18th August 2019
Established 1872. Online since 1996.

Watch – Eco-strike marches to Town Hall

The environmental group Eco Youth Shetland have led around 100 pupils from the new Anderson High to the Town Hall on Friday morning.

Replete with hi-vis jackets, the group chanted for climate justice as they marched up Hayfield Lane and down Cockatoo Brae.

Pupils from the Brae and Aith schools also took part, as well as bairns from the Sound Primary School.

SIC chief executive Maggie Sandison was waiting to greet the protesters outside the Town Hall, alongside councillors such as Stephen Leask, Emma Macdonald and SIC leader Steven Coutts.

The group were then invited inside the Town Hall to outline their demands to the council. They will ask the Shetland Islands Council to declare a climate emergency, as Orkney Islands Council did earlier this year.

 

 

Tags:

About Ryan Nicolson

View other stories by »

107 comments

  1. Saul Ritchie

    What an amazing turnout, thanks to everyone who participated. 👏🏻🙌🏻

    Reply
  2. David Spence

    As long as people in power put the value of money ahead of anything else (capitalism) then we will never cease to destroying the planet until mother nature herself decides for us.

    For the life of the planet no amount of money can compare to what mother nature gives us.

    Earth’s nemesis is our banking systems and what they represent.

    As the Bibles says Timothy 6, 10 ‘ For the Love of Money is the root of all kinds of evil ‘.

    Reply
  3. Rosa Steppanova

    I’d very much like to read the rest of Johan Adamson’s comment but can’t find it here.

    Reply
  4. Peter Long

    Involving children in the spread of propaganda mirrors the ways of Chairman Mao and his ‘cultural revolution’. It is an increasing trend in UK and one we should surely reject.

    Reply
    • Stuart Hannay

      So, instead we should indoctrinate them in the ways of continued, pointless consumerism that is managing to waste resources and destroy the environment? Why is this behaviour any more ‘normal’? These are intelligent young people who know their own minds, ones who can be bothered to get up and make their voices heard.

      Reply
      • Peter Long

        I didn’t advocate consumerism though. Children should not be pushed into anything, including consumption.

      • Ali Inkster

        But they weren’t protesting consumerism they were protesting climate change, they were all turned out in plastic clothes and mobile phones to get a lift home to sit and play on their xbox. They’re told that the older generation have destroyed the planet by a generation of teachers and popstars that have not even bothered to check out a few facts or question the dogma they spout.
        We are infact living through a time in the history of life on this planet of dangerously low levels of CO2. In fact every other time levels have been this low it has been a time of mass extinction. If we are raising CO2 levels with industrial activity then maybe it is just as well.
        The battery in a tesla car creates as much CO2 during its production than a comparable petrol engine will produce in 8 years of driving.
        So everything is not as it is being presented to the youth of today, just as our generation were kept in place with the threat of global armageddon from nuclear war this generation is being kept in place with global warming.
        The reason the older generation are skeptical, they’ve seen it all before.

      • Brian Smith

        You’ve been reading the Mail again, Ali!

      • Ian Tinkler

        For goodness sake, Brian, learn some basic simple science and stop the socialist dogma. Daily Mail!! grow up. Ask yourself the following question, how does today’s Global Warming compare with the Global Warming scientifically after and during the Second Ice Age? Anyone who cannot answer that question is too ignorant to hold an informed opinion on today’s climate change.

    • john oakes

      Stops PC Plod and the band of merry men, from going in with batons to quell the grown-ups waffling on about, why their leader Comrade Corbyn inspires them with his words.

      Reply
      • ian Tinkler

        How about giving them a half decent education concentrating on science (STEM) subjects. Then they would have an informed and considered opinion, not just the usual Greenwash so popular with the ignorant. If gifted they may even go on to contribute with useful research and technological ideas so unlike are present green, ignorant and wholly ill-informed flock in the council chamber

  5. David Spence

    An area of industry which has not been looked into with any proper statistical information is this of Agriculture. This industry produces more green house gases than the all of transportation. In fact, it is several times greater than transportation.

    The catch 22 scenario is this industry has had no regulation or legislation is regard to reducing greenhouse gases, infact, due to population growth, the pollution created by agriculture is vastly on the increase. Technology has played its part, but it is a situation where reducing pollution is very, very difficult to achieve given the nature of the industry itself.

    As the population increases, this will become more relevant in terms of the overall pollution created, and no doubt, something will have to be done. Whether sea based farming of certain foods may reduce the pollution, but much of agriculture is still based on land and the production of meat will still create problems related to greenhouse gases in terms of land used for meat production and/or crop production as well.

    It is a dilemma which will become more relevant as the population increases.

    Reply
  6. Johan Adamson

    I can assure you these bairns weren’t pushed into anything. They were told if they wanted to go they had to complete a form. One of mine wanted to go, the other didn’t. One asked a question at the Town Hall and I am very proud – not that she had to protest – but that she had the courage to do so, and silence many there. Well done young folk – out of the mouths of babes as they say.

    Reply
    • Ian Tinkler

      It hardly takes any courage to join a protest, especially one being encouraged and congratulated on by so many folk! The courage comes from not following the crowd/herd and forming an independent and educated view. Jumping headlong onto the bandwagon is easy, understanding the science and striving to do something about it the hard bit. Joining a not fully educated and scientifically ignorant caucus is just so stupid. Especially a meaningless strike from school, what child would not love a day off among mates? No doubt the pig ignorant and stupid will be so impressed. A bit like supergluing yourself tp a bus or train, outstanding!!!

      Reply
      • Johan Adamson

        I didnt say it took courage to join a protest, I said it takes courage to speak at the Town Hall. And if it was about time off school, they all would have gone. Please have more respect for our bairns and young folk. And these bairns are, for your information, studying the stem subjects at school.

    • Ian Tinkler

      It is not a case of having respect for the bairns, Johan Adamson. It is just a case of having absolutely no respect whatsoever for those who politicise them and drive them like sheep. Primary children used in a political strike!! Repulsive behaviour, you should be ashamed, so socialist, child exploitation is the words that come to mind. They had to complete a form, primary children! What next, form a political Union and become militant? Little Orwellian sheep bleating for the Pigs.

      Reply
      • Johan Adamson

        These were AHS pupils Ian, not primary pupils, and no one has politicised them. Educated them yes, but then I forgot you have the monopoly on climate change education and stem subjects. The organisers were I think over 16, so young adults.

      • Mr ian Tinkler

        Read the article Johan before making an incorect comment “as well as bairns from the Sound Primary School.”. The organisers were I think over 16, so young adults. So you think 16-year-olds alone organised this! I would love to know who was controlling them and involved primary children from other schools? I thank you for your comment “I forgot you have the monopoly on climate change education and stem subjects” I was unaware your comment could be that infantile.
        The fact is I will always criticise revolting behaviour (child exploitation for political reasons) and ignorance and I am not referring to the children.

      • Johan Adamson

        Yes I do believe sixth year pupils are capable of organising this

      • Johan Adamson

        Why do you assume Ian that these bairns are not studying stem subjects and that only you know about climate change then Ian? Infantile comments? Pot kettle springs to mind.

      • ian tinkler

        I shudder at the thought of politically motivated 16-year-old adults coercing primary children into strike action! Regarding organisation skills, and STEM knowledge I assume nothing Johan, I know these youngsters simply have not the knowledge at primary level to have anything but the most basic scientific knowledge on any subject. Climatology is a multi-science study and below undergraduate level, no one, however bright can have a well-informed opinion. At 16, has one of these children a “Higher” in any STEM subject? I doubt that very much.
        Regarding infantile comment, I am not the one here peddling sarcasm, just the one peddling opinion based on facts
        Now just who printed these forms the children had to fill in? Which teachers OKed the strike and arrange for Brae and Aith schools also took part, as well as bairns from the Sound Primary School and organised and paid for transport? I do not believe that was AHS sixteen-year-olds for one second.

  7. John Tulloch

    Whether by accident or design this provides a very convenient fig leaf for the council’s lamentable performance on child poverty.

    Much was made of the “children’s march” at the SIC’s education committee meeting today however in a news report about the part of the same meeting that dealt with the council’s child poverty action report, it was clear that the council have done next to nothing since the Shetland Inequalities Commission reported in March 2016.

    Reply
  8. Peter Hamilton

    It hardly takes any courage for Ian to disparage youngsters he doesn’t
    know. All these admirable young citizens are guilty of is taking a stand based on commonly accepted information.

    I could ask what special knowledge does Ian think he has that allows him to lord it over them… but nerves fail me.

    On Ian’s earlier point, it is self-evident that we need some people with a high level of competence in STEM subjects who can take critical stand on matters scientific.

    Gaining some depth in the Arts and Humanities, however, increases the likelihood of developing sensitivity and compassion, concern for humanity and the future of our planet, self-awareness and insight into common human foibles, hubris and self-aggrandisement included!

    Learners on this path can also become alert to common logical fallacies. Even those who like Ian, with a preference for physical sciences, can benefit.

    Happily don’t need to be much of a scholar to spot an ad hominem attack. With all due respect for Ian’s past achievements in the physical sciences, it would be nice if he could make his points without belittling others – kids included. That’s a normal standard “of decency and tolerance” btw.

    Reply
  9. Ian Tinkler

    I so agree with these word “gaining some depth in the Arts and Humanities, however, increases the likelihood of developing sensitivity and compassion, concern for humanity and the future of our planet, self-awareness and insight into common human foibles, hubris and self-aggrandisement included!”. You do so hold yourself in such regard high Peter, now go glue yourself to a train or bus to prove your point!

    Reply
  10. ian tinkler

    Further to the above, a simple fact, this is just nonsense, the aim of this strike is that “Shetland Islands Council to declare a climate emergency “! Now just what will that achieve?
    Just political tokenism so loved by the by foolish, now how about promoting birth control, that could achieve so much more! After all, human overpopulation is the single biggest threat to the planet.
    One cannot help that but feel these pointless protestors are rather like lemmings rushing headlong towards the cliff, that would be a fair scientific analogy.
    Now to keep Peter the Great happy with his Humanities and Arty side!
    But just at that moment, as though at a signal, all the sheep burst out into a tremendous bleating of- “Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better! Four legs good, two legs better!” It went on for five minutes without stopping. And by the time the sheep had quieted down, the chance to utter any protest had passed, for the pigs had marched back into the farmhouse ”.

    Reply
    • Johan Adamson

      And what are you doing Ian to save the planet? And what would you suggest the AHS and the SIC do?

      Reply
  11. Peter Hamilton

    Ad Hominem attacks – playing the man not the ball – are often used by those who don’t have much of an argument to begin with. Instead of dealing with whether the young people have a point or not, generous-spirited Ian opted to have a go instead.

    Logical fallacies show lazy thinking, masking an absence of creativity and independent thought. Ian’s trollswipe above looks Ad Hominem in approach st first, but he is also using the Tu Quoque Fallacy. This is where you accuse the opponent of hypocrisy to avoid answering their charge. Self-effacing Ian thus avoids addressing the possibility of his own hubris or lack of self-knowledge.

    Should I have made things easier for him and asked what his actual beef with the climate protestors was? He says “Joining a not fully educated and scientifically ignorant caucus is just so stupid” (such a tolerant word, erudite too) and demands that everyone should be able to answer “how does today’s Global Warming compare with the Global Warming scientifically after and during the Second Ice Age?” before taking a view.

    Perhaps he will educate us by answering his own question – sticking to terms that demonstrate tolerance and decency of course.

    Reply
  12. Mr ian Tinkler

    And what are you doing Ian to save the planet? I have personally planted 2000 plus trees, vociferously campaigned against environmental destruction (VE, Hs2, third Heathrow runway.) Exposed the con of Biomass (woodchip burning 10 times more polluting CO2 than gas!) Previous member of Royal Zoological society and Jersey Wildlife Trust and set up and run a wildlife Croft (25 years plus) That’s just a start. The SIC should take no note whatsoever of any person without an informed and educated view on Green issues (ideally with a STEM background). Stop following the ignorant and political fads. Stop endorsing big business disguised as climate-friendly for example VE et al.
    Nuclear Free Council, Declair Climate emergency, climate justice what a load of utter bunkum. Especially stop allowing political activists to exploit our children.

    Reply
  13. David Spence

    I put forward the question : Is nuclear power the only solution to stop greenhouse gas emissions and the only way to stop climate change progressing further?

    It may be the worse case scenario in terms of our power demand solution, but what are the alternatives to our demand for energy without causing further environmental and ecological damage to the planet by in using fossil fuels or cleaner alternatives like wind or solar (how much land would be required to power a city of several million?)?

    It has been suggested the Sahara Desert could be used for solar energy to power Europe, but how much land would be required and could this be expanded?

    The alternatives to fossil fuels may be cleaner, but how would this affect global weather patterns or the depletion of species due to the destruction of natural habitats being replaced for energy production?

    Reply
    • ian tinkler. Dr.

      David, nuclear is potentially by far the least environmentally damaging option for vast energy production. Thorium fission reactors are not the stuff of science fiction. India already has a prototype reactor up and running. Producing mini thorium (modular reactors) would supply almost infinite clean energy. Humanity is probably ten years away from such reactors becoming commercially viable if sufficient research funds are allocated. Regarding our Green brothers and sisters, sadly most are too ignorant to do more than throw their hands up in horror at the words “nuclear fission”.
      Perhaps are cleanest short term option (especially for Shetland) is natural gas. That is one-tenth as CO2 polluting as oil or biomass( wood chip) burning without the need do deforest. The daftest thing is we import woodchip with a vast CO2 footprint and export relatively clean gas for others to burn! All this while our school children are politicised by the Green lobby encourage to climate strikes!
      Very sadly the SG/SNP has committed to wind energy with its catastrophic environmental damage and only intermittent supply, but that is the policy of the scientifically ignorant and utterly stupid.

      Reply
      • David Spence

        Thank you for your comments, Ian.

        I fear humanity will have no choice but to go nuclear for its energy production in the future.

        Alternative resources, like wind or solar, may be the short term answer, but as mentioned, the downside to this is the large amount of land which will be required with the ability to vastly expand as demand increases. What would be the environmental damage and the destabilization of life on the planet have in the long term with such technologies?

        There is also the issue of economics dictating progress on future energy production, and would this be counter-productive due profits taking priority over progress and the reduction of the pollution into the environment?

        I agree with your comments Ian, in regard to nuclear based energy production. However, like many issues to do with progress, something catastrophic will have to take place before we realize we should have acted sooner.

  14. Peter Hamilton

    There it is again, the abusive and arguably ignorant use of that word “stupid”.

    Having reread all contributions above it seems Ali denies there’s a problem by saying there are dangerously low CO2 levels, John distracts by arguing the council should care more for child poverty, and Ian disparages, disparages and disparages again.

    Are all three attempting to harmonise from the same alt-right reactionary hymn-sheet?

    Ian’s singular approach is getting between him and his key message. I’ve long been puzzling as to what makes the good doctor so determined to overuse petty insult so freely, but it would be helpful to know just what (other than young people having a say) his specific problem with climate change protests is.

    If he could but answer his own Ice Age question to Brian (not the movie kids), his motive might become a little clearer.

    And apologies in advance to Ian if he has already made his point and I’ve missed it, but it wasn’t me who thought it smart to surround it with invective.

    Wouldn’t it be just lovely if Ian could contribute tolerantly without using putdowns? It’s almost as though he needs them to build himself up… Oh. Hold on… Eureka!

    Reply
    • Ian Tinkler

      “Are all three attempting to harmonise from the same alt-right reactionary hymn-sheet?” What a plonker, Peter, just cannot resist going political. Is this Labour or SNP talking, he often points in both directions or is he now Green?

      Reply
  15. Mark Ryan Smith

    Maybe the characters on here who hate the idea of young people protesting about climate change should head down to the school and start shouting some of this stuff over the wall. But, then again, that might make them see . . . well . . . insane.

    Folk writing to the paper to have a go at the protesters is one of the most depressing contributions to local public debate imaginable. Hopefully, though, the usual naysayers (if young people actually read anything they write) will only encourage them to do it more.

    Reply
    • Michael Garriock

      There’s nothing wrong with anyone, of any age, having an opinion on whatever they like, and expressing it. But in their own time, only.

      The problem with this is that participation in this protest was permitted and facilitated, if not encouraged by the education authority, which by default is an endorsement of the opinion(s) being expressed in the protest and the timing/method by which the protest was made, by the education authority.

      Education authorities and schools are supposed to be impartial, by granting ‘authorised absence’ status to a politically motivated protest, that impartiality is now seriously called in to question and a dangerous precedent has been set.

      There was no reason other than a cynical publicity stunt for this protest to take place during the school day. If those still at school feel strongly enough to organise a protest like adults do, that’s fine, let them, but also like adults, it’ll have to happen in their own time, or they suffer the consequences of ‘unauthorised absence’, for it to be taken seriously.

      If they want to play in the big bad world, they play by the big bad world’s rules, not by special favours like this was.

      Reply
      • Brian Smith

        Only a few nutters are ‘impartial’ about climate change these days.

      • Johan Adamson

        Do you mean that civil disobedience would have been better?

  16. Peter Hamilton

    Well said Mark! The evident concern trolling (distracting expression of fake concern) is intended to deligitimise the voice of young people who, lets remember, are meant by right to have a say in matters that concern them.

    Scotland’s national curriculum intends younger learners become active and responsible global citizens. Therefore no one involved in supporting the reported protest has done any wrong, other than in the eyes of seemingly knee-jerk reactionaries who may well be hiding their true motives.

    Artfully comparing these identifiable young people to Orwell’s unthinking farm animals, in order to subvert their point… well it more than lacks sensitivity and compassion. It is desperate, pitiful and contemptible in equal measure. It may well also fall foul of observing normal standards of decency and tolerance that contributors to these pages are meant to adhere to.

    Those joining the protest were not “stupid”, as has been claimed above. The overuse of that intolerant word may be though.

    Reply
  17. Ian Tinkler

    Orwell’s sheep were not stupid Peter, just ignorant of the knowledge needed for an informed opinion. just victims of false teaching, (propaganda) and exhibiting flock behaviour, rather like the socialist masses. Mark puts forward no intelligent argument whatsoever, just the throwing of the insult “insane” a typical ignorant comment. I seriously doubt if he has the remotest knowledge of Thorium reactors, climate change anything related to atmospheric gasses or like yourself a scientifical illiterate arty type.
    I note you mention “Scotland’s national curriculum intends younger learners become active and responsible global citizens.” now could you explain how taking time off school and striking for the declaration of a climate emergency makes the child an active and responsible global citizen? I rather feel they are being played by our Greeny ignoramuses and SNP political propagandists! Never mind, I am sure they enjoyed their day off school.

    Reply
  18. Haydn Gear

    Nuclear power? That great physicist Robert Oppenheimer , on seeing the first atomic bomb explode said with horror—-“ I am become death , the destroyer of worlds.”. The people of Japan and Chernobyl have had a taster and I suspect they are not eager for a repeat. .However, if Shetland is…………..Hmm. Rock on.

    Reply
    • Mr ian Tinkler

      Haydn, Thorium reactors, not Uranium! no atom bombs, no long term isotopes decaying for millennia. Almost infinite clean energy with really cheap fuel.

      Reply
      • Ray Purchase

        Where would your preferred site be for the Shetland nuclear power station be Dr Tinkler? Aith? Bigton? Would bring plenty work to the west side. You could include it in your manifesto if you stand for the council again.

      • Ian Tinkler

        Well, Ray Purchase, it is already here. Thousands of Shetlanders have had radiotherapy and had their lives saved by a nuclear/atomic reactions of one type or another. I seriously doubt if there is a single person on Shetland who has not had their own, a member of their family or close friends life saved by the products of nuclear reactors. Are you so moronic as to deny that or is that a bit too deep for you to understand or?

    • Ray Purchase

      Oh dear Dr Tinkler, it seems you’ve come down with a nasty case of whataboutery. I didn’t ask you about the undoubted benefits of x-rays and radiotherapy; I asked you where you would build a nuclear power station in Shetland. Now do you think you could give a straight answer to a straight question? Physician heal thyself!

      Reply
      • Ian Tinkler

        Firstly Ray, I never advised a nuclear power station for Shetland. What I said was nuclear is potentially by far the least environmentally damaging option for vast energy production. Thorium fission reactors are not the stuff of science fiction.” I elaborated further “Humanity is probably ten years away from such reactors becoming commercially viable”. Perhaps are cleanest short term option (especially for Shetland) is natural gas. That is one-tenth as CO2 polluting as oil or biomass( wood chip) burning without the need to deforest. The daftest thing is we import woodchip with a vast CO2 footprint and export relatively clean gas for others to burn!”
        I am sure you can read, Ray, understanding seems to be your problem. Please note, I did not advise a nuclear power station for Shetland. Perhaps a modular Thorium reactor if viable in ten years or so.
        If thorium proves viable, I would be happy for such a station in Lerwick. Safe, clean, small and less damaging than the district heating woodchip waste burner we have at present and infinitely less toxic. I also asked is that a bit too deep for you to understand? ” So it seems to be!!

    • Ray Purchase

      Well done Ian, you answered the question! There was a lot of unnecessary waffling and needless aggression but you got there. So, in the incredibly unlikely event of a, totally safe, nuclear power plant being built in Shetland you’d still want it as far away from where you live as possible. Fair dos.

      Instead of nuclear power or gas have you ever put any thought into wind power? I’ve heard that they don’t cause any carbon pollution at all, so they’d be ideal. They’re very pretty too and scientific. Like an actual windmill, I’m a big fan.

      Reply
      • Ian Tinkler

        Sadly Ray, you are being misled. take Viking for example. Peat disturbance alone. over 100 kilometres of tracks, the ground footprint of over 30 square kilometres. A fair amount of CO2 released there. Then tens of thousands of tons of concrete basses. (Cement is the source of about 8% of the world’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, Chatham House). 269 kilometres of the interconnector, Copper plastic!!! Now just imagine the peat is so unstable that helicopters are being used, just to move survey teams to reconnoitre the site. Tracked vehicles to damaging for the peat!! (BAM Ritchies). Just what is that carbon footprint? Laughable if it was not so sad!

  19. Ian Tinkler

    Peter Hamilton, can you not read? I never called the children stupid! My words ” Joining a not fully educated and scientifically ignorant caucus is just so stupid”. That is not calling the children stupid but their actions as stupid. A strike from school most certainly is, both pointless and stupid.
    Orwell never claimed his animals unthinking! The sheep represented the ignorant, uneducated, socialist masses, not just the stupid. I reserve the word stupid to those who supported and encouraged those youngsters to strike and skip school.
    How something you and Mark Ryan Smith may understand. The very latest scientific information on controlling climate change “Tree planting ‘has mind-blowing potential’ to tackle climate crisis” (Todays Guardian, Nation Geographic and BBC ), now would not planting a tree be a more rational action for these children? That would be the sensible, intelligent and educated option. PS, could someone please inform the SIC/SNP/SCT and Green Lunatics!

    Reply
  20. Mr ian Tinkler

    No one here has denied climate change Brian Smith. Just a discussion on the merits or otherwise of the School children’s strike. Our youngsters being encouraged to jump on the “Greta Thunberg” bandwagon. There you really do have a sacrificial lamb to the European Green lunatics but that is another really sad story!

    Reply
    • Brian Smith

      You must read more carefully, Mr T.

      Reply
      • Ian Tinkler

        Well, Brian, I have never denied Climate change. I just dispute the best way to combat it.

      • Peter Hamilton

        Deft footwork here from Ian. His, and his hero Farage’s position – not that he cares to own up to it – is not that there is no climate change. Obviously the climate changes over time. What he is conveniently avoiding are the questions around cause and appropriate response.

    • ian tinkler

      Please do not make up speculative little stories/porkies Peter. Farage is not my hero, however, I find him infinitely preferable to Corbyn and Salmond, however, here is not the place to digress further.

      Reply
  21. Peter Hamilton

    Will Hell freeze over before Ian tells us what he presumes the protestors are ignorant of? Answering the question he posed Brian is not too mammoth a task for him surely.

    I suspect he is trying to dodge it for a reason.

    Reply
    • Ian Tinkler

      Read and weep Peter. If your intellect stretches that far. !! In the most simple of Science, It is set out below. The protestors are ignorant of the very most basic understanding of carbon capture and the prevention of climate change. Trees!! Only the very most utterly stupid, like yourself cannot see the wood for them!

      Reply
  22. Ian Tinkler

    What is incredibly sad her is that natural carbon capture (trees), would erase 100 years of carbon emissions. What does the SG/SIC and SNP do, delivers thousands of pounds in grants to set up a wood chip plant on Shetland (North Fish). I use the word stupid, this is beyond stupid, utterly moronic.
    North Fish’s new biomass plant makes wood pellets and supplies heat from burning wood to the Lerwick District Heating Scheme.
    Now we really do see Green Lunatics at work. NB BBC “Most wood energy schemes are a ‘disaster’ for climate change”
    https://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2014/05/13/funding-to-turn-up-the-heat-at-gremista
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39053678

    Reply
  23. Peter Hamilton

    It is not clear the protest had a position on biomass, however Ian has firmly stated the need for those taking any position to be able to answer “how does today’s Global Warming compare with the Global Warming scientifically after and during the Second Ice Age?”

    Ian has thus far excitedly cited three articles, none of which reference any ice age.

    The first: “Tree planting ‘has mind-blowing potential’ to tackle climate crisis”, has Professor Crowther emphasising “it remains vital to reverse the current trends of rising greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and forest destruction, and bring them down to zero… this is needed to stop the climate crisis becoming even worse and because the forest restoration envisaged would take 50-100 years to have its full effect…”

    Reafforestation, necessary as it is, isn’t no silver bullet, nor a speedy enough solution, though many on the protest would likely love to plant some trees.

    The second and third articles focus on biomass, which is contested.

    To help Ian make his point, does he mean the Cryogenian, the second last ice age or the Little Ice Age?

    Again, other than to spread scorn and belittle, what is Ian’s actual point?

    Reply
  24. ian tinkler

    Sorry if my point is beyond you Peter. My question ” “how does today’s Global Warming compare with the Global Warming scientifically after and during the Second Ice Age?” That would require a thesis at post-graduate level to answer. Hardly space here! My point was that these children simple to not have the science to have a considered and informed opinion based on knowledge. The science is actually simple, I suggest you look it up and read it.

    Reply
  25. Peter Hamilton

    Lest anyone thinking of studying the sciences, physical or social, be put off, Ian’s approach to advancing a scientific argument is far from typical.

    Thomas Kuhn made a very useful contribution by proposing that as a science advances some innaccurate claims will inevitably be made and indeed built on, but will later be corrected as sufficient contrary evidence emerges. Hawkins himself corrected some of his own foundational work.

    A settled consensus generally emerges over time through reasonable and reasoned dialogue and argument in which peer reviewed sources, research evidence and the thinking they provoke are made apparent.

    This is perhaps one reason why the Shetland Times asks contributors to observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others. It helps to bring forth the truth.

    It is, however, more than unusual for anyone taking themselves seriously to make a strong central scientific claim then refuse to back it up, clarify it’s meaning or intent… unless of course Ian is proposing rhetoric, cant and distracting insult are now sciences, in which case top marks are due to the happy fellow.

    Reply
  26. Ian Tinkler

    What a load of pretentious twaddle. You have outdone yourself here Peter. The word Science simply means knowledge, no more no less. It is just as simple as that.

    Reply
  27. Peter Hamilton

    Whilst he remains intent on running away from clarifying and substantiating his own point, here is an easier question for Ian:

    Why does he call Greens lunatics?

    There must be some point of disagreement between him and them, in his own head at least.

    Reply
    • ian tinkler

      That would be self-evident Peter. Read up the following. Bio-Fuels, palm oil plantation. Diesel fuel promotions, particulates. Germany non-nuclearpolicy, brown coal burning. Shetland exports clean gas imports polluting wood chip. Tree planting reverses CO2 build up, wood chip more polluting than coal burning and deforests huge areas. The EU 64% of renewable, Biomass (wood chip). Greenies promote non-nuclear. more people killed in wind farm accidents in Uk than nuclear ever has. All the above would indicate a somewhat lunatic approach from the Greens. Now we have, using helicopters to survey Viking Energy sites as peat too unstable for tracked vehicles to reach, unbelievable!!! I hate to say the cult of “Greta Thunberg”, depression, eating disorders, and anxiety attacks, Asperger’s syndrome, high-functioning autism, and OCD. She also suffers from selective mutism and self-harm. The sacrificial lamb of the Greens across Europe. The inspiration behind the school strikes!!!!! Now if that’s not lunatic, what is?

      Reply
  28. Peter Hamilton

    Ian’s position on global warming is either well grounded or is, well, hot air. He knows how this goes. Either he has a reputable theorist publishing an article in a reputable journal, or even a weblink to a news story referencing such, or he doesn’t.

    Because some vested interests have bought and paid for their own pet scientists (remember the tobacco industry) there may be different opinions regarding whatever his as yet unclear point was with his unnamed and undated second ice age. If he really wants to be taken seriously he should put up or… consider his alternative.

    C’mon Ian, one reference to one reputable scientist backing up whatever it is you so obviously don’t want to say. You know you can do it.

    Reply
  29. David Spence

    I am would be intrigued to opinions relating to climate change due to agriculture and what would be the answer to providing food but reducing or stopping climate change due to agriculture.

    I may be wrong but I believe agriculture produces 6 times more greenhouse gases than all of transportation put together, but this has, conveniently, been avoided by the media and scientific community.

    There is a terrible dilemma between producing food to this of attempting to reduce green houses gases and the progressive climate change taking place?

    Reply
  30. Johan Adamson

    Both Ian and Greta Thunberg are right tho. We are not taking climate change seriously enough and we are confused. One minute providing grants to preserve Shetland’s peat carbon store, and the next proposing digging acres of it up, releasing all that carbon, to build Viking. Giving out paper straws in McDonalds with juice in a plastic cup (?).

    I mind asking (I think it was the Amenity Trust) about planting trees on my croft. They said ‘oh we dont want these clumps of trees any more, not our landscape’, when I had always thought tree planting was good. Such a mixed message. Why dont we have a green rating system like we have for our washing machines. You could rate biomass, nuclear, windfarms from construction to operation in terms of green to red, so we would know where we are in the scale with our choices.

    Any way, still have a patch of high hill that would be great for a mini woods

    Reply
    • Ian Tinkler

      The Amenity Trust is hobbled by its political master/mistress The SG/SNP. Funds are available for peat preservation, a tiny amount, relative to the massive funds/subsidies made available for peat destruction (Windfarms). Funds are available, tiny amount, for tree planting, a tiny amount compared to the many millions for deforestation, Biofuels, woodchip. Biomass funds/subsidies again al. Green lunacy and stupid, scientifically illiterate politicians. The SNP seems to have the monopoly of the ignorant ones!!!! The present SIC has quite a few as well.
      I referenced Greta with a very heavy heart, a truly exploited child whose background would fire concern with any child specialist in the UK, psychologist or Social worker.

      Reply
    • John Tulloch

      Sorry, Johan, who isn’t “taking climate change seriously”?

      Theresa May and the Tories are taking it very seriously, indeed, passing Mrs May’s unilateral “2050 net zero” plan into law.

      The Treasury says it will cost over £1 trillion (£1,000,000,000,000!), enough to fund the salaries of 314,000 nurses for 100 years.

      Too little for Greta Thunberg and her “Extinction Rebellion pals, apparently.

      This will find its way on to consumers’ electricity bills, including those in fuel poverty, a clear majority of homes in Shetland – 53 percent, before the recent price hikes.

      The Shetland Labour Party that I grew up with was concerned with alleviating poverty, not creating it. They were not interested in winning “Green Blue Peter Badges” for futile, bourgeois bagatelles like”tackling climate change”, without any hope of success.

      Britain, far less, Shetland, can achieve nothing alone.

      The only candidate to exhibit concern for Shetland’s poor is Ian Scott.

      Reply
      • Johan Adamson

        Im confused. You state that the Tories are proposing 2050 net zero and then you say Labour creating poverty. I am very seriously concerned about fuel poverty everywhere and especially in Shetland. I hope that there are no price hikes in our fuel bills, this is something we need to resist, and I also hope more help is forthcoming for retrofitting better heating systems and more insulation to improve housing quality. Please do not try to tell me what I believe.

      • John Tulloch

        Johan,

        I don’t recall you ever mentioning fuel poverty before.

        Do you support or oppose “2050 net zero”, which was done in knee-jerk response to the campaigns of Greta Thunberg and her pals “Extinction Rebellion”?

        Only, you have been supporting Ms Thunberg’s “climate emergency” campaign at local level, have you not?

        Mrs May’s 314,00 nurses salaries for 100 years isn’t “emergency” enough for them, they want more.

        You can huff and puff as much as you like, the cost will find its way to the fuel poor, increasing their number.

        I put it to you that you cannot simultaneously support Greta Thunberg AND the fuel poor, whom you have now mentioned for the first time.

        Mr Scott has been arguing for Shetland’s poor since long before he became a councillor.

      • Johan Adamson

        No John I have not been supporting Greta’s campaign locally and yes I have mentioned fuel poverty before and I think I can support greener politics and the poor. It is an important point tho, how we are going to pay for it all. I heard somewhere the Tories are going to pay for it from the proceeds of 5G.

    • John Tulloch

      Johan,

      I responded to your comment above that Greta Thunberg is right (see below).

      You have also defended the Shetland schools strike/“climate emergency” demonstration in this self, same thread.

      I quote:

      “Both Ian and Greta Thunberg are right tho. We are not taking climate change seriously enough…..etc..”

      That sounds awful like you think Mrs May committing 100 years’ worth of 314,000 nurses salaries isn’t “taking climate change seriously enough”?

      If you are now saying that you do not support Greta Thunberg and do wish to tackle Shetland’s lamentable fuel poverty, will you be making a clear, prominent statement to that effect in your campaign literature?

      Including your and Shetland Labour’s proposals for solving the fuel poverty?

      Reply
      • Johan Adamson

        The twisting of my words is really uncalled for, and completely ignoring the main point of my post which is that we need a green rating system to stop you all arguing about what is green and what is not – but then you enjoy the fight too much and would poo poo any system anyway I suppose. Strange move of support from Wir Shetland to Ian Scott (from Arrochar)?

      • John Tulloch

        You’re scraping the barrel, now, Johan, getting personal. After your Up Helly-Aa performance, your comment about “enjoying the fight” is, frankly, a bit rich.

        It appears you are not prepared to make the campaign commitment I suggested. That’s ok.

        I’m not supporting anyone yet as I haven’t heard from all the candidates.

        I merely pointed out that Mr Scott is the only one so far to have shown any real concern for Shetland’s poor. He needs to say more about that.

        Under the present arrangements “climate emergency” will dump on the fuel poor. They have votes, too, of course – more than 50 percent of the electorate.

        Good luck with your campaign.

      • James Henry Gilbert

        Given his concern for the fuel poor John Tulloch will presumably be supporting whichever candidate puts the cancellation of Brexit first and foremost in their manifesto?

        The largest driver of upward pressure on heating bills over the past two years is the devaluation of the pound following the Brexit vote. Greta Thunberg had nothing to do with it. In the event of further declines in the value of the pound post prime minister Johnson/increased hard Brexit probability, the suffering of the fuel poor will continue to worsen as the wholesale price of gas becomes relatively more expensive when purchased in pounds sterling.

        The false dilemma that John Tulloch posed to Johan Adamson could equally well be phrased thus: I put it to you that you cannot simultaneously support Brexit AND the fuel poor.

      • Johan Adamson

        I apologise if I have gotten personal. Be as naesty as du wants, I just cant fathom why you need to be so?

        Breakfast TV only this morning were talking about how the market is not working, people not changing utility supplier and these people paying more as a consequence. Its surely not fair if your contract runs out that they are able to leave you on a higher rate? Action on fuel poverty needs to include tackling the inequalities in the market as well as action to make our houses warmer.

      • John Tulloch

        Ok, Johan. I’ve made my points about fuel poverty and there’s nothing I want to add.

        So forgive me if I don’t digress into bickering about who has or hasn’t been “naesty”.

        Readers may judge.

        Good luck with your campaign.

  31. Peter Hamilton

    Yes, Ian can answer a question when he chooses to. And there is sense in some of what he says. Wind farms on peat, for example, happen when commercial interests chase subsidies, so it is up to governments to get the correct approach. Not all that blame goes at the Green’s door, and they are either correct to claim there is a climate emergency or they are not.

    On the climate emergency Ian’s thoughts can only be guessed at. They have something to do with an ice-age, which is appropriate as progress towards getting him to answer his own question is, as yet, glacial.

    A big problem inside these debates stems from some people get beguiled by fake scientific claims. This is why genuine people making genuine scientific claims are generally happy to back them up by referencing the work of the real scientists involved. This offers folk who may or may not be less expert than Dr. Ian Tinkler (PhD?) some protection from charlatans with an axe to grind.

    Again, if Ian is serious, rather than just being a contraryIan, he will reveal his ice-age source/s. Or would doing so would reveal his actual movitation? C’mon Ian, youknowyouwantto.

    Reply
    • Ian Tinkler

      I actually sent them to the Times. They failed to print them as perhaps regarded as irrelevant pertaining to the school strike. I will do so again so Peter can untwist his knickers.

      Reply
  32. Ian Tinkler

    Abrupt Climate Change During the Last Ice Age
    By: Matthew W. Schmidt (Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX) & Jennifer E. Hertzberg (Department of Oceanography, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX) © 2011
    Global Warming and the Next Ice Age
    Andrew J. Weaver, Claude Hillaire-Marcel*Science 16 Apr 2004:
    How Often Do Ice Ages Happen?
    https://www.livescience.com/58407-how-often-do-ice-ages-happen.html

    Reply
    • Brian Smith

      The book you really should read, Mr T., is The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace Wells. Things are far more precarious than you think.

      Reply
    • Graham Fleming

      Abrupt climate change , at younger dryas for 1300years also because of meteorite strike in Greenland. We still haven’t found a proper way of storing spent nuclear fuel, i can see the repository at Sellafield being under miles of snow (during its lifespan )through the many ice ages to come before it is safe again.The nuclear nonsense was never about cheap and safe electricity it was of course about weapons grade plutonium 10000tons,produced here in Scotland alone,why that amount?when a few tons could polish off the entire planet does anyone know?Do we trust Boris and fruitcake farm with this ,aye right- their record speaks for itself! Maybe the bairns protesting about climate change holds a candle of hope up -(against that lot,cut off from Europe, it will soon be snuffed out, ) -we are all going to need it.

      Reply
      • Ian Tinkler

        Graham Fleming, Thorium breakdown isotopes have short half-lives. Long term storage is nor an issue. Ask a standard grader (Sciences) if that is beyond your understanding.

      • Ian Tinkler

        Incidentally, the global stockpile of separated plutonium is about 520 tonnes. That is 520 tonnes too much, however Thorium reactors produce none at all. Sad you cannot get your facts straight Graham Flemming, so very SNP.

  33. Haydn Gear

    Having read these pages for a long time Peter, it should be apparent by now that Ian is a dental surgeon by training and therefore qualifies for Dr status. No need to have a PhD or any other bits of paper !

    Reply
  34. Peter Hamilton

    Ok, well thanks to Ian, and if the Times did withhold the links as irrelevant to the school strike they maybe had a point. It was Ian that insisted to Brian Smith way back when that this issue was relevant, for whatever reason.

    I’m still not clear what Ian draws from these articles though, or why anyone would have to have this knowledge to take a view on the current level of threat, but I get that global warming isn’t about to lead to another ice age. I don’t recall the protest saying it would…

    It’s a welcome change to have Ian express himself without resort to petty insult though. Long may that continue. On his earlier point on science, however, I’m not sure most scientists would agree science means knowledge only, as Ian proposed, without including the search for it by using scientific methods.

    But here is the big unanswered question – whatever it is Ian take from these links – does he, or does he not, think we are facing a climate crisis? If we are then surely the kids are right to be concerned, especially as some government sponsored action on climate change is potentially green-wash.

    Reply
  35. Haydn Gear

    Slight problem with the colour test Johan. About 8% of men have problems when distinguishing between red and green . For women it is only .5%. As for shades of green —- no chance for men ! Maybe that’s one of the reasons why some of them can’t resist verbal battles. Green for GO and they can’t stop . 🔴

    Reply
  36. Peter Hamilton

    Thanks to Brian for those interesting links. The second, albeit straight from a professor in the field, might also not pass Ian’s test, but both seem to provide plenty of evidence it is more than reasonable for the kids to be concerned.

    In the search for a reputable position Ian might more easily side with, or poo-poo with more clarity, I wonder how he regards the climate change science and recommendations from the UK’s own independent, statutory Committee for Climate Change https://www.theccc.org.uk ?

    If we can agree this as a reliable source it might then be possible to make more progress on whether the kids actually are right, and/or have a right, to be concerned.

    Reply
    • Ali Inkster

      The clue to where their bias lies is in the name “statutory Committee for Climate Change” not climate science or climate research but climate”change”

      Reply
      • Brian Smith

        Nigel Farage will save the world.

  37. Ian Tinkler

    Peter Hamilton, what is your problem? Are you intentionally being disingenuous or just unable to comprehend simple English? Must you continually make false and distorted claims about my opinions and comments?
    I never denied climate change, but I certainly see no immediate crisis in the UK, and there is absolutely no scientific proof of any crisis worldwide, just hypothesis at this time.
    I have never claimed the children have no right to feel concerned, just that school strikes are a pointless, stupid action endorsed but fools and the politically motivated, that is my opinion no more no less.

    Reply
  38. Peter Hamilton

    Relax kids! Theres no proof of climate crisis worldwide, says self-proclaimed “true Scientist” Ian Tinkler, yet our national climate scientific advisors think there is. Who is right? Hint, Ian hasn’t shared where he gets his reliable info.

    The government listens to an arms length independent body of expects established by law because it knows there is a problem. Ali, however, spies a plot/con. Some of Ali’s previous alien-culture ideas have been shown to be a little further to the right than those most Tories admit to, so we can but guess where he gets them from.

    John and Ian have both recently had a pretty extreme go at climate protestor Greta Thunberg. They, with Ian, are strongly pro-Brexit. There is a possible common connection/ cause. The far-right internationally have begun to target Greta whilst denying the dangers of global warming.

    Anyone questioning Ian, Ali and John’s motivation/s should read the Guardian article “Germany’s AfD turns on Greta Thunberg as it embraces climate change denial” from June 14th.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/14/germanys-afd-attacks-greta-thunberg-as-it-embraces-climate-denial

    The AfD is a extremist far-right racist party which democrats should oppose. The article ends by warning that far-right extremists are using troll armies to stir up hatred, distrust and anger.

    Reply
    • Ali Inkster

      Ah yes the cry of nazi at your protagonists when your argument holds no water. A common tactic of the “woke left” just as is using children to promote your message then you can claim any dissent to the message is an attack on the children.
      Your tactics are no less than child abuse, to put the fear of death into the bairns this time it’s climate change when I was at school your bogeyman was nuclear Armageddon 35 years on and only the tune has changed the song remains the same.
      Oh and the vile culture that I object to is busy protesting outside Anderton School in Birmingham like you they are using children to push their agenda, while you hold the shield of “islamaphobia” over them to protect their bigotry from critique.

      Reply
      • Brian Smith

        I see the French far right nutters National Rally are boycotting Greta Thunberg now. It’s striking that right-wing extremists shake in their shoes when intelligent women come on the scene.

      • Ali Inkster

        So what Brian? Your international socialist heroes (far left nutters) slaughtered tens of millions of people who disagreed with them far more than the national socialists (so called far right nutters but actually just another bunch of socialist far left nutters) ever did.
        I have no idea what if anything the french lot have said but I’m willing to bet they attacked the message and the adults manipulating the child, not the child being used to spread it.

      • ian tinkler

        I see the French far-right nutters National Rally are boycotting Greta Thunberg, O my goodness, Greta is being “boycotted! Extraordinary behaviour!! Brian Smith, how can that be? What and how can you boycott a teenager? I had two of them and boycotting them! not credible, now exploiting! ask Greta,s Dad about that. Loads of Greeny points for the cult of heating doom.

  39. Ian Tinkler

    Whoop, whoop. Anyone questioning Ian, Ali and John’s motivation/s should read the Guardian. Peter Hamilton, you are priceless. Keep it up please your fountains of wisdom are priceless.

    Reply
  40. Peter Hamilton

    Although he has disparages The Guardian three times above, Ian references their articles when it suits, albeit selectively. For example, on July 5th above, he excitedly reported:

    “The very latest scientific information on controlling climate change “Tree planting ‘has mind-blowing potential’ to tackle climate crisis” (Todays Guardian, Nation Geographic and BBC), now would not planting a tree be a more rational action for these children? That would be the sensible, intelligent and educated option…”

    However, had he dwelt on the full article, he would have realised the actual scientists involved perceive there is an urgent problem, that their solution is partial, that it can only really help 50-100 years down the line, and that other urgent actions are required. His position is quite far from theirs.

    Just in case Ian misses the point, the selective misuse of other scientist’s work isn’t what real scientists do. So “a sensible, intelligent and educated option”, for Ian, might involve a refresher course to help him avoid misassumptions and false claims. That would be a “more rational course of action” than attempting to maintain his current pretensions that nothing in The Guardian can be trusted and that his unsubstantiated understanding of climate science can.

    Reply
  41. Ian Tinkler

    Peter Hamilton, it is not the Guardian I disparage, it is just a newspaper. Some who write in it, socialist arty types have pathetic agendas and prejudices, which is why they remain what they are, political hacks.
    What I object to is your disingenuous comments, which go beyond fake news, but are simply lies.
    For example, you claim, in your own words, “There is no proof of climate crisis worldwide, says self-proclaimed “true Scientist” Ian Tinkler, yet our national climate scientific advisors think there is”. Not true, no UK no apointed “national climate scientific advisors ” have ever claimed we have a climate crisis!
    Further to the above, I have never “had a pretty extreme go at climate protestor Greta Thunberg.” I merely pointed out her unfortunate mental illnesses intermated that she was, perhaps mentally exploited by her dysfunctional family and the Greens of Europe. No wonder she suffers from “selective mutism”, that is when her ultra-green father speaks on her behalf. To claim my motive is allied to Germany’s AfD, a neo-nazi movement is a lie and slander, no more no less, so typical of your tawdry comments.

    Reply
  42. ian tinkler

    Further to the above, another little porky from Peter. Peter Hamilton claims above that,” his (my) current pretensions that nothing in The Guardian can be trusted”!! What manifest nonsense, it is self-evident that is a lie. Peter highlights my comments where I quote articles from the Guardian to further my views (a few lines above)! It is only the arty, green and ignorant socialist prejudiced types that I disparage. They are not limited to the Guardian; we have some specials on Shetland. I sure Peter knows to whom I refer. (They are most noticeable by their disingenuous and daft comments)

    Reply
  43. Peter Hamilton

    Why is the far right intent on undermining climate concern? Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg’s widely reported conversation helps to shine light on the answers.

    Undermining collaboration between liberal democracies, whilst simultaneously weakening trust in mainstream political solutions and structures, is of course helpful to these extremists, however this can be achieved.

    But there is also big money at stake in continuing our current trajectory in general, and reliance on fossil fuels in particular.

    Ocasio-Cortez helpfully points out that ExxonMobil had internal science that “definitively pointed out that climate change was real” in the 1970s and back then were predicting weather changes as far ahead as 2012. She also states the fossil fuel lobby, and particularly the Koch brothers, have “essentially purchased the entire Republican Party”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/29/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-met-greta-thunberg-hope-contagious-climate

    I find it to be an informative and inspiring article which should be of particular use to anyone questioning whether Greta Thunberg should have a voice in the debate. To see Ian Tinkler and John Tulloch attack her barely days apart, and in such similar terms, is troubling indeed. Be they witting or unwitting tools of a broader extremist agenda, I hope they can reflect and desist.

    Reply
  44. Peter Hamilton

    During an opposition debate on Environment and Climate Change, UK Environment Secretary Michael Gove MP stated in the House of Commons on the 1st of May this year: “I make it clear that the Government recognise the situation we face is an emergency. It is a crisis, and it is a threat that we must all unite to meet”. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2019-05-01c.225.0

    A more thorough appreciation of how Gove formed this view with regard to the information and advice provided by Professor Ian Boyd, Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser, and his team can be found at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/michael-gove-speech-on-uk-climate-change-projections

    Both the U.K. and the Scottish Parliaments have declared there is a climate crisis, but Ian surely knows better.

    Reply

Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to editorial@shetlandtimes.co.uk for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.