Lies, damn lies and photomontages or
if a picture paints a thousand words,
what if they are all untrue?

> Background to dispute

> EIA details - What was offered
(Environmental Impact Assessment)

This photograph used on SLEG publicity and on it's website is not, in fact, part of the 1952 Permission owned by Bleaklow. Thus work shown will not be stopped by revocation of that 52 Permission. The picture is of an area owned by a completely different company granted permission by the Peak Park as recently as 2004 which allows the winning of limestone as well as fluorspar thus proving the point we have been making since 1988.

These alarmist photomontages attempt to raise the temperature even further. Yet SLEG must know, since they fought against it, that the ROMP application of 1997 pledged not to work these areas. In the Environmental Impact Assessment which Peak Park have had since 2000 these areas were specifically excluded from working - see map with exclusions marked in gold. It is not possible for anyone to make a rational appraisal based on these untruths and exaggerations.

SLEG have spent the last 9 years maintaining that we have been working illegally. They have harangued the Peak Park into spending huge amounts of public money trying, so far without success, to prove this. Now they say the government should revoke the 52 permission and pay compensation. Surely they are not asking for compensation to be paid to cease unlawful workings. Do they now say we have these legal rights or not?

The imaginary views from the villages and the mention of "the value of your house" make clear what is really going on here. Is it right that the government should spend tax payers money to revoke one set of property rights to protect another set of private property rights?