Saturday, 5 January 2013

No news is good news? From animal exports to secondhand books, a quick and rather muddled ramble.


A quick delve of the internet this morning revealed that the RSPCA are aiming to take further action over the export of live animals from Port Ramsgate, bouncing around the internet as one does this story seems to have originated in Farmers Weekly, see http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/04/01/2013/137008/RSPCA-launches-Ramsgate-legal-battle.htm

I am not sure if this is really news as the article ends with. “A High Court judge will decide early this year whether it will hear the RSPCA's case.” I have filed it away as something that may happen.

The RSPCA, more internet, have been getting a fairly bad press recently, see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/9780817/Our-once-great-RSPCA-is-being-destroyed-by-a-militant-tendency.html and I have noticed that there is certainly a perception now that if you call the RSPCA about a problem relating to an animal, then this almost always results in the animal concerned being destroyed.

We don’t keep animals, living over the bookshop in the middle of Ramsgate, I don’t think it would be practical, we did have a cat for many years, but he was different as he had come to bookselling at an early age and didn’t seem to be interested in much else.

But this was many years ago, so I don’t really have anything in the way of recent personal experience of animal welfare charities.

An aunt of mine once mistakenly was quite cruel to a dog on behalf of this charity, mistaking it an RSPCA collecting box she attempted to push a coin through its scull.

I did finally manage to get hold of this week’s Isle of Thanet Gazette, so I discovered that the online article I linked to yesterday was part of their article about Tracey Emin’s CBE.

There are more letters about Ramsgate’s Pleasurama debacle, in the paper including one from Cllr Poole which says that he is the idiot who will be making the final decision.

I have to admit to being a little unkind to Allan Poole here, but starting a letter to the local paper. “I AM the “idiot” that Janet Woods is referring to” did seem to be asking for it.

The council seem to me to be between the devil and the deep blue sea over Pleasurama and I would guess that even with the combined efforts of Cllr Poole and his opposite number Cllr Moores, working together on this one, they would have great difficulties in sorting out the mistakes made in the past by both their parties.

Perhaps them both admitting to being idiots would be a good starting point in working together, I don’t think either of them have the highest regard for the other, but then that is the way of Thanet politics. Outside of this they both appear to be reasonable and able people, so there may be some hope.

My take on the situation at the moment is that the developer hasn’t got and isn’t likely to get the money to build the development, but does now have an interest in the site and the council are concerned that it could cost them a lot in legal fees to get rid of the developer and start over.

All down the line with this has been about problems related to having no one experienced at the helm, blundering into a project like this without considering the problems related to being next to a cliff face and on the foreshore, suggest going nowhere much, ever.

Looking at the secondhand book world from the other side of the fence, Amazon are now offering exchange value against your books, meaning presumably the postman will ring twice.

As a professional looking at what Amazon have to offer on the book exchange front, I is very difficult to tell what the benefits would be like, there is a lot of "trade in this book for up to £0.25"

From my point of view as a general secondhand bookseller the comparison seems to be roughly the ordinary secondhand paperback that we would sell for £2.50 and offer £1.25 in exchange on return. Amazon would offer for £2.81 and offer 25p in exchange on return.

It isn’t really possible to do an exact comparison, I tried about 20 books and would say in terms of buying, reading and returning, we are still much better value, but of course Amazon with the larger range are far more likely to have the book you want in stock.

The Kindle download side of the equation falls into the odd situation where most of the books you would be likely to enjoy reading are in fact more expensive than a secondhand paperback would be and most of the books you would like to own as physical books, especially most of the classics are available for free.

For us it is the end of Christmas today is the last day we cook a Christmas dinner for extended family and friends, the children’s education recommences on Monday and I have to apologise for running off a quick and rather muddled post inbetween everything else.

68 comments:

  1. I was amazed having been given a kindle for christmas A real book is less expensive than a download. I looked for stienbeck and alll his were more expensive. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don the trick is if the author has been dead for over 70 years, Dickens, Bronte and so on then the book is out of copyright and the Kindle download will be free.

      There are also books that stopped selling in paper form years ago where the Kindle download is very cheap.

      Anything where there is still a good demand in book form is usually cheapest as a secondhand book.

      One thing that can be a problem here is classics in translation, where the copyright relates to when the translator died, often Victorian translations mean that the text has been modified for a Victorian audience.

      Plato’s Symposium, for instance can be read without noticing that it is a homosexual love story, or Chaucer’s tale of The Wife Of Bath can be read without the rude bits, which since there really weren’t any polite bits, means you never know what it will be about.

      Delete
    2. I see from reading another blog that Simon Moores and Ian Driver are now the best of friends. To think that it was only the other that Simon was laughing at animal rights supports, and Ian was calling Simon's group homophobic (as heard on BBC news). I feel sorry for all the gay sheep!

      Delete
    3. The trick with eReaders and small tablets is not to buy a Kindle, get almost anything else and you then have access to a few thousand ebooks from the KCC digital library. Just get an internet access code and pin from your local libary and you can book out up to 6 at a time for up to 3 weeks, the Kindle only works with US libraries.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for that 12.27 I never bought a kindle as I have a Galaxy Note mobile phone and various phones before that which double up as an e-reader, so I didn’t realise the Kindle had this limitation. I mostly use the KCC library for reference works and haven’t found any of the new fiction titles that I have wanted to read available that way.

      Delete
  2. Just been talking abou you on one of mmy recent two posts comments so if your ears were burning .................. Happy New Year XXX

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don I did comment there that I could feel a quick sketch of your enormous roll coming on. But what with the comment moderation and the word verification I wasn’t sure if I had actually left the comment.

      Delete
    2. I got it OK can I have a signed copy pease Michael?

      Delete
  3. When Poole says he is an idiot, he either is an idiot or is a brilliant performer at being an idiot and enjoys the notoriety. Either way, anyone who has watched his performance in Council will know that he is an idiot or at pretending to be an idiot and shouldn't be anywhere near politics, let alone a cabinet member. Just goes to show how limited the brain pool (excuse the pun) is for the Labour puppet master.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "will know that he is an idiot or at pretending to be an idiot" 8.46 was this you being an idiot or pretending to be one?

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJanuary 05, 2013 8:46 PM.

      If you can do better stand for office. But of course you did, you are just bitter and twisted that you lost it! Serves you right for being extremists!

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. 10.12 anonymous commentators can’t make derogatory comments about real people here.

      Delete
    5. anonymous 8:46PM,

      ......It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

      Delete
  4. Is Cllr Poole regretting admitting to be an idiot by any chance?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not as much as the shadow idiot hates being a shadow!

      Delete
  5. I notice that the spiteful anonymice trolls have emerged from the woodwork after their holiday break.

    ReplyDelete
  6. John questions can be more revealing than answers. So can spite. There are more ways to get information out of a person than what he/she says. The nature of the insult especially if it likens the target to an "Ilk". The timing of the comment especially if it arises retrospectively. The sentiment, often anger and derision with resentment.

    And so on. Often dismissive comments take a form. Such as anonymously claiming some personal experience (usually military) and then, with no argument or evidence relating to the facts, declaring a matter under attack "Conspiracy theory" or "Ridiculous conspiracy theory". Often too, such anon commentators declare, with no sense of irony or of irrationality, that the conspiracy theory they attack is without a shred of evidence. (IE they insult a theory which by their own argument could never have existed) Then there are outraged anons who declare a comment under attack as "Libelous". The prob for them with that is if they are arguing that they immediately recognized a lie then it ain't libel.

    Although never an intended hobby you can collect internet trolls. They never risk contributing an opinion but simply attack comments made by their moral superiors.

    Blog comments are like royalties. For very little effort you can sit back or get on with other things ( like a life) and see if you are rewarded in the fullness of time with the gift of further evidence/information.









    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Richard, surely you are suggesting debate is in itself irrational. If someone advances a theory why can someone else not dispute it? If a contributor has experience which may have bearing on the topic, why not say so? Again if a statement names a real person and makes allegations against them that could be libelous, whether the statement is fact or fiction, providing such allegation is nor common knowledge and could be shown to cause loss or injury to the person named.

      In essence, you simply cannot go around accusing persons or groups (e.g. masons) of things for which there is no proof. By the way, other peoples' comments or newspaper articles are not in themselves proof unless they have evidence in support.

      Typically one regularly sees allegations of pollution of the aquifer from one anonymous contributor without ever producing a shred of evidence to back such claim, to the point where it becomes repetitive nonsense to the wider readership. Same could be said of the Deal bombing allegations.

      In conclusion, I would agree with John Holyer that many anonymous comments are just spiteful and contribute nothing to any debate.

      Delete
    2. Allan,

      I can understand why a few people must remain anonymous for fear of retribution from an employer [Inspector Gadget is a perfect example]. This does not preclude rational debate.

      I get the impression that several anonymous form their opinions in the loneliness of their own minds and become demonstrably angry when felt thwarted. These anonymous lack judgement and eschew balance. Teamwork is to them unecessary. Debate is not what they seek. The anonymous forms his opinion to his own satisfaction and cares nothing what others think, unless it be to offer sycophantic approval. Consequently, he drives others away. Though this will not necessarily bother our anonymous bearing in mind that anyone who disagrees with him is clearly a fool.

      Trolls to a lesser or greater degree are just disturbed individuals with a desire to do harm.

      I have always tried to test my opinions on others. I remember when as a callow youth I was holding forth on how the Americans could not get off the beach on D Day. Someone present listened to me for a while and then said in quiet voice that he was on the beach with the Americans on D Day, and that to him they seemed to get off OK. Thank you to that man.

      Debate is essential.

      [The 'he' above could also read 'she' though I suspect this is rare].

      Delete
    3. From my point of view Allan, it is much simpler than that, particular with anonymous comments, i.e. where the commentator isn’t signed into a blogger account, like you and Richard in this thread.

      In the first instance the commentators name means nothing as it could be anyone from my point of view, i.e. your comment could be from you, Richard’s could be Richard Card, however both could be anyone and anyone with malicious intent.

      So comments mentioning the names of people, where those names may relate to real people, who may take offence due to the content of the comment, I just delete.

      The alternative is that I make some effort to check the authenticity of a comment that could have been made by anyone.

      In the case of comments made by someone signed on to blogger I do make much more effort, and of course where the person is a known real person signed on and commenting under their own name, it is a completely different situation.

      On the Thanet blogs, Simon Moores, Myself, Tony Flaig and Peter Checksfield are examples of what I mean, however someone putting Richard in a box who may well put Allan in it next time are of little consequence.

      Delete
    4. Thanks for the total disregard, Michael. I actually thought my response to Richard was reasoned and contained no direct criticism of anyone, only a style. I am all for debate, including valid contributions from anonymous contributors, but abhor the snide one liners, often the product of a certain well known photographer signed into blogger as well as the anonymous. The existence of a blogger account does not really add to authenticity, or even proof of identity, yet all are traceable should the authorities have cause to carry out such checks.

      Delete
    5. I have always used my own name. This arose when I began my commenting on a daily TV programme which was attracting much attention. I used my own name because I thought that was the correct thing to do. I was naive. I quickly realised that everyone else was disguising their identity. A year or so later out of curiousity I googled my own name and was shocked to discover that all my comments were out there, presumably for ever.

      But, as you point Allan, everyone is traceable should the authorities wish to do so. I have discovered that even private citizens can employ an IT company to track down anonymous bloggers. I think I'll start saving up, just in case.

      Delete
    6. A certain Allan Mallinson is rather tedious with his insinuations of others. I know of no relevant, useful or interesting comment from him. The aquifer pollution for example is well-detailed with a mere Google search or FOI request. Maybe he's too lazy and prefers denying it for whatever strange reason of his own to support Manston.

      Allan should remember that Richard provided lots of detail on the Sericol pollution - although maybe Allan will deny this too.

      Allan has my respect though for blogging under his own name as with Clarkey and Old John so that we can more easily disregard them and their olde worlde RAF Manston views and bias.

      Views on 0% salaries anyone?

      Delete
    7. Anonymous,

      You simply cannot avoid spitting venom cxan you albeit it ineffectual. What is you name then, or have you forgotten it. Are you so lonely.

      Delete
    8. Anon 4:36

      The well documented detail on the aquifer pollution is no more than conjecture put into articles by, amonst others, even the current mayor of Ramsgate. There is no actual evidence of any scientic research having ever been carried out to establish what pollution there has been, if any, and by whom.

      Why you should suggest Allan is lazy for not attempting to Google such information beats me. Maybe he has and, like me, found no real proof or he is not bothedred for, after all, it is your allegation, not his.

      By the way, out of interest, who is the 'we' who you say can disregard the views of anyone that do not conform to yours. Surely there cannot be two or more people like you in the world.

      Delete
    9. Mr. Aquifer pollution man, for your information a survey carried out in 2005 showed that the main pollution of the Thanet Aquifer was from pesticides. Since aircraft and fire schools do not used pesticides it kind of blows your case out of the water. Perhaps you should be more careful referring people to google.

      Delete
    10. Tom, Ren, the problem is complicated, but essentially 0% is sort of right about the contamination of the part of the aquifer that we no longer use, the bits under Westwood have been contaminated by chemicals and the bits under the Thanet towns by sewage. I can provide the documentation about this, have done so before.

      Ren is I think confusing nitrates with pesticides, the highest levels of contamination in the part of the aquifer we do use, this has higher levels of nitrates that the EA would like due to the use of fertilisers, even seaweed many years ago.

      There was a contamination of pesticide, by KCC I think, near Ramsgate railway station, but we don’t draw water from that part of the aquifer.

      Manston airport is on top of the part of the aquifer we do use and at the moment and doesn’t have an environmental permit and isn’t compliant with EA requirements.

      Not a simple issue, on the one hand there is a lot of room for improvement, but on the other the water coming out of our taps is ok.

      I guess when I get a chance I will do an up to date post about local pollution, it’s a complicated issue though as like all civilised inhabited areas we produce a lot of pollution and take a lot of measures to mitigate its effects.

      Delete
    11. Whatever, Michael, but you have to agree that there has been no recent scientific survey to actually prove the constant allegations made by your anonymous contributor that the airport and MOD Fire School are contaminating the aquifer. That would be my, and I suspect others, objection to his constant harping, not to mention downright rudeness to anyone who challenges his view.

      I would also suggest, that if you read up the survey results carried out in 2005, the term used in that report is pesticides. Hence Ren is not confused though that is not to say that chemical fertilisers and seaweed did not add to the problem. Either way, that contamination is not down to aircraft fuel spillage or a few firefighters dealing with a practice fire in a container using water, foam or dry powder as our anonymous friend likes to imply.

      Delete
    12. Clarkey's struggling to reconcile his RAF Manston days with the aquifer and pollution under the runway. The Environment Agency and Southern Water describe it as the most polluted aquifer in the South East. Seaweed? Pull the other one Clarkey.

      Ren needs to try Googling properly if she can't find references to "Save Thanet's Water" and "pissing in yout own well".

      Bertie Biggles site refers to thousands of litres of chemicals from the MOD site - on the same aquifer as Manston.

      The overspillage of aviation fuel and emptying into Pegwell Bay is well-documented: again Clarkey is just talking cobblers for whatever reason of his own.

      These numpties are stupid enough to be on the council rather than just blog-whining. An airprot on the aquifer. No wonder TDC and Infratil have run rings around them on not monitoring.

      KLM viable though with the aquifer under Manston?

      Delete
    13. Michael's also making rather dangerous and unfounded assumptions that the water quality is acceptable, let alone excellent.

      We simply don't know without a full EA etc report and release of monitoring/sampling information.

      The series of incidents - and more importantly secrecy and silence from councillors, MP's and civil servants at TDC all suggest real problems.

      Clarkey and John and Allan and Ren say they think everything's fine too so that's OK then.

      Some towns though would have called for an emergency review by now and closed the airport as a public health measure, as originally at Thor in 1988.

      Delete
    14. anonymous3:51 & 4:01

      You may be right or you may be wrong in what you claim about the aquifer. I do not care.
      Your tone is the usual odorous vomit of infantile insult. Do you realise just what an obnoxious and lonely little man you are?

      Delete
    15. Tom apologies for not getting back before now, below is the relevant quote from the 2005 survey.

      “Nitrate concentrations exceeded the Maximum Acceptable Concentration of 11.3 mg/l (as N) specified by the Drinking Water Inspectorate in 499 of 636 samples (71%). There are indications that nitrate concentrations decreased at a rate of 0.10 – 0.15 mg/l per year during the periods 1991 – 1994 and1995 – 1998, with these two faintly discernible trends being separated by a relatively abrupt increase in nitrate concentration of approximately 2 mg/l at the start of 1995. Although the current trend in nitrate concentration is unclear, extremely high concentrations of nitrate in groundwater sampled during 2003 are of concern. Investigation of current nitrate levels on Thanet is ongoing.

      Measurement of total pesticide concentration in 158 groundwater samples found pesticides present above the 0.5 μg/l limit imposed by the Drinking Water Inspectorate in all samples. Excepting Atrazine and Diuron, individual pesticide species rarely exceed their Maximum Acceptable Concentrations; it is their summed presence in groundwater which appears to be a serious problem in terms of meeting the requirements of the Drinking Water Inspectorate.”

      Essentially the water is made drinkable by mixing it with less contaminated water, the amount you have to dilute it by to get the nitrate level acceptable is much more than that needed to get it acceptable from a pesticide point of view.

      In simple terms if you have 5 times too much vodka in your drink and 2 times too much Worcestershire source in it, putting in the 5 times the tomato juice to dilute the gin you don’t have to worry about the source.

      Thanet's drinking (drinkable) water is blend of water from Plucks gutter (river Stour), Thanet aquifer and from the Wingham Well.

      It's all then held at the Southern Water works near the Airport the Source Protection Zone that lies within KIA, i.e we use the bit of aquifer under the airport to store it.

      You have to appreciate we are looking at a large quantity of water.

      This has nothing to do with crazy notions from 0% et al that we have poisons coming out of our taps, nonsense that detracts from a serious and important issue.

      But is does have a great deal to do with KIA not achieving the standard asked for by the EA and operating without a EP (environmental permit), put in simple terms the airports drains are not up to standard.

      Putting my engineering hat on for a mo, I would guess the risk for the future of Thanet is lots of bill, perhaps an infinity of bill i.e bill going on for ever.

      Delete
    16. Thank Michael, this sheds a flood of light on the subject. Just one thing, what is "bill"?

      Delete
    17. Thanks, Michael, but, as you say, all the research points to nitrates and pesticides rather than any real evidence of aircraft fuel contamination or that by fire fighting chemicals. Agree with you that the issue does need a thorough investigation being as concerned as most about the general pollution of our environment.

      I do, however, find the constant harping on about the airport, RAF and MOD by your anonymous aquifer person rather tedious, as it would seem do several others. Clearly he hates the airport and leaps from one objection, like pollution through monitors to its alleged bust state with monotonous regularity. That is not reasoned argument and could contribute to clouding the real issue.

      As to Manston airport, well if it contributes to our local economy and creates jobs then fine, as long as that is not at too high an environmental cost, but, if not, then perhaps alternative use should be considered, but still keeping environment issues in mind.

      Delete
    18. John bill is what you get at the end, it comes in brown envelopes and is directly proportionate to pretty much everything, the conjecture is that at the end of the universe there will be an eternity of endless bill.

      Not really “my anons,” just something that happens with the blog, the alternative being to moderate comment, beyond just deleting the ones where people commenting without their real names attached to some sort of blogger identity, say something about real people that I think may be dodgy.

      My take on the airport is that there is something a bit “third world” about operating without an environmental permit, but I don’t think the problem there is so much about existing pollution, although there does appear to have been a fair bit of this over the years.

      It is much more about future pollution and the risks associated with not having the drainage the EA say they want the airport to have.

      I have said it before and will no doubt say it again, I have considerable reservations about the motives of the various anons who totally overstate the pollution and other issues, on the whole I take the view that that there is probably an imperative to rubbish reasonable local issues and argument in this way.

      Certainly continually suggesting that there are poisons coming out of our taps, which, well in a way there are, but not in quantities that will poison you. Is a bit like putting forward the argument that: Carbon Monoxide is a poison, it is produced by combustion, therefore nothing should be allowed to burn or you will die if you breath. While totally ignoring the fact that if nothing is burnt you will probably be dead within a few days anyway, or perhaps the argument is you should stop breathing. And yes. This sort of nonsense detracts from real problems that do exist.

      My guess is that all of the anons started the day, like me with a cuppa made from good old Thanet tap water and are happily wandering around breathing the chemical cocktail we call air.

      Delete
    19. I see, Michael, thanks. I thought 'bill' was an anagram for something more exciting.

      Tom & Michael, Anon may hate Manston airport; but this does not conceal his evident misanthropy. Hence his deliberate and targeted insults. But this is not his primary purpose. For what he craves more than anything else is to be noticed. And I am foolish enough to feed his unhealthy appetite by persistently rising to the bait.

      Delete
    20. So we're all agreeing that there is serious pollution at Manston? Exept Clarkey who maintains there is none? But now he says there could be?

      And nobody has any views on cleaning it up? And John doesn't care anyway and resorts to whining?

      A fair summary? If so why have Clarkey et al been denying the repeated pollution that's as plain as the nose on their face? Idiocy? Desperate memories of RAF manston - even to wanting to endanger the water supply?

      Michael's crazy notion that anyone's saying the water coming out of the taps is polluted is his own assertion. As is his view that all is perfectly safe. We simply don't know - although the number of incidents and silence of civil servants and councillors and MP's looks bad. Very bad.

      And a baby or toddler may have less tolerance of water pollution than adults.

      How will KLM flights affect Manston and the aquifer? Not one councillor has spoken upon this major public health hazard including Infratil and TDC removing the monitors.

      Delete
    21. anonymouse 3:27PM,

      What do you mean by 'we're all agreeing' - you clown.

      It is significant that you do not deny anything that I have said about your character and motives.

      Delete
    22. Anon 3.27 I think in this case, we simply do know, the drinking water inspectorate test our water- the water coming out of the taps in our public buildings - on a daily basis and the water coming out of the taps in Thanet is of above average quality for the UK.

      This isn’t to say that our water, like the air we breathe isn’t polluted, just that the levels of pollution are lower than the level likely to harm anyone.

      In terms of groundwater pollution the level in the part of the Thanet aquifer under Manson is not high and doesn’t fall into the bracket of serious pollution, so no we don’t all agree.

      And your misinformed notion that this is the case, well it don’t do anything to assist with the genuine environmental problems associated with KIA.

      The groundwater pollution under parts of Westwood does constitute serious pollution, but we don’t use this water.

      Think of it like this, I am just about to engage in a highly polluting activity which will raise the levels of carbon monoxide in my kitchen by a factor of about 1000 times what it was. Or to put this another way I am about to cook pizza. I will not however be engaging in the highly polluting activity that would raise the carbon monoxide level in the garage by a factor of several million, shutting the garage doors and starting the car engine, because I do not whish to kill myself.

      Delete
    23. Shame 3:27 does not try that in his garage though, Michael, and save us all from his further diatribes. We can but dream.

      Delete
    24. Tom for some time I was an Anglican religious living under the rule of St Benedict I guess there were problems even in the fifth century, amongst some rather turgid ecclesiastical latin Benedict calls down the fifteen hundred years to us; that while a wise man may be reasoned with, an idiot should be beaten immediately.

      Delete
    25. Not quite Michael. The DWI take the EA and any TDC readings. Rarely do they test themselves. I'm not aware of any readings - maybe you have some to draw your conclusions.

      The EA confirm - as I think you know - not just pollution of the Manston aquifer, but cleanup required by Infratil. And ignored.

      I don't think in light of the removed monitors farce anyone would value TDC's views.

      Water is in fact pumped in from West Kent as the Manston aquifer is so contaminated - as you'd expect with an airport on top of it and MOD fires/chemicals.

      The spillage of aviation fuel into Pegwell is also well-documented by EA. As is Thor/MOD pollution.

      Clarkey and Old John persist in their random view that there is no pollution - and if there was they don't care, such is there olde worlde RAF Manston view.

      Drawing an analogy between cooking pizza and Infratil contaminating the aquifer, while your council stays silent, puts you firmly in the fool category.

      The question was on KLM and further pollution?

      Delete
    26. Anonymous 4:51,

      Come out of your lonely little world.

      I have not expressed an opinion about the aquifer one way or the other. I do not comment on that which I do not know.

      But I know you. You are an obnoxious lonely little pest.

      You cannot eschew making the gratuitous insult. For the simple reason that this is your primary purpose in infesting this blog.

      I have posted several assessments of what I deduce to be your character and motive. The truth of which you have not denied. Consequently, it reasonable to say that we all agree that I'm correct in my conclusion of what you are.

      Delete
    27. I am with you, John, in that assessment for one has to wonder otherwise, why chummy at 4:51 would bother to place his opinions on the blog of a fool, as he alleges Michael is. I know whose knowlesdge of local affairs I would trust most.

      Delete
    28. Anon as I said before Thanet's drinking (drinkable) water is blend of water from Plucks gutter (river Stour), Thanet aquifer and from the Wingham Well.

      It's all then held at the Southern Water works near the Airport the Source Protection Zone that lies within KIA, i.e we use the bit of aquifer under the airport to store it.

      I don’t think you can have any concept of the huge volume of water we use when you suggest that it comes from West Kent.

      However that said, my concern is that KIA obtains an environmental permit in accordance with recommendations made by the EA.

      You seem to be suggesting that KIA should instead be compliant with your wishes, i.e. be environmentally regulated by an anonymous blog commentator.

      The literary quotes abound from Shakespeare on, the fool being a significant character in England since prehistory, I think “I may be a fool but this doesn’t mean I am an idiot” will do.

      Now as you may be aware, I take my concerns about local pollution issues up with the appropriate authorities, EA, TDC contaminated land officer and so on and publish the information about what happens here on this blog. Why you should take me to task about your pollution concerns, instead of the proper authorities seems a bit on the strange side. I also have considerable concerns about you ridiculously overstating your case and wonder what your motives could b,e other than rubbishing all sensible and logical debate about the issue.

      Delete
    29. Michael,

      I think you are missing the point with our anonymous pest by treating his comments seriously. He does not care about the aquifer nor anything else for that matter. Other than he is driven to attack people, anyone. This is the primary purpose of his comments. He enjoys it. He is a lonely little man. In a perverse way I almost feel sorry for him. But this will pass upon receipt of his next bout of febrile stupidity.

      Delete
    30. John I have taken what you say on board and am going to take a more humerals attitude to blogging for a while

      Delete
    31. Heavy on on insults but light on content for the Manston pollution. Old John has several times stated there is no/minimal pollution - and that he doesn't care even if there is. So much for his views.

      Clarkey previously denied any pollution or a teensy-weensy bit from farming but adds nothing now.

      Michael's points are fairly random if not incoherent now. Both of us - in contrast to Clarkey and John's RAF Manston fanaticism - confirm the Manston aquifer pollution.

      These two numpty chaps now attempt insultsthough being unable to deny the pollution any longer -or the value of the drinking water aquifer under the airport.

      In brief, what we have is an aquifer under the airport. The former if not the latter severely polluted - the worst in the South East according to Southern Water and the Environment Agency.

      And Infratil's reqired clean-up ignored. And fuel draining into Pegwell Bay.

      The question was on KLM flights improving the pollution? And with Infratil selling up how will the pollution be cleaned up?

      John says he doesn't care. Clarkey says there is no pollution. Michael says there is pollution but it's OK and the EA etc have been/will be cleaning it up even though they haven't, and they say it's very polluted.

      Anyone else with a view on the Manston pollution worth debating beyond random nonsense?

      Delete
    32. Anonymouse 3:49.

      I see you are back. You have been busy trolling Facebook seeking victims. We all know what turns you on.

      Delete
    33. A seriously nasty barsteward without doubt, John, but pointless any of us carrying on responding to his nonsense. Best left to wallow in his self inflicted miserable world surrounded by his own dark thoughts.

      Delete
    34. Tom,

      That's right Tom. We can all agree that he's he just a rather sad and lonely inadequate.

      Delete
    35. Nothing on the Manston aquifer pollution from Clarkey and Holyer, just childish insults from silly old men.

      With Infratil selling up how will the aquifer be cleaned up? Will KLM flights increase the existing pollution?

      Perhaps more importantly what have our councillors and civil servants been doing on the monitoring and illegal overflights?

      Delete
    36. To anonymouse @ 10:37,

      You clearly have a foible about age. Which I find curious. Still, never mind you are driven to do whatever excites you. Everyone knows what you are.

      Delete
    37. Ignore him, John, for he feeds off our responses and even the ageism bit is just another feeble minded insult. He is in all probability a miserable old codger himself seeking sources to blame for what he perceives as the misfortunes in his sad existence.

      Delete
    38. Allan, You are right. I have always had the impression that he is older rather than younger. I should, as you say, ignore him and I will endeavour to do so.

      Delete
    39. John & Allan with you two on chummy and agree he is best ignored. Interestingly over on Thanet Press Releases, amongst his usually idiocy insults, he has said he hopes I was drummed out of the RAF and police. Interesting since, apart from the fact I was a Redcap, although he probably would not know what that is, drummed out is a very old expression tending to confirm he is more ancient than youthful. Allan's assessment of him is probably fairly spot on.

      Delete
    40. Tom & Allan,

      Our anonymouse is venomous. The antidote is to ignore him. I am guilty of retaliating, which of course gives him the attention that he so desperately needs. It is possible that he was kicked out of HM Forces, hence the spite that he spits on that subject.

      Delete
    41. Agreed, but if he was drummed out it must have been back in Victorian times!

      Delete
  7. If the shadow referred to by, 12:29, is an idiot, at least he keeps it to himself and does not publicly declare it in a letter response. Wonder what an IQ test of the whole of the TDC councillors would show. Doubt there would be too many MENSA candidates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cum of it 8.21am I can tkink off at lest thea or baybe too.

      Delete
    2. Will Scobie has just passed his masters degree - what next a doctor? And I have not seen it on the local blogs but Louise Drelaud and Will Scobie will be the lab candidates for Margate and Cliftonville in May's KCC election.

      Delete
    3. Firstly there is a huge difference between the time and level of study necessary for a PhD over a masters and does possession of such qualification necessarily prepare one to be a County Councillor or Member of Parliament. Surely one of our problems is that Westminster particularly contains far too many graduates with no real life experiences of the commercial or industrial world so necessary to successfully run a country.

      I would much prefer to see young Master Scobie use his qualifications to further a career in the real world and then put himself forward as a candidate when he had some life experience.

      Delete
    4. Tom,

      I heartily agree. As a general rule professional politicians with no practical experience of the real world are very bad administrators and lawmakers. We have far too many of them.

      Delete
    5. I guess one of the biggest problems, particularly in local politics is somehow getting some young politicians to represent the young part of the electorate, many of whom don’t even bother to vote.

      The average age of a politician in the UK is 50 and I reckon this would be very high, say for employees in a business actually trying to do anything meaningful.

      Personally aged about 60 I can see the argument for having people with as much experience as I have running the country and I guess Tom and John you have the same notion.

      I guess what we really need here is a well educated person of about 25 with about 60 years experience, funnily enough my son is just coming to the end of a science masters, so I will ask him about cloning this type of politician.

      Delete
  8. In the world of social networking, numbers say a lot about one's business. Buy facebook fans are actually referred to now as Facebook, but often are used interchangeably. Buy facebook fans or buy twitter followers is a way to increase the frequency of customer visits to your site and in other way, to bring more potential customers to your business.

    My web page :: http://inputout.com/blog/2011/may/11/58/?c=21693&c=23755

    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.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.