When is transparency not transparent?

This seems to be anything but the case.
Since June 2024 a few weeks after the Guardian released its groundshaking article from Pippa Neill and Ends Report, Cleaner Bentham asked some questions that must have made Angus's Media PR represenative at Palatine Media sweat.
These questions were about C6 string chemicals and what other products had PFAS in, and this is when Angus's Communication shutters went down to Cleaner Bentham.

Since then Palatine Media has consistantly pressing the message (on behalf of Angus Fire),

"Angus Fire has played a significant role in our local community in North Yorkshire for 100 years, and it’s hugely important for us to maintain our positive relationships with the people of Bentham, and to play a responsible role in village life."

or
"As Bentham’s biggest employer, we actively address all concerns related to local environmental impact and compliance. We are committed to continuous improvement in our operations, transparency, and working collaboratively with regulatory bodies to protect public health and the environment""As per our response to Cleaner Bentham on 22nd July 2024, we will continue to update our microsite, www.derbs.co.uk, and prioritise communications with elected representatives (such as the Town Council & constituency MP), the UK regulator, and communicate directly and regularly with local people".
Personally think "The derbs site is nothing more than a get out, so Mr Williams can avoid awkward questions from residents, If I am wrong surely Mr Williams will attend a public meeting to answer questions from the local community?" He won't. He's far to comfortable in his 'unpolluted afluent posh community' near Mancehster.

Cleaner Benthams quest for answers from Paul Williams (CEO of Angus International Safety Group, National Foam, Angus Fire, Angus Holdings, Eau et Feu and several other AISG Group companies) has been met with stone walling that would make a Yorkshire Farmer proud.
Our group are consistantly directed to "DERBS" (Angus Fires only communication site which, alienates many people with learning difficulties and/or those who don't have or can't use the internet, so really not a great start at being transparent there!) an unsearchable, non publically available website, which doesn't really answer any questions at all. 
The real issue is, is that Cleaner Bentham is asking really difficult questions, ones that actually raise answers that Angus Fire, Paul Williams and the firms Lloyds Bank Owners (LDC Managers) won't like.

After hitting the stonewall for so long, Cleaner Bentham instructed its legal representative Mishcon de Reya to send some questions (the same ones and a few more) to Angus Fire, hoping for a response. Mishcon even requested for the third time (the first two times Cleaner Bentham had requested this with no response) whether Angus Fire would fund blood testing?
Surely, if there is nothing to hide if there is nothing to be feared Mr Williams?

Ooops he missed that one! (we now have 45 residents and it's $19,000.00!)

Mishcon Sent the first letter on 14th January 2024, and it's been decided that we put publish the questions and the reason why this is important.

1. We asked Angus Fire to Confirm what you have been doing for a number of years" to establish the extent of any PFAS contamination and provide the results of those investigations.

This is obvious to anyone who has read the timeline of breaches on our site, and seen the reports that advise Angus Fire on what needs doing, that it is plainly obvious nothing has been done. That is until the EA has asked for something, then Angus Fire has done it, maybe not by the time asked but, at somepoint they complete the task. (Sometimes even after being asked once).

This is important, especially now after the channel4 report which shows even the EA now thinks that Angus Fire has not been taking advice from it's consultants (money well spent!)
This was not answered by Angus Fires Solicitors, if you look at our breaches timelines, you can see why.
In August 2024 the EA ORDERED Angus Fire to screen water for 38 PFAS (Generally) - well you'd have thought this would have been done anyway right? I mean thats responsible? Isn't it? - you'd have thought so :::shrug:::
In the section 61 the EA also ordered the business (who has made Fire Fighting Foam for 54 years) to screen for 10 Known PFAS Chemicals related to firefighting foams. Wait surely they did this anyway? - Nope, it seems not.
I've relooked through their Consultant reports and there is not one with PFAS test results thats been associated with FireFighting foam manufacture in them!
So AISG/LDC Managers have owned Angus Fire, National Foam and Eau et Feu since 2013 and have not screened for associated PFAS over a 12 year period?
They must have done it in 2013 when LDC Managers got a liability consultancy report done? Nope! - Wow! 
Even when you look at the UTC/Kidde report in 2006 there is not one of the known PFAS mentioned. (I'll get to this later on).

2. Confirm why you were undertaking those investigations.
Well there were no investigations - Why is this important? well any reponsible manufacturer would have known that there are issues from all the reports done. Ironically none of these reports mentions PFAS, yet they were obeying regulations... extremelly doubtful (yes, I am rolling my eyes)!

3. Confirm what advice you have received and from who as to the management and disposal of PFAS on site;

Well, they recieved no advice as they didn't tell their contractors there was PFAS on site (you'd have thought the contractors would have put two and two together)?

4. Confirm whether any remediation works have been undertaken previously;

Angus Fire knew the lagoon linings needed replacing in 2013, oh wait, and 2006 and 2007... (in 2006 it was advsied that they should be lined with concrete).
The lagoons contain a concoction of PFAS and other naferious chemicals, and is what has been spilling up ol' laney, the houses on Duke Street and into Thomas Marshalls Fields for all these years (the one with the sheep and cows still grazing on)!
The disrepair to the linings would mean that the pollution has soaked through into the aquifer. So why did the firm cover up the lagoons and repair the liner? they were force to by the EA.. and they went up rather quickly... err planning permission much?

5. Explain why, if you have been working for a number of years on the issue, it appears that initial testing has only just been undertaken;

I am sure even Cllr Marshall and Cllr Burton know the answer to this one,  think this one is more transparent and obvious than the current situation reports from Angus. There has been "no Remediation work EVER!". It's that simple.

6. Explain why, in 2013 when URS Infrastructure and Environmental UK limited undertook an environmental assessment of the entire site in 2013 in light of the acquisition by LDC (Managers) Ltd, no analysis was undertaken for surfactants (anionic and non-ionic) or PFAS to identify potentially hazardous compounds commonly used in firefighting foam;

There are several reasons for this (some hyperthetical).
The first - they didn't want to know.
Second, UTC  (Kidde) knew about the cost of rectifying the issues on site and the and wanted a sale, quick or otherwise so didn't want them told about the potential issues.
Third, Would the employee doing the walk around not tell a potential buyer about the PFAS.
- now I hear you say "How do you know Kidde knew about the PFAS"?
It's simple, (remember from earlier Question 1?) Kidde was a member of the FFFC (Fire Fighting Foam Coalition in the United States) in 2001, they attended a conference in Washington DC and that conference was about - you got it PFAS and the transistion from AFFF (which didn't happen until 2016....hmmm) - With the cost of repairing and remediating the site this would have meant UTC wanted a quick sale, of course I am only hypothesising there in that last sentence.
Fourth, the buyer (lets say an executive who worked for Kidde in another department) heard that UTC wanted rid and didn't ask any questions.
Even so, it was known that the foam used PFAS, it was known there were issues on the site it doesn't take a genius to work out who and what was expendable (clue: the workforce and the Town).

7.  Explain how you have sought to fulfil your duties under Sections 2, 3 and 6 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1975 from 2013 to date;

As an ex employee, and IT guy who had to fix machines in the Foam Plant, I was not told about any dangers, in fact nothing about the foam plant, not even by the workers in there. I was not told about PPE or PPR, I was not told about the dangers of dermal contact.
No one wore PPE worn or PPR (personal protection resperators), there was no system to suck out bad powder or the smell - they left the door open (just not in winter), so if people got powder or foam it was taken home with them.

8. Confirm whether you have undertaken any health monitoring on your current or past employees, considering the risks of PFAS to human health have been well known for years;

As Above I was never told about the issues, I'd never heard the word PFAS or words "forever chemicals" until May 2024. Angus Fire in what ever incarnation, who ever owned it KNEW from 2001. I have never had a health check, I never did while I was working there, I have never had one offered, and I think we need to take a long look at who we worked with and whether they had or now have any health issues, breathing issues, Cancer, stroke, cardiovascular issues..... My bet is that you know atleast 5 people who worked at the site or lived within the boundries of the town with these issues. They did Asbestosis health checks, why not PFAS Monitoring (clue: £££££)?

9. Confirm which of your products contain PFAS chemicals currently and historically, detailing which chemicals are or were used in each, and when those products were manufactured and tested;

In a CA Report obtained from the EA, Angus Fire had to be ordered to provide these details, they then had to be told to add to it.
In July 2023 Angus Fire was told it was using PHFxS which was to be banned in November 2023.
January 2024 comes around and the announcement that the foam plant is to be shut. hmmm.
Ideal timing that, and it's shut even though the firm is not "manufacturing any type of foam anywhere in the world" (I wonder who is for them though?) yet they are selling Flourine free foam (F3).... errrr....

10. Confirm when you stopped manufacturing products containing PFAS chemicals;

They don't want you to know this, as you will then see the inconsistancy of their statements. - We'll go through these statements in our next blog.
"Angus Fire has not breached any rules in terms of the PFAS it has produced or tested at its Bentham site, and it stopped testing PFAS foams there in 2022. A spokesperson for the firm said: “It should be noted that the understanding and regulation of PFAS chemicals has evolved over time and Angus has always sought to fully comply with its regulatory obligations. Angus Fire customers were able to procure training foam to train their firefighters which do not contain PFAS chemicals.”
11-09-2024
so, is Angus Fire trying to tell us that they didn't need to sell the AFFF as they had foam with no PFAS? has Angus Fire made a freudian slip? Are they saying that the Fire Service could have purchased PFAS free foam to use at it's fire colleges (such as Morton in Marsh), I wonder if there was any sort of incentive not to so that Angus didn't have a stock of PFAS foam when the deadline to stop selling came into affect..... I mean it wouldn't be the first time.....

"Angus is working urgently, and indeed has been doing so for a number of years, to establish the extent of any PFAS contamination on its Bentham site. It is a complex matter, as the site is large and has been in operation for generations. The site characterisation is being carried out by independent, industry leading consultants and in co-operation with the EA and the local community has been updated regularly. We follow all relevant regulations governing waste disposal.
Any historic breaches have been investigated, and our procedures reviewed and Improved to prevent reoccurance.
Bentham: Town has highest level of 'forever' chemicals in UK Westmorland Gazette

The site may have been in operation for "generations", but lets face facts, it seems to have been in a state of disrepair for many of those too...

11. Confirm how you disposed of manufacturing and testing waste products;

This one won't be answered due to the failures (or lack there of) in their "systems", the lack of training of staff. All of these have been mentioned as breaches by the EA to the firm.

12 .Explain what the lagoons currently being investigated by the Environment

Agency were used for over the course of their lifetime, and what they are used for now;
This will not be answered as Angus Fire don't want you know that it was discharged into the Wenning and the Sewer system (public).
There is also the question of where did the effluent go when it was transported to the Angus Morecombe Building between 1976 and the mid 1990's? My bets the River.

13. Confirm your current understanding of the risks to human health, animal life and the environment posed by the manufacture and use of C6 based foams (which we understand Angus Fire still produces and sells), and provide the evidence that underpins that understanding, including any studies undertaken by AISG;

Angus Fires C6 (carbon 6 string) or Flourine Free (F3) has the same danger to aquatic life that the C8 PFAS based foam did. Angus have done no testing on how it affects human health, and they won't, but we can bet 20 years down the line we get the same or similar health issues for our childrens children. Angus Fire also wants too look at Silicon based foam Silicon is another product that is great until it breaks down and gets into the human (or animal) system.

14. If AISG has not conducted its own studies into the effects on human health animal life, and the environment of C6 based foams confirm whether it intends to do so.

Angus Fire like any other chemical company will not do tests to see their new products affects on human health, the simple reason is they don't have to. We know chemicals are dangerous, the same as cars are, but manufacturers of cars have to safety test them, Pharmacitcal Companies have to test their products, but chemical companies are allowed to pollute our air, our ground, the rivers and aquifer, yet their products are not regulated properly, if at all! 
This has to change so that unscroupulous people cannot take advantage of towns like Bentham, their workers or a towns population again..

In my opinion, companies like Angus Fire will never be transparent, if they were they would have to tell you things like;
we knew since 2001 that PFAS were dangerous,
we looked at going to Flourine free foams in 2001 yet they still sold foams that cause ill health for another 23 years,
we refused to co-operate with the EA in 2003 hiding behind "foams formulas are propriatry information",
we failed to tell independant contractors about PFAS contamination,
we failed to fix our drain system,
We pumped toxic waste into the water course and the sewers
because all this would cost them money... and all because "I am alright jack, then alls good".