Tuesday, 12 April 2011

Dangerous Cliffs and Cliff Collapses in Ramsgate

Over the period of time that have been interested in The Royal Sands development on the old Pleasurama site, I have developed an interest and some understanding of the various cliff structures here.

This has reached the point where I can now identify situations where there are likely to be problems and have started reporting potentially dangerous situations to the various authorities that deal with this.

The last bit of dangerous cliff I reported was in October of last year, see http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/2010/10/is-thanet-district-council-prepared-to.html I reported this to the council, and they assured me that it was safe, as it didn’t look safe to me and there is a public footpath under one bit and the people building the Royal Sands development working under the other bit, I reported this to the Health and Safety Executive. That was at the beginning of the week, by the middle of the week nothing seem to have happened so I rang the HSE up, they told me that the council’s engineer had assured them that there wasn’t a problem and that they were going to take no further action. Over the following weekend a lump of masonry, big enough to kill someone underneath it, fell of it. Now it has safety fencing round the bottom of the cliff. 

This area of the cliff at the is a bit of a hot spot for cliff problems, I don’t think the guns helped, all shook up is phrase that come to mind.

The bit where Augusta Steps is collapsed in the 1960s whatever it is about this area of the cliff confused the civil engineers that repaired it as it collapsed again halfway through the repairs.

Pugin the architect had a bit of a problem with one of the Ramsgate cliffs, I don’t think anything else he designed actually collapsed.

He put this gallery into the cliff next to his house The Grange, so that he could observe the shipping and get down to the sea.

As you can see from the pictures it collapsed in 1947, I am not suggesting that he was an incompetent architect, just that our cliffs are not very predictable.

One of the few places that people have attempted to build against the cliff in Ramsgate is Pegwell, usually any building is incorporated into the cliff part of it being an arched structure, like the existing buildings on Harbour Parade, Marina Esplanade or beside the harbour.

As you can see this didn’t work out too well.

The power of these collapses can be quite astonishing, hundreds of tons of chalk and concrete goes where it wants to.



As you can see in the pictures of this collapse at The Paragon in 1958 the bent things are steel girders.

Finally the problem with the Royal Sands Development on the Pleasurama Site at the moment.

At the moment things are not looking so good there as the foundations seem to be missing and the concrete cliff wall undermined. I have been discussing this structure on and off with the council for some time.

The first time I noticed there was something odd about its foundations was in January 2008, at this time the council had just started the major repairs to the cliff and had contracted a firm of specialist engineers to supervise the £1m contract to repair the cliff.

I went onto the site and had a chat with the site engineer and a look at the foundations of the cliff wall, wasn’t happy with what I saw and wrote to their chief engineer who I had already supplied some historic photographs of the cliff to.

This is what he had to say:

“The foundations of the facade is on a mass concrete base some 2 metres thick and founded on what would appear to be good sound chalk. I shall be very surprised if there is any cause for concern. *** would not be party to the development works as his brief is to act as the Resident Engineer on behalf of Thanet District Council for the facade improvement works only, however he is employed by ****.

There is no need to underpin the facade, as the original site inspection showed that there is no evidence of subsidence. I will be on site on Thursday to carry out an overview of the works.”

The next time I went on the site and made a thorough inspection of the cliff wall was in November 2009, see http://thanetonline.blogspot.com/2009/11/royal-sands-development-how-dangerous.html this eventually resulted in a repair to the repair.

There have been other occasions but I won’t bore you with any more.

Now we have a situation once again where I have reported a problem with the cliff wall and am awaiting events. I expect sooner or later I shall be wrong and there won’t be a problem.

What worries me this time is that I have asked the council to close the footpath above the cliff because I think there possibility of a cliff collapse and a danger to human life, I have only asked them to this while they assess the situation as a precaution, so far I haven’t even had a reply from them.
Blogger is behaving a bit strangely at the moment, a lot of the anonymous comments are going into the spam folder and I haven’t deleted anyone’s comments recently, but if you comment and it doesn’t appear immediately, please accept my apologies.

There are so many pictures in this post that it was easiest to put them all at the end and label them up afterwards.     


Pictures of the collapse at The Paragon in 1958 below




Pictures of the collapse at Pegwell in 1947 below 







Pictures of the collapse at Pugin’s gallery collapse in 1947 below 








Pictures of the Augusta Steps is collapses in the 1960s below 







The guns at Wellington Crescent 

45 comments:

  1. Surely the historic cliff fall was to an area not undergoing current inspection and ongoing works. There have, of course, been several similar cliff falls along the chalk south coast. Natural erosion by sea and weathering make this inevitable.

    The Pleasurama site, however, is a work in progress and a totally different scenario. Here I still find it hard to believe that the host of people involved, from officials to the actual builders, would take such risk. You are not just talking about money but potentially criminal liability if an accident happened.

    The story of this historic cliff fall is interesting but takes us no further forward on the Pleasurama situation. In fact, I would say it is irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bill forgive me if I appear rude but I don’t believe you read the post properly, the one in the 1960s collapsed half way through the work in progress, if you click on the pictures of the newspaper articles they will confirm this.

    Also the bulge in the Pleasurama façade that I reported to the council had to be repaired as a matter of some urgency, as a further matter of interest the bulge and crack was there when the £1m contract started, as you can see from the painted over filling, both the council’s engineer and the council’s consultants missed it.

    The lump that fell off just after I was told there was no danger fell partly into the site and partly onto the public footpath, believe me you wouldn’t have wanted to be standing underneath. This halted work on the site for about a month while the council removed the lose bits and put up their barrier.

    You have to appreciate that I am in a bit of a difficult position over this one as if I don’t make as much effort as I can and the wretched thing collapses and kills some people, I will be up for cooperate manslaughter along with the council officers involved.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael, afraid you have lost me on your liability. You seem to be doing your utmost to make everyone aware of of this potential hazard, but, as you are not to my knowledge, the owner, consultant engineer, developer or even in the council planning office, I fail to see how you could be prosecuted.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Michael,

    I occasionally view your website with a modicum of interest; however your 16:34 post concerns me.

    While no doubt more ardent followers of your blog appreciate the photographs of your trips around Ramsgate and the surrounding area, you’re somewhat obsessive behaviour relating to the Royal Sand Development would appear to be having a detrimental effect on your perception of reality and where your responsibilities to the general public lay.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, you are an unelected member of the public with an interest in your local community, you have no powers or structural engineering qualifications that allow you to determining the structural stability of a building or cliff. How then can you possibly think you can be held responsible should any structure fail?

    The responsibility for such decisions lies with those people elected into responsible positions, employed by the same, the contractor and his professionally qualified consultants. Clearly your obsessive behaviour is now clouding your judgement and I would suggest you leave the worrying to those responsible and suitably qualified.

    I think you’ll find it very difficult maintaining your blog site from within an institution….

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry 18.33 you got auto spammed and I have just reinstated your comment, I do recommend you get a blogger id as this is becoming increasingly common.

    I think the point here is that it doesn’t matter so much if I am right or wrong over this cliff safety issue, I have been right about two previous ones, but of course it is very difficult to be certain with secrecy surrounding this development.

    One thing is certain and that is that safety aspects have already been compromised, you only have to read http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/ea  to see what I mean, unless of course they have had a fra done in secret and not told anyone, but what would be the point?

    In terms of the responsibility for safety aspects I don’t think you can be elected to be responsible, in fact I think when you get down to it most everyone involved turns to the very few experts for advice.

    Now there is something here that doesn’t make sense to me or to the geology professor who commented on the previous post. There may be some sort of explanation as to how they got foundations in with out disturbing the chalk at the bottom of the pillar, if there is I can’t think of one and like the other people involved I have take the best advice I can.

    What I found most disturbing so far in the whole issue is that the fire service looked at the site couldn’t see any foundations and didn’t take the precaution of closing the footpath above.

    I suppose the question really is if someone appears to be drowning do you attempt to save them and take the risk that they may have been waving? If acting in that way becomes grounds for institutionalising people and we have already had a few close ones on that front recently, then I suppose I that is when I put my hand up for the institution.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I do love the way that certain anonymous individuals are so keen to tell Michael that he should shut up because he isn't in a position of authority and they aren't aware if he has any formal qualifications.

    Sorry guys, but this is the 21st Century. It's the age of the internet, Facebook, Twitter etc. It's the age where nothing can any longer be hidden by those in authority and any person with any interest in a topic can post what they like about it (as long as they aren't libelling anyone).

    Personally, I think Michael has set out a pretty detailed and well-researched case. What I haven't seen is anyone posting a shred of evidence to counter what he has said. I'm afraid that it isn't good enough for "retired Civil Engineer" to come on here and tell us that it's all a load of rubbish and that we should listen to him because he qualified (50 years ago?). If there are foundations there we need to see them. How difficult could it be to dig out the chalk around one of them to show us that it's there?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The issue really, 19:29, is that Michael said he could be prosecuted for manslaughter if an accident happened and I queried how. He is evidently public spirited and feels he has a duty to inform, but he has no liability in law in respect of this development.

    As to your call for evidence, surely you have eyes and are capable of visiting the site or, better still, calling at the council offices to view the plans and ask questions if you are that concerned.

    You ask for the Retired Engineer's qualifications to comment but what are yours exactly and, for that matter, have you actually seen Michael's? More likely you assume Michael is qualified to make these comments because ir suits your viewpoint.

    Frankly it has all got a bit out of hand and, in the absence of an actual engineer's report, is pure speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 19.29 I have to say that I would be very glad if someone did send me pictures of the pillar going down to some sort of load spreading foundation, frankly Retired Engineer sounded convinced and didn’t become abusive when I responded to him and I was less courteous than usual. You do have to appreciate that there can be a lot of valid reasons why people don’t want to reveal their identity online, I also suspect there are a lot of people who would have technical difficulty sending me an image, especially anonymously.

    There is also the problem that there is a great deal of money riding on this cliff façade which obviously has things wrong with it, frankly this bit looks to be the best constructed part and it hasn’t failed the eighty years that it has been there, unlike the more recent bit further along towards the harbour, which is where I was expecting the main problems or the bit on the other side where the masonry fell off recently.

    Certainly civil engineering is not my field, I am much more at home with the chalk geology than the concrete there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Oh dear, please refer to Michael’s post dated the 6th April which contained original drawings of the foundations including a typical cross section detail of the area currently being questioned.

    The design was produced by a competent designer of the time and has stood the test of time. No doubt Michael can confirm the exact date of construction.

    The drawings identify a vertical face with a tapered enlarged base formation which if I had the benefit of hard copies to hand and a scale rule I could quite quickly determine the location of the enlarged base formation is below the current excavation level. Therefore the current excavation has no impact on the stability or load bearing capacity to the base of the foundation.

    Concrete foundations of this scale don’t usually disappear or get forgotten to be built in the first place.

    This information has been right under your nose as well as close to hand, maybe it would be a good idea to start from a known or documented point rather persist with wild and unfounded scaremongering.

    I’ll make no further comment as I’ve some paint I wish to watch dry.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Michael, I posted a comment in response to an earlier Anonymous commentator which was there but has now gone. Since it contained no offensive language or libellous comment I am surprised for it is not your usual form to delete contributions.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sorry Bill 2030 blogger seems to be automatically spaming most of the anonymous comments this week, its something I have no control over, when someone comments I get an email, my very old internet phone, possibly a Raspberry, makes some horrible noise eventually and I stop what I am doing and reinstate the comment.

    I will endeavour to read and respond to you both in the fullness of time, there are so many comments that really are spam at the moment that I think the only real solution for both of you is to sign up for a blogger id, something that won’t effect your anonymity and will protect you from people posing as you, if you get involved in some major argument on one of the blogs at some time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Right sorry about all that again, Bill and 20.30.

    I was talking to a TV reporter about this issue only the other day, he had a considerable amount to do with the coverage of the disaster in Ramsgate when the Sally Line walkway collapsed.

    With this issue I have considerable doubts about my understanding of the true situation, I certainly know that there are problems with some of the façade foundations and blockwork, have cast iron evidence that I have published showing this.

    I find myself in the position of someone who had seen what looked like a dodgy pin in the linkspan mechanism of the Sally walkway at some time prior to the disaster, this sort of cloudy supposition has inherent responsibilities, and the professional journalist concurred with me on this.

    There is also the way I have been dealt with by the various responsible bodies involved with this issue, I can honestly tell you that total scepticism combined with no or very slow responses would be enough to put most people off of reporting something that could lead to a potential disaster.

    It was Saturday when I first reported my concerns and frankly the only person who has made any attempt to communicate with me over this issue in any meaningful way, only did so this evening, but although he assured me that the foundations do exist couldn’t explain the chalk that looks unmade where the base of the column should be.

    He is qualified in the construction industry and just didn’t know, I think I may have worked out how the pillars could go in at the point that they contact the ground, the block infills were covered with steel mesh and rendered sometime in the 70s, this may have been extended round the support columns. However this too is a bit of a double-edged sword, as it would cover up signs of structural distress.

    My understanding from the council officers involved is that the façade belonged to the various firms leasing the site as a fun fair and although the council’s engineer prepared some of the plans it was the showmen that had the work done.

    One of my more dubious qualifications was that at one time I worked for Chippefields, not the architects, and have some understanding of the way showmen do things. For this reason I believe there could for instance be some sort of foundation without necessarily any connection to the support column.

    As for my own academic life I would dream of embarrassing the institutions involved, before I was a charter bookseller I was a member of an Anglican contemplative order and before that I worked engineering, my main areas of engineering are electronics, hydraulics and electro mechanics, as I worked in Rovex in Thanet for a while performing this activity there must be several people who read this blog who can confirm this.

    As I have said already there are several possible outcomes with this, one is the cliff collapses killing people, another one is that I wind up looking a bit of a plonker, while I have reservations about the cliff façade structure then the plonker option is one I will just have to face.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Michael, do not be deterred by the sceptism contained in some of the comments. I have 40 years of on-site building construction experience, a degree in building and I am an architectural technoligist.

    I am convinced your evidence casts "reasonable doubt" on the existence of the originally designed foundations and a detailed check should be made by those responsible.

    The divided responsibility for the cliff wall between TDC and the site contractor is "in my opinion" contravening CONDAM regulations.

    ReplyDelete
  14. CONDAM stresses the responsibility of all parties to a construction project - including the client, architect and designers - to ensure that work is planned and carried out in a safe manner.The regulations require a planning supervisor to be in charge of health and safety at the planning stage, and a prime contractor to take over the role on site. The aim is to design health and safety into the project from the beginning.Figures presented by Reinier Hoftijzer, who helped draft the regulations, showed that 35 per cent of Europe's construction accidents were caused by poor design

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ken Allen who is a professor of geological engineering and has a licence to practice as a civil engineer in America is of the same opinion and I do appreciate both of you supporting me on this.

    The trouble with the whole façade is that it doesn’t conform exactly to the drawings so it is difficult to evaluate accurately.

    I certainly won’t be put off with any of the aspects of the Pleasurama development that concern me, I have though to try to keep some sort of sense of balance here, at the moment they have excavated by the arched bit, the next bit will be probably the worse bit. After all there is a good chance that this bit is actually ok but although the last two problems I reported were definitely genuine and resulted in remedial work, I find I am very much being treated as though I am inclined to cry wolf.

    Obviously the whole thing ought to be subject to driven rod or drill testing as they go down, in fact the method of digging down with a mechanical digger right next to the façade worries me, most particularly because of the footpath above being adjacent to the façade. Every so often this type of building site work results in accidents the difference in this case is that it could easily involved.

    With reference to your second comment, I have just discovered that TDC building control are not the controlling authority in the case of this development, I am yet to discover who is and if they have been supplied with the EAs flood risk report.

    The last lot of shallow foundations, the ones near the front of the site appeared to go straight onto beach sand, with the sea defences there being so old I wonder if this is ok.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Surely it is all around risk assessment - severity x likelyhood.

    Someone will almost certainly be killed if a bit of the cliff falls down, but the likelyhood of someone being under it is extremely unlikely, giving a low/medium risk

    Compare that with crossing the road to your bookshop, a customer is probably a million times more likely to get wiped out... !!!

    I don't think you can cover EVERY risk out there in the world...

    ReplyDelete
  17. The “typical cross section” drawing could easily be from the project phase. Could be when they were digging out for the footings it was found they were in an area of good sound chalk, and decided to reduced the excavated depth. I would expect that everything would have been duly noted in correspondence and marked up on the working drawings. At the end of a contract the archive drawings should be amended to “as built”, but invariably classified as low priority work and quietly forgotten about. This is not too much of a problem all the time the correspondence folder remains available and intact.

    Roll forward to the present day, new development, trawl through the archives for the construction of the cliff façade and out pops the “typical cross section” drawing. No problem to excavate close to the façade as the footings are 2 to 3 meters deep. Might explain the missing foundations.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "...likelyhood of someone being under it is extremely unlikely,"

    I am afraid I would have to disagree with that statement. A 100+ unit construction site is at the base of the cliff for the next two years with construction operatives all over it.

    A substantial cliff collapse would wipe out the majority of the site, with inevitable fatalities if a collapse happens during working hours.

    The only unknown is how unstable is the cliff?. But the more excavation which takes place at the base the more unstable it
    could become.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm still not seeing evidence that the foundation is there.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Readit, from your statement you appear to have some expertise in this field and, at this time, you are a candidate for public office wherein, if successful, you assume certain responsibilities.

    Instead of milking this issue for all it is worth to discredit the existing councillors, why don't you visit the site, check it out and let us have your report.

    What does interest me is that Dave Green, Labour Councillor on both Thanet District and Ramsgate Town councils, has not got involved on this issue. Surely, particularly running up to an election, if there was some real mileage to be had here against the current Tory TDC, Dave would be exploiting it for all it is worth. His silence says more than all these comments put together.

    Michael, I do accept the public spirited nature of your post but am sceptical about some of the evidence, not least that of long distance expert comment from the USA. Surely there are more local experts you could have consulted?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Why not go and have a look then? Seems the obvious solution.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bill Richards only needs to go on to Ken Read's blog to see his qualifications. In fact he only has to read some of Ken's previous comments on this post. Presumably Bill is yet another apologist for the present Council.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Andrew, I did not question Ken Read's qualifications but suggested that, as he has more expertise than most in this matter, it might be a good idea if he checked it out.

    As to apologising for the present council that is nonsense. This is an issue of considerable public concern that Michael has raised, but we seem here to be just kicking it around without reaching any real conclusions. At the moment it is all hearsay, speculation and innuendo.

    Also, if it were truly a chink in the Tory council armour, I find it very surprising that the Thanet Labour group are not making more fuss about it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Readit, from your statement you appear to have some expertise in this field and, at this time, you are a candidate for public office wherein, if successful, you assume certain responsibilities." No evidence here that you accept that Ken has any qualifications; "..you appear to have.. " seems like the usual 'damn with faint praise' so beloved by the Thatcherite wing of the Whig Party (now renamed Conservative).

    "Instead of milking this issue for all it is worth to discredit the existing councillors, why don't you visit the site, check it out and let us have your report." Looks like an attempt to prop up the present shower to me. It is hardly likely that a commercial construction Company would allow a private individual to go rooting around their site with a view to finding evidence that would halt work there. And well you know it so that statement is at best fatuous.

    Michael is trying very hard to get some answers. I'm sure he would be more than happy to find out that he is wrong and that the cliff face is structurally sound. It's just that obfuscation rules and no-one is willing to seek the truth in a way that cannot be disputed. The people that have the power to carry out such an investigation seem curiously reluctant to do so.

    19:29 pretty well hit the nail on the head. Michael has produced some pretty effective evidence. Why has no-one come up with a proper response? All that anyone has managed to do is insult his integrity, accuse him of political bias or tell him to shut up. You ask for something a bit more constructive - suggest something that doesn't involve slagging everyone else off. Then we might take you seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  25. OK, Andrew, so as always with you it gets personal and insulting. I did not question Ken Read's qualifications but, since you raise it, all his blog says is that he was in architecture. I was with V bombers but that does not make me a nuclear physicist.

    I have not disputed that Michael is raising an issue of concern to him, but I simple query where we are going with it. An inspection by someone qualified seems to be the answer and, as Michael and a Retired Engineer, who commented on a previous post, have been on the site, why should such person be obstructed if consent is properly requested.

    As to me slagging everyone off, where exactly have I done that. Anyway I have too much to do to get into long term debates with the blinkered so I shall not be posting comments on this site again. I am sure Michael will thank you for that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 20.34 what would you say is the likelihood of anyone being on the footpath above and having the thing collapse underneath them?

    8.51 do appreciate that I don’t know that they are missing, just that I could see an area where the design drawings show there should be concrete continuing down the pillar where there is air and I can’t see if there is any concrete there as there is chalk where the concrete should be.

    What I would like someone to do is to drill a series of holes in the chalk down the line where the pillar should be to see if they come up against concrete.

    Readit the highest number of workers I have ever seen on the site is about six, on the top of the cliff there I have seen a 22 tonne fire appliance parked next to the edge of the cliff, with firemen handing out Fireman Sam hats to a crowd of children surrounded by a few hundred onlookers. As the façade is not a support structure, then regardless of the condition of the façade this is an unsupported chalk cliff, riddled with the tunnel system for HMS Fervent, weekend by the gun emplacements and vibration. I have had a few nightmares recently along the lines of Jaws.

    10.39 pillar extending down to foundation is the key phrase.

    Bill, still finding your comments in the sin bin, something I have no control over.

    I do know several UK experts and used to communicate my questions to one who was also the council’s most senor advisor employed by the firm they consult ton these issues. Unfortunately the chief executive of the council emailed me and asked me to stop doing this, I still have his email saying this, but if start naming and publishing it will be a several at once thing to avoid any political bias. Hence I asked the most qualified person I know outside of the UK where they could have no relationship with any local authority, in case it put their job at risk.

    12.26 I did and published the detailed close-up photos on this blog.

    I will try and catch up on the rest asap.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Andrew, as a Tory I must pick up on your 'Thatcherite wing of the Whig party' comment.

    Whilst Whigs and Tories may have become confused in the present coalition, Margaret Thatcher had no doubts that she stood on the right of the party. Hence, anything less 'Whiglike' would be hard to imagine.

    Would have thought that as a 'One Nation Conservative' you would have known that.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Andrew thanks for the support and yes I sincerely hope to be proved wrong, particularly as the last two times that I have reported problems about this structure to the council they had to repair it using our money.

    Bill in the bin again, please get a blogger id if you need help email me email address on the sidebar and I will help you set it up without revealing your identity.

    As far as not posting again with an anonymous id that’s about the only advantage you have i.e you can be Fred Bloggs tomorrow, so not posting again is an idle threat, the trouble is that whoever you are blogger doesn’t like your ip address so you will probably keep getting spammed on all of the blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "More generally, the terms refer fundamentally to divisions over conceptions of sovereignty and political power: Whigs conceive of power as ultimately residing in "the people" (or in the people's representatives) and view rulers as serving the will and welfare of the people (as embodied in Parliament); Tories conceive of sovereignty as residing in rulers and view "the people" as subjects whose duty is to obey. Tories are thus identified with a system of hereditary power--exercised especially by monarchs and the established Church--while Whigs are associated with a system of popular power, though generally in the hands of the propertied rather than the populace at large. In the Tory vision, the political organization of society is hierarchical and patriarchal, with governors having a responsibility to look after the welfare of their subjects. In the Whig vision, political rulers are, likewise, responsible for the welfare of "the people," but they are also accountable to them (that is, to Parliament and the political nation it represents). Both Whig and Tory traditions have often had an upper-class bias to them (though they are both capable of making populist appeals, when necessary), and can usefully be distinguished from a properly democratic or "radical" tradition in British politics and society".

    So which of these more clearly defines the Methodist, neo-liberal (her words) Margaret Thatcher?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Michael.

    Not on thread, but a thought as we are in election time. Are there any rules that prohibit candidates expounding political views anonymously? And not just as "Anonymous" but as "Thanet Reaper" etc.
    And for all those waiting to pounce. Yes, I am a One-Nation Conservative but I am supporting independent candidates in the local elections because I believe that we need a good number of them in office in order to hold the balance of power between the two entrenched political parties and maybe then we can stop the bickering and general misbehaviour that seems to characterise local politics. And no, I am not a candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  31. All very academic, Andrew, but the Oxford Concise dictionary defines Whigs as being succeeded by the Liberals and opposed to Tory. In the more popularly held view then, the Whigs of old became the Liberal Party and the Tories the Conservative Party.

    Mind you, I accept the description liberal, with a small 'l', can be applied to those of other parties.
    Anyway, this is all off thread so will leave it there.

    ReplyDelete
  32. OMG. You know the blog is going to pot when Bluenote pops up. I would encourage Michael to follow ECR's lead and ban the nuisance.

    ReplyDelete
  33. For 17:58's info, ECR never banned me and I was commenting on his site to the very end. It is called democracy so learn to live with it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Bill, my qualifications are accurately quoted in a previous post on this thread and Michael will confirm that I have had an interest in this problem long befors I became a candidate.

    I wish to make no political issue from this matter as it is too important for safety reasons and I would remind you I am nominated for Thanet Villages not in any Ramsgate Ward.

    As for walking on site and asking to inspect the "foundations", I think the site management may not be in agreement

    Like Michael,I sincerely hope that the foundations are "found" but as yet I have seen no encouraging signs

    ReplyDelete
  35. "ECR never banned me"

    He never banned this particular pseudonym but he banned your other one and 'outed' you.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 7:44 How sweetly naive we are. How can you 'out' as you quaintly put it, a psuedonym. It remains as anonymous as you are.

    As for banning, bloggers want visitors, so these 'do not post on my site anymore' statements are just banter. There is no way to stop anyone coming back under a different name or alternative Google account.

    All bloggers can do is delete comment they consider unsuitable or do not want. The danger with doing that too often though is that the site dies.

    Now you enjoy your mid morning tea and biscuits.

    ReplyDelete
  37. When you have no friends it must make sense to spend a lot of time infesting blogs to give others the benefit of your unwelcome opinions?

    ReplyDelete
  38. 0744 out him again

    ReplyDelete
  39. Surely it is only Gays who come out. 14:51 and 16:34 are just being childish for who are they to say whose opinions are unwelcome and who should be outed.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Dull and DullerApril 14, 2011 9:38 pm

    what a load of trollop

    ReplyDelete
  41. It is surely a reflection on our times that so much discussion was based on a bogus premise that the only reason to do the right thing is that to fail to do so would have consequences for the defaulting individual.

    That begs the question that if there are no consequences for doing nothing then doing nothing is the right thing to do. Crap.

    ECR often banned me from his blog but he would email me telling me ever since my FOI application exposing Thor and Sericol contamination of the aquifer he held me in high regard !

    The ban never actuated.

    The Ferry Walkway collapse, incidentally, is a case being mentioned at this time to Kent Police Authority. The same Pc HM Coroners officer who saw "CID remove property which did not re-appear as evidence", at the Deal Barracks bombing scene 1989, also said he saw the same thing at the Ferry Walkway collapse scene.

    In the David O'LEARY murder case 2008 the Thanet County Court hearing, about a Rolex seized at the crime scene by police, is adjourned to July.

    The police position is that they seized the wsatch to safeguard it as a valuable item and in case it became evidence (which it didn't because they decided not to forensically test it.

    Kent Police evidence handling was also at issue in the 1995 Phillip SEED custody death at Margate police station case. In that case it was split sample forensic evidence handling. One sampe shew a massive overdose. The other shew no overdose. And the question arose (against the Pc HM Coroners Officer Deal Barracks bombing and the deputy senior CID Deal Barracks bombing both deployed on the custody death of the man thought to have been barracks gardener) whether samples had left the secure evidence handling chain.

    HM Coroner Thanet stood herself down in the case and Functus Officio Deal bombing Coroner Richard STURT held a new INquest procedure.

    It seems to me that Kent Plod have learnt nothing and that they need to sharpen up their evidence seizing and handling admin.

    In Ulster Gerry Adams is trying to get a retrospective Article 2 Inquest into the 1971 killings at Ballymurphy by allegedly the same paras who went on to kill at Bloody Sunday.

    ADAMS seems not at all opposed to the idea of a retrospective Article 2 Inquest for the 11 Royal Marines killed at Deal 1989.

    If that was to happen (Standby for analogy) I would give evidence of the security warnings I gave Kent Police before the bombing. My status being the same as Michael's concerned citizen. My evidence would call to book all those Kent Plod who failed to protect life (their primacy of duty in the Queens Peace).

    Now, as more evidence has emerged concerning paramilitary groups particularly Gladio, I have a duty. This is because a duty was charged to me in 1972 as a constable. And I developed suspicions of an unlawful police no go area of which a beneficiary was Harry SPORBORG of MI6 the founder of GLADIO. And there we get into some heavy constitutional stuff based on the fact that a Constable Oath is binding unto death that duties be discharged faithfully only unto law.

    Hence if deaths occur, bearing in mind we now have Article 2 inquests which require the truth of whether there was a failure to protect life to be established. Bearing that in mind any citizen who has raised a threat to life question (such as a ferry structure pin or cliff foundations) with authority before the tragedy, would be able to give admissible evidence by which authority could be held to explain by HM Coroner.

    Article 2 being the rights to life article of the European Convention of Human Rights.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dear all

    I have actually inspected the areas in question - and like a politicians brain the foundations are missing...or should we say not supportive enough.

    Michael is right to keep at this.

    If one is not given the right to photograph the areas in question then their is a problem.

    The real Malcolm

    ReplyDelete
  43. Malcolm, the real one, how come Michael was able to photograph the base of the supports but you were denied. A Retired Engineer was shown around and allowed to properly inspect the foundations so why not you.

    Without evidence you are just another voice in the wilderness. However, why not write with your findings to someone in authority and the publish the reply. Or might that not suit your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  44. The Real Malcolm, check your spelling particularly the use of the word 'their' when it should be 'there' - no offence but we should learn from our mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I have received some responses, one from the council, which they have asked me to publish on this blog, something I will do today as time permits, another from Laura Sandys MP who has been in contact with the contractor and council on my behalf.

    This is from her reply from the contractor:

    “It is our intention early next week to further expose a section of the foundation and provide Michael with photographic evidence of the existing foundation, hopefully this will allay his concerns.”

    As a further note Readit or Ken Read has been communicating with me about structural and architectural matters for a number of years, I can see no possible way that this could be interpreted as being for political motives.

    ReplyDelete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.