Friday, September 28, 2007

Pooch Breaches Hafod Security

Despite reassurances from ‘our’ politicians, the Environment Agency and Murky Waste that security the Hafod Landfill Site would be improved it was again breeched last night. The intrepid intruder managed to sneak on site unnoticed and remain there all night, escaping the attention of the state of the art video monitoring system.

When a waste monkey opened the gate this morning the dastardly intruder made his bid for freedom; he is currently being debugged by the protest group whilst enjoying a nice plate of Lincolnshire Sausages.

Well done Pooch, you’re a star.

Monday, September 10, 2007

Truly Amazing!


Friday, September 07, 2007

Little Chef Profits Boost!

Confusion was in the air at the gates of Hafod this morning as the waste monkeys left without tipping! As the protesters speculated as to the reason, Dull and his mates hurried along to the Little Chef. Grandad said he thought he’d passed a sign saying Dull was to have an extra egg on his Olympic breakfast; the waste monkeys excitedly turned their trucks and followed Dull. And like the star over the stable in Bethlehem there it was, a sign....

(They'd even painted it blue to match his truck, ah bless!)

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

This can’t be right can it?

Not even Dull and Co can defend sending a man to clean an arterial road with a domestic dust pan and brush, can they?

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Acceptable or unacceptable?

This email was sent last week to Mr Allan (managing director of MWH), local politicians and officers of WCBC and Environment Agency Wales.

The attached photographs were taken this morning, 02/08/07, outside Hafod landfill site and show large quantities of wet clay strewn all over the B5426 outside the landfill gates.

Please reply to this email indicating if you personally think this amount of debris on the road is acceptable or not acceptable.

If you do not respond by Wednesday 08/08/07 I will assume you regard the situation as acceptable.

The responses will be posted here and on shortly!

One to go!

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

Two days to go!

Monday, August 06, 2007

Three days to go!

Sunday, August 05, 2007

Four days to go!

Thursday, July 19, 2007

There's Something Not Quite Right Here!

And what action was taken against a slow moving vehicle driving the wrong way up the public highway without any warning lights? Yeah, you've guessed ... NONE!

Justice, MWH Style!

Tuesday, July 17, 2007


We have five layers of democracy (Care to share details of your expenses anyone?), a billion pound plus Environment Agency and a local Planning Department which in 2006/07 cost us over £1.5 million!

How the hell have we ended up with this - somebody in public life has taken their eye off the ball somewhere!

Friday, July 13, 2007

Bird Man of Hafod!

From the MWH website ...

The Group recognises that its employees are its biggest asset and is an accredited Investors in People organisation. The Group's Training and Development Policy ensures its employees are provided with opportunities for training, not only to ensure they have the correct knowledge and expertise to carry out their job safely and efficiently, but to promote personal development.

Yeah, right!

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

No traffic issues?

Simple question for WCBC planning department or Mr Allan, not you Dull, why are members of the public forced to queue up behind the MWH sweeper all day?

Name one other company in the county that causes a tail back like the one above every single day?

Friday, July 06, 2007

Spot the Difference!

Trinny and Susannah fans excitedly gathered at the gates of Hafod Landfill Site this morning to witness the mother of all makeovers! And out he popped, sparkling! New signs, working lights and beautifully clean! I almost fancied him myself.

And from the front - flashing lights to warn unsuspecting drivers of the dangers of a slow moving sweeper at a hump backed bridge / cross roads on a main arterial route to the A483.

You too could enjoy a makeover; visit

Perhaps they could educate Dull, employ Mark and give Numpty2 some working rear warning lights (VOSA are on to that as we speak!).

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Happy Bidding!

We are sure that Tigger, Sponge Bob, Zebra and that rather excited little thing that dances along side him, must really brighten up your working day as you drive your rubbish about.

Then we realised why the Sweeper Driver always looks so glum; his cab lacks the paraphernalia that makes such an obvious difference to your general happiness at work.

So we’ve been on E Bay and sourced the perfect cab friend!

Friday, June 29, 2007

State of the art CCTV and vigilant staff?

We are constantly assured that any children straying onto Hafod landfill will not be harmed because the state of the art CCTV and vigilant staff will spot them instantly and apprehend them.

This morning us eagle eyed protestors noticed immediately that the lifebuoy was missing off the pole by the lagoon, but the site staff appear to be blissfully unaware on their morning checks.

Well done!

Monday, June 25, 2007


There appears to be an awful lot of coincidences around Hafod landfill just lately. We were told the infestation of flies we suffered had nothing to do with the landfill, and it was a regional problem. I suppose the fact that Bangor and Hafod road has never ever flooded like this before is an unfortunate coincidence too.


Sunday, June 24, 2007

I was one of the people that started this blog because the campaign to stop Mersey Waste dumping in Hafod needed a voice on the internet. That voice has, sadly, been hijacked by two groups of small-minded individuals who seem to think that petty abuse is its purpose.

Monday, June 18, 2007

Health and safety MWH style.

Just a few feet from the entrance to Hafod Landfill, obscured from vision by a bank of soil is this lagoon. The lagoon has slippery steep sides and contains deep dirty water, so MWH have taken precautionary measures to deal with this potential hazard to local children.

And here they are, two lifebuoys held on sticks.

Most responsible companies would have a security guard on the gate or fence the lagoon off to prevent access by children but not “our neighbours” they buy two rubber rings!

Mr Rob Allan (managing director of MWH) reads this blog, so come on Mr Allan tell the people of Johnstown and Ruabon the cost of these lifebuoys and explain why the safety of our children are not worth more?

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

European Capital of Culture?

Is this really how a civilised city disposes of its waste - by dumping it, tonnes at a time, fifty miles away and just a few metres from people’s houses and our children's school?

And then they have the front to bid for, win and accept the title 'European Capital of Culture'!

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Clay on road "no danger to motorists" MWH Quote

A Mersey Waste Holdings representative has told Hafod Action Group that the clay and debris dropped by their vehicles on the B5426 outside the landfill pose "no danger to motorists".
The planning permission clearly states that

"All waste haulage vehicles leaving the site shall pass through the vehicular cleansing facility provided in accordance with condition 9 above and shall have their wheels, underbodies and sides thoroughly cleansed before they leave the site."

It seems MWH do not understand their obligations in relation to the planning consent. This may explain why since the start of operations in August 2006 the road outside the landfill site has been constantly covered in debris originating from the site.

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Wind stops Hafod again!!!

After being reported to the environment agency again today for litter escaping the site the so called management of Hafod landfill shut the tip. The number of chances MWH have been given by the environment agency despite breeching the PPC is unbelievable. When will any enforcement action be taken against MWH? They systematically breech the PPC every time there are strong winds and every time the environment agency turns a blind eye.

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Alan Skip Hire cause traffic chaos at Hafod

Alan Skip Hire cause traffic chaos at Hafod

This was the scene outside Hafod landfill on Friday morning when an Alan Skip Hire driver decided to cause traffic chaos by parking on the B5426 and leaving his cab to hurl abuse at the peaceful protestors. These protesters consisted of both male and female OAP’s neither of which wanted to hear his abusive rants. MWH have put in for NEW planning permission to considerably increase traffic movements outside Hafod landfill. When the existing landfill traffic cause this much havoc not even the planning department of WCBC will grant them the permission. Will they?

Next time you need a skip you may choose to look a little further than your friendly local skip hire firm!

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Oops we have buried the clay by mistake!!!

I think we all need to look at this:


This planning application by MWH is to quarry 350,000m3 of clay from the Hafod landfill site and stockpile it on the North side of Bangor road. This is the very same clay that Dennis Ruabon buried because it is low quality. This quarrying will conveniently create a larger void in the landfill site to be filled with Merseyside rubbish. The details of this will be confirmed by the modification order that has been due out since late last year but is still with the specialist firm of lawyers at the expense of Wrexham council tax payers. Yes you have read that correctly the council tax payers of Wrexham are paying through the nose for specialist solicitors to ensure that MWH can continue to dump in the illegal landfill. If you believe Gerry Kellet in the planning department of WCBC he will tell you that MWH have had no input into the modification order. Mr Kellet has also stated that MWH have no more information on the contents of the order than the general public. If this is true how can MWH submit such a detailed planning application? Why has the engineering work already commenced? Has Mr Allan had a crystal ball this year in place of the more traditional Easter eggs?

Monday, February 12, 2007

Welsh landfill quarry was secret chemical dump

Today's Guardian reveals how a Welsh quarry was used as a secret chemical dump for years by an unscrupulous owner. How safe is Hafod from leaking its landfill waste?

The wasteland: how years of secret chemical dumping left a toxic legacy
Monsanto helped to create one of the most contaminated sites in Britain

The old toxic waste dump at Brofiscin quarry smells of sick when it rains and the small brook that flows from it gushes a vivid orange.
Barton Williams, its owner, says he had no idea exactly what lies below his land, or how dangerous it is. "It's leaking, isn't it? It's the wrong colour. They haven't told me what's in there. The Environment Agency hasn't been open about what's in it at all and the council didn't even tell me it was toxic waste when I bought the land. They only told the public three years ago."

He remembers tankers dumping drums, slurry and sludge from the Monsanto chemical works in Newport and elsewhere in the 36-metre deep quarry on the edge of Groesfaen village near Cardiff. "They just tipped it in, anything really. They were lax in those days."

Groesfaen, now a Cardiff commuter village, is full of recently built £250,000 executive homes - some right on the edge of the quarry. Today, the many newcomers know little of the scale or nature of the dumping of carcinogenic and other chemical waste between 1965 and 1972. The tip, which was unlined, never had a licence for chemical dumping and water pollution was forbidden.

The first most people knew that something was wrong was in 2003 when vile smells escaped from the quarry and drifted over the village. The local Rhondda Cynon Taff council warned people to stay away but said there was no immediate health danger.

"People are worried about the value of their properties, they hope it will just go away," said one woman, who asked not to be identified, this week.

Previously unseen Environment Agency documents from 2005 show that almost 30 years after being filled, Brofiscin is one of the most contaminated places in Britain. According to engineering company WS Atkins, in a report prepared for the agency and the local authority in 2005 but never made public, the site contains at least 67 toxic chemicals. Seven PCBs have been identified, along with vinyl chlorides and naphthalene.

The unlined quarry is still leaking, the report says. "Pollution of water has been occurring since the 1970s, the waste and groundwater has been shown to contain significant quantities of poisonous, noxious and polluting material, pollution of ... waters will continue to occur ... the council is of the opinion that the metal drums will continue to deteriorate over time releasing poisonous, noxious and polluting materials," it says.

Villagers are angry that they were not told the exact condition or contents of the tip. "We do not know about this report. If there is still leakage and there is any danger, then it must be cleared up as soon as possible," said a local councillor, Jonathan Huish.

Douglas Gowan, the pollution consultant who first investigated the site between 1967 and 1973 for the National Farmers' Union, after reports of dead cattle and deformed calves in the vicinity, is one of the few people to have witnessed the landfilling of chemicals at Brofiscin. In 1967 he convened a team of toxicologists and engineers and took soil and water samples for analysis. His reports were sent to the Welsh Office but not acted upon. In a report requested by the Environment Agency of Wales last year, he states: "From 1969 to 1973 [we] actively monitored the site and witnessed not just landfill tipping in regular hours, but also dumping at night. Most of the waste came from Monsanto and I believe that almost all contained some amounts of PCBs. I saw ... vehicles dumping slurry, liquids and tars as well as ... open drums."

Even as Monsanto and other companies were sending chemicals to Brofiscin and a nearby dump, Maendy, from 1965 to 1972, in St Louis, Missouri, company executives were alarmed. From 1965 onwards evidence had been accumulating from around the world of widespread contamination from PCBs and related chemicals. PCBs were being reported in wildlife, human milk, and water, and had been found in British fish in 1967.

Internal company papers show that Monsanto knew about the PCB dangers earlier. Toxicity tests on the effects of two PCBs in 1953 showed that more than 50% of the rats subjected to them died, and all of them showed damage. With experts at the company in no doubt that Monsanto's PCBs were responsible for contamination, the company set up, in 1968, a committee to assess its options. In a paper distributed to only 12 people but which surfaced at a trial of the company in 2002, it admitted "that the evidence proving the persistence of these compounds and their universal presence as residues in the environment is beyond question ... the public and legal pressures to eliminate them to prevent global contamination are inevitable".

It expected legislation, but papers seen by the Guardian reveal near panic. "The subject is snowballing. Where do we go from here? The alternatives: go out of business; sell the hell out of them as long as we can and do nothing else; try to stay in business; have alternative products", wrote the recipient of one paper.

In 1969 the company wrote a confidential Pollution Abatement Plan which admitted that "the problem involves the entire United States, Canada and sections of Europe, especially the UK and Sweden".

Monsanto's main production centre of PCBs was at Anniston in Alabama, but in 1971 it shifted production largely to Newport. According to the government, the company made 61,500 tonnes of PCBs at Newport. Internal Monsanto documents seen by the Guardian show the Newport factory was leaky and at one point was "losing" 1.7kg (3.7lb) a day of some of the most dangerous PCBs.

Herbert Vodden, a Monsanto physicist who tested how long the PCBs took to break down, told the Guardian that companies employed by Monsanto to take the waste were responsible for its disposal. "The sites were supposed to be impervious and watertight, It was the [waste] contractors' responsibility to find the sites ... usually they were reasonably cooperative. There were no regulations then. We were in their hands."

Mr Vodden said the company initially lobbied the government to carry on making PCBs in the 1960s. "They were very supportive", he said. And when it decided to pull out of PCB manufacture, "the department of industry argued against us withdrawing them. They came and told us that we should continue".

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Hafod Quarry sweeper de-grits the road

Report from Hafod on a freezing cold morning...

7.10am - a Wrexham County Borough Council gritting vehicle deposits grit onBangor Road / New Hall Road junction. Nothing wrong with that you might say until just a few minutes later and bizarrely BEFORE a single waste vehicle had left the Hafod Landfill site you see the MWH hired Road Cleaner sweeping it all away again! And all this going on in sub zero temperatures before itwas even light!

And people ask why we protest at the gate each day - you would not be asking that if it was your father, mother, sister, brother, son, daughter or friend that had a fatal accident on a now ungritted road due to the direct actions of MWH. If the authorities stood outside the gates each morning as we do,they would soon realise that a serious accident is inevitable on the B5426 between the landfill gates and the A483 slip road.

In the last two weeks we have seen debris all over the road, sweeper lorries travelling at walking pace with upwards of fifteen cars trailing them, the same sweeper lorries driving and reversing the WRONG way down both the North and South bound slip roads, waste vehicles reversing down Bangor Road on the wrong side of the road before attempting three point turns in the crossroads of Bangor Road / New Hall Road and now the removal of salt from the road in sub zero temperatures, minutes after the council has laid it.

We are paying for the road to be gritted via our council tax, then MWH sweep it up and throw it away leaving law abiding motorists at risk, you really couldn't make it up. Council Tax Revenues being wasted is one thing (with WCBC that's nothing new) but when the same authority have such a cavalier attitude to road safety on account of keeping MWH / Hafod Landfill happy it really does make you wonder what is going on! Answers please WCBC, answers please...

Monday, February 05, 2007

Unions back recycling not landfill

At a recent meeting of Wrexham County Trades Union Council it was agreed to support a resolution on refuse disposal moved by the Union AMICUS. It read:

There are 38 landfill sites in Wales, one at Hafod near Wrexham is importing 300,000 tonnes of refuse per annum from Merseyside and other authorities.

There is at present no consistent policy operated by local authorities for dealing with refuse, a common policy is required in order to comply with EU directives thereby avoiding landfill and carbon emissions.

Wrexham County Trades Union Council calls on the Wales TUC to conduct an investigation into this issue and urge the National Assembly to introduce a waste strategy for Wales which recycles refuse at source in localised custom-built plants that do not involve Incineration or Pyrolysis / Gasification but recycles refuse into a product that can be used in industry.

This has to be yet another thorn in the side of MWH and its associates and welcome support for the members of the Hafod Environmental Group.

The Wales TUC, which represents half the workers in Wales (including some T&GWU truck drivers no doubt), will debate this motion at their annual conference in May. If passed, it will add half a million voices to our call for a proper waste policy rather than the current free-for-all that puts profit before people and communities.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, January 11, 2007

The weather gets the better of Hafod

Quarry gates open at 6.40am, in breach of PPC licence

Litter problem
In the windy weather over the last few days, litter from inside Hafod tip has been blown onto the perimeter fence. The litter we can see is what catches on the barbed wire. It is reasonable to assume that some of it has gone over the fence - local farmers have been complaining of litter blowing from the site into their fields. Who'd have thought such a thing could happen, when we were all assured that the litter would be properly covered up each day?

Hafod operators ignore rules on opening hours
On Tuesday 9th January, the gates of the landfill site at Hafod blew open at approximately 6:40am. Today, Thursday 11th, the gates were once again open when members of the ever-vigilant Hafod Action Group arrived at 6:40am. This isn't just an idle moan - these incidents are breaches of the PPC permit, which clearly states the site must be locked outside operating hours. There seems little point in issuing a PPC permit if its conditions can be blatantly flouted by the operator.

However, what the Environment Agency has neglected to do, the weather succeeded in achieving this morning:

Windy weather closes the tip
When the vehicles arrived this morning, it was so windy that no tipping could take place and all the wagons were turned away.

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Recycling - A tale of two councils

Thought people might be interested in this article which was posted to uk indymedia.

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Halloween mask causes distress?

OK, own up! How many of you have ever worn a halloween mask? How about your children or grandchildren? We suggest you collect up all such masks and recycle them forthwith (What! Michael doesn't recycle rubber?), or hide them and hope that there's a mask amnesty sometime soon. The police are onto you!

A Hafod protester has been issued with an £80 fixed penalty notice for an alleged offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 which took place two months ago. The notice states that he, "along with others blocked gate at Hafod quarry preventing lorries from leaving whilst wearing halloween mask causing harassment alarm and distress to drivers and staff."

One of the protesters present on that morning, a week or so before Halloween, describes a scenario where protesters wearing halloween masks peacefully blockaded the gates while some wagons were inside. They stood silently in front of the gates until the police arrived, at which point and without being asked, they removed their masks and ended the blockade. The police made no mention of the masks at the time, nor did anyone mention being alarmed or distressed.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Public Order Act 1986, this is what Section 5 says:

5 Harassment, alarm or distress

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he-

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.

(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove-

(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or

(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

(c) that his conduct was reasonable.

(4) A constable may arrest a person without warrant if-

(a) he engages in offensive conduct which [a] constable warns him to stop, and

(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.

(5) In subsection (4) "offensive conduct" means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Here's what the Crown Prosecution Service has to say on the matter:

"There must be a person within the sight or hearing of the suspect who is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by the conduct in question. A police officer may be such a person, but remember that this is a question of fact to be decided in each case by the magistrates. In determining this, the magistrates may take into account the familiarity which police officers have with the words and conduct typically seen in incidents of disorderly conduct. (DPP v Orum [1988] Crim LR 848.)

Although the existence of a person who is caused harassment alarm and distress must be proved, there is no requirement that they actually give evidence. In appropriate cases, the offence may be proved on a police officer's evidence alone.

Police officers are aware of the difficult balance to be struck in dealing with those whose behaviour may be perceived by some as exuberant high spirits but by others as disorderly. In such cases informal methods of disposal may be appropriate and effective; but if this approach fails and the disorderly conduct continues then criminal proceedings may be necessary."

And this is from the freebeagles web site:

Under Section 2 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the police can issue fixed penalty notices where they suspect that a "penalty offence" has been committed. The relevant "penalty offences" are listed in Section 1 of the Act, and are mostly aimed at dealing with minor drunk / disorderly behaviour. But they also include Section 5 Public Order Act 1986 and this is the offence which is most likely to be used against activists.

Section 2 (1) of the Act states that a constable who has reason to believe that a person aged 16 or over has committed a penalty offence may give him a penalty notice in respect of the offence. The procedure is then very similar to many road traffic offences. The person who has received the notice has 21 days in which either to pay the penalty or to request to be tried for the offence.

If you pay the penalty, then no further proceedings may be brought for the offence, and the penalty will not form part of your criminal record. If you request to be tried, then the case may go to trial. If the penalty is not paid and no request is made to be tried within 21 days, then normally the penalty goes up by half and is dealt with just like any other fine. But the police may then charge you with an offence in exceptional circumstances eg if the offence turns out to be more serious than originally thought, or they discover you have convictions for similar offences.

There is no requirement to give a warning before issuing a penalty notice (although for Section 5 offences the police are encouraged to do so, see below). There appears to be no time limit for the issue of fixed penalties. They will probably usually be issued around the time of the offence, but could be issued at a police station after arrest and in theory any time up to 6 months after the date of the offence.

The penalties are divided in to "upper" and "lower tiers". "Upper tier" offences attract a penalty charge of £80, "lower tier" offences £40. Section 5 is an "upper tier offence". The use of penalty notices was trialed by five police forces between August 2002 and July 2003. The Home Office issued guidance notes to the police for when and how they should use the notices and how they should exercise their discretion. These are worth reading and can be downloaded on the internet from here:

The Home Office notes state that with regard to Section 5 offences, the police should consider giving a warning first and that also they should bear in mind the statutory defences to Section 5. These include the defence that your conduct was reasonable and that you were not aware that your conduct was "threatening, insulting or abusive". Reading between the lines, it seems that the Home Office are not keen on the police issuing fixed penalties for each and every instance of minor disorderly conduct. But the guidance notes are not legally binding and ultimately it is a matter of discretion for the individual officer.

The police have already started to use this power against activists. It remains to be seen whether use of these penalties is part of the government's new offensive against animal rights "extremists". In our opinion this could well be the case.

Whether activists should pay them or not will depend on the circumstances. Often protestors will want to fight them in court for example where they have been issued with a penalty notice for banging a drum or blowing a whistle. In situations where there is no basis for a Section 5 charge, the CPS may well decide not to prosecute you anyway.

On the other hand there will be times when someone might want to pay the penalty for example if he has been involved in serious disorder. Once the penalty is paid the police cannot take any further action for the offence.

So, it appears that the police have powers to issue fixed penalty notices in cases where the Crown Prosecution Service might not take the case to court. Mmmm. And why now? Only a cynic would say that this is an attempt to make people fearful of taking part in protests at the site.

If the protester asks for the case to be tried, and if the CPS agrees that it should be tried, it's going to make for an interesting court case.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Santa supports Hafod protesters

Santa Claus paid a visit to Hafod Quarry today to support the festive protesters at the gate.

Local campaigners against the landfill are there every day keeping an eye on what's going on - just as well as the authorities don't seem to be able to keep a check on the place. Here's a report from one of the protesters:

At 6:55am this morning a tanker lorry drew up to the landfill gates and the driver then jumped out of the cab opened the gates and drove in and closed the gates behind him. When Garry (site supervisor) came down to open the gates soon after 7:00am I asked him why the driver had opened the gate and entered before 7:00am. Garry shrugged his shoulders and when I pushed him for an answer he said “it was 7 O Clock”. I informed him that I had a photograph time stamped at 6:58am of the driver going through the gates but he declined to comment. Shortly after this conversation Garry came out of the site and asked to speak to me. He informed me that the driver was Polish and his boss had been informed and as a result the driver had been “banned from the site”.

We would've thought that it was the responsibility of the quarry operators, MWH, to ensure that no vehicles enter the site before 7am, but why take the flak when you've got a Polish driver to blame? And why was the driver's nationality even mentioned by the supervisor? It's hardly relevant to the story.