

What bond for abandonment do Third Energy have? Please would you supply a reference and some substantiation for the statement that you present as a “fact” that “If Third Energy go broke this is all covered by a bond. They are required for licencing.” as this seems to fly in the face of paragraph 144 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF ) which states that “Bonds or other financial guarantees to underpin planning conditions should only
be sought in exceptional circumstances”. What grounds do you have for claiming that Third Energy have any such bond in place?

Now Ken does hate to be contradicted by anybody on anything, especially in public so he did his usual trick of retorting with a reference to a report which he claimed supported his statement (perhaps hoping nobody would read it and he’d be able to get away without looking too ridiculous).

For those that wish to be advised by science, please see the link to the Third Energy draft decision document, from the Environment Agency. https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/file/3682748
..
Regarding financial bond, the EA are satisfied. Pls see chapter 6.3

Do you not just love that pompous but sadly ineffectual call to authority – “For those that wish to be advised by science”? Unfortunately for him I check my facts before I post , so I was able to respond:

The document you cite only says :

6.3. Financial competence and relevant convictions
“We are satisfied that sufficient financial resources are available to the Operator to ensure compliance with the Permit conditions.
The Operator does not have any relevant convictions and is considered to be technically competent.”

If you are trying to claim that that supports your statement” “If Third Energy go broke this is all covered by a bond. They are required for licencing.” then you really are struggling as that paragraph goes nowhere near requiring a bond.

He did not respond to that. I wonder why not.

This is the calibre of our friend Ken Wilkinson’s arguments and proofs. It is why his perennial and ludicrous insistence that all the bases are covered and fracking is already properly regulated are totally unconvincing to those with the wit to look under the surface of his bluster.

Ken also lets himself get a bit hysterical at times – this was pointed out to me a couple of days back and gave me a good laugh

Firstly I’d like to point out that Mr Grealy’s ludicrous conclusions (which Ken bizarrely describes as “an excellent blog post“) get short shrift from me here https://www.refracktion.com/index.php/how-to-shoot-yourself-in-the-foot-with-figures/

Ken obviously dislikes me intensely (the feeling I can assure him is entirely reciprocated), to the extent that he appears a bit fixated on me,  but to suggest that a:)  a lot of the opposition to fracking on Twitter is just me (how flattered do I feel LOL) and b:) that I run all of those 4 accounts is ridiculous. I freely admit (obviously ) to being @refracktion and I did set up a parody account @aunty__fracker to poke fun at the silly rantings of the “real” @aunty_fracker. The other two I have no connection with at all, beyond being aware of who runs the PNR acount. This is though a perfect example of how Ken will invent “facts” and lie with a straight face to try to damage somebody to suit his own warped narrative, and without having a single jot of evidence to support it. It’s not pretty is it?

My challenge to Ken Wilkinson

So, if he would like to show that he has any remaining shreds of credibility I challenge him to provide proof of any kind whatsoever that I have access to the @nofracklancs (Preston New Road twitter account) and/or the @FrancisEgon (presumably what he meant by Francis__Egon) Twitter accounts. He can’t as he is lying.

And then  I challenge him to provide even just one single example of:

• a message Tweeted by @Refracktion to @nofracklancs (the  Preston New Road twitter account)
• which was retweeted by @nofracklancs to @aunty__fracker
• which was subsequently retweeted by @FrancisEgon.

He is very clear that this is how it works so this shouldn’t prove challenging for him should it? I mean you wouldn’t commit that chain of events to Facebook, and say that it constitutes “a lot” of the content, without being able to provide a single example of it if you had any common sense or integrity would you?

If Ken believes he can substantiate either claim I will publish his reply and my response here. Don’t hold your collective breath.

He won’t be able to answer this challenge though, as this is just one more example of this vindictive, vicious, vexatious, obsessive attempts to bludgeon his way into undermining the credibility of those who are fortunate enough not to suffer from his own tunnel vision and lack of critical thinking.

Like so many of the incomprehensible things he says, it has no basis in fact whatsoever. Ken seems to have set himself a one man mission (OK it’s a two man mission as The Rev Michael Roberts acts as a compliant Robin to his Batman) to take out opponents of fracking. This was seen at its most ghastly early last year in his appalling behaviour relating to Mike Hill at the time of the publication of the Medact report and Mr Hill’s parliamentary candidacy.

Sadly Ken continues to repeat his slurs even today as we can see here.

I’m sure I’m not the only one to notice how he claims here that only 6 recommendations are in place but claims 48 hours later that “all of the laws are in place”. And he has the gall to accuse Mike Hill of lying? (I also think he should take a look at this page for a reality check on the true status of those recommendations.)

It is the sort of propagandising in complete bad faith described above which stops many people from being able to engage in meaningful debate on this subject.

We do know that Ken and his sidekick Michael Roberts are suggested by the fracking companies as people to be interviewed about fracking because we speak to journalists too. I wonder if the fracking companies have any idea how much credibility they lose by relying of these two  to front their claims?