Saturday, 28 September 2013

Carl Hawkins Exhibition at the York Street Gallery, Handmade Market in Albert Court and Morrisons to open on Monday morning.

A quick lunch break from what is a busy day and a few photos in Ramsgate while eating my lunch.

Carl Hawkins Exhibition at the York Street Gallery












Handmade Market in Albert Court





Morrisons looking ready to open


116 comments:

  1. Who is this Jim Hill character who has highlighted the poor state of repair of buildings in King St. Morrisons have made a good job of tidying up the old Blockbuster site. I guess if Michael and others tidied theirs up, it can only help further. Michael do you have any plans to repair yours?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think most folk with an IQ above 1 could work out that Jim Hill is a figment of your imagination 2:36 PM. Are you now to hi-jack every posting with your bile about the state of Michael's shop. Perhaps you have bigger problems than Michael.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 2:36PM,

      I do not know about King Street but I do know about you. Please email me in order that I can direct you to a Doctor who will tidy up you disturbed mind. Your condition is worsening and it's time for you to seek proper help, and you know this. At the very least you need to find some other onanistic relief, one that does not harm other people.

      Delete
    2. John, digressing for the moment, but I have an interesting question for you. Would you say the odd cargo flight from Manston plus the daily KLM service is more or less polluting than flying long haul to Thailand? Talking of which, did you ever get there during your Western Hill days for I did about five times on leave? Always down the southern tip around Haadyai and Sonkhla (hope my spelling is still correct). Better stop this now before we get accused of being a couple of old RAF codgers reminiscing about the empire (not that I think Siam was ever in it).

      Delete
    3. William.

      I would say that the occasional flights from Manston are much less polluting than a long haul to Thailand.

      It is often the way of people that they protest vehemently about pollution caused by others, while remaining relaxed about their own contribution.

      The unseemly clamber to appear green has resulted in the closure of many coal fired power stations in UK, which has had the effect of sending the cost of electricity through the roof for our manufacturers. As a direct consequence all UK aluminium smelters have been compelled to close down . They moved to China and set up there. Consequently, the effect on global carbon emissions has been nil, while costing the UK dear.

      It may seem rather pointless. But this is to misunderstand the nature of the Green Party. When Marxism failed and fell in 1989 the Marxists needed a new home. Many fled to the Green Party. For like Communism the Greens seek to control the means of production, and allocate goods to each according to his needs. If ever in power the Green Party would decide what you may eat, the car that you drive or whether we are allowed a car at all. Similarly with holidays: you would not be able to jet off to Thailand whenever you pleased, if at all. Caroline Lucas has accused people who fly to Spain on holiday are as bad as thugs who stab people in the street. You can imagine how she would view a person making regular flights to Thailand. He would be nothing less than akin to a mass murderer

      Naturally, none of these restrictions would apply to the party apparatchiks. They would do much as they pleased on the grounds that they were engaged on essential party business saving the planet for mankind.

      I have been to Thailand only once, from Butterworth by train. I was planing to go on jungle survival course in Johur Baru, but my wife wanted to go to Bangkok. So we compromised and went to Bangkok. I'm pleased we did. We had a wonderful time there.

      Delete
    4. Bangkok then was the main R & R destination for the US Forces from Vietnam, thus far more commercialised than down south where more was done for love! Seriously though, lovely place and I took some really interesting inland water way trips as well as rain forest hikes. Sort of busman's holiday stuff for a rock.

      With you on the Green Party who seem to have picked up the mantle of Militant and the SWP in this country as well as some of their former activists.

      Delete
  3. Glad to see that Michael does not agree with the posts which are critical of the state of his shop. Freedom of speech eh....just delete them....glass houses

    ReplyDelete
  4. For the regulars on here can someone explain something I'm having trouble with (without the animosity please)

    Councillor Driver comes in for a lot of abuse and as far as I can see it is mainly because he "jumped ship" and remained an elected TDC member.
    What I do not understand is in the recent political past you have Worrow, Wiltshire, Gregory that have also jumped ship but they do not get any abuse.
    So why is Driver singled out?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barry, when John Worrow first jumped ship he came in for a lot of stick from other Conservatives, his TIG website was ridiculed and he was subjected to some very critical letters to the local papers and even worse on some blog sites. Eventually he went quiet, closed down his blog and kept a low profile. Ian Driver, on the other hand, is hardly low profile and has a long history of not retaining loyalty to a party or cause for too long.

      Before Thanet he was Militant and Scargill's Real Labour. He left both. He first ran in Thanet as an independent without success so he joined the Labour party where he won in a safe Labour seat wearing a red rosette. He has since left Labour, joined the Thanet Independent Group with John Worrow, left them, to engage with Tom King's independents and then dumped them for the Green party, the ultimate home of all those from the far left. Hence it is not a case of jumping ship once, more like abandoning a fleet or two.

      Then there is his high profile bandwagon hopping which has included some strange choices to get a picture on the news or in the papers. There was the campaign against Thanet Earth for breaking employment law, which turned out to be untrue, the megaphone shouting outside the Broadway Practice in Broadstairs, the Stop the Closure of Margate's A & E and perhaps the silliest of the lot, the objections to a sign at the Foreland School acknowledging a donation from the Spastics Society which had been there for years and which he must have walked by many times before he latched onto it as another media opportunity. If anyone is that high profile they are bound to attract detractors.

      The real test of public opinion on Ian Driver is in elections and he has only ever one the once when masquerading as Labour in a safe Labour ward. Even last year he was rejected outright by the people of Ramsgate in the county council elections.

      Delete
    2. William are you saying so long as someone keeps a low profile and doesn't ask awkward questions they will be left alone?
      There are lots of areas of ineptitude within TDC (No "due diligence" done on pleasurama for instance) so why isn't any Councillor raising the issues publically? are they all worried about skeletons coming to light?

      Delete
    3. It's very very simple James, Driver seeks media attention in any and every way possible, having deserted 3 political groups in the last 2 years! HE jumps on the bandwagons, currently one that is in no way related to the electorate that elected him, but haven't been represented by him since that election!

      He simply rakes up non stories, and tries to whip up a believable BS story around them to try to justify his latest bandwagon journey. He has presented no evidence of wrong doing by anyone James, and neither have you, yet you whine when people deal with you both as harshly as you deserve.

      Roll on 2015, when Driver's comprehensive FU from the electorate will no doubt be repeated, and Thanet will be rid of the clown once and for all.

      Delete
    4. not much of an answer hammy, pretty poor really. You do not answer the question as to why the others that jumped ship (Latchford should also be included under that banner) do not get any verbiage, just Driver. It seems keeping your head down is the way to avoid grief on blogs. Seems it is the publicity seeking politicians that leave themselves open to abuse.
      it seems sticking your head above the parapet at castle TDC is the best course of action, on the blogs at least.

      Delete
    5. Barry, I did not say that as long as you maintain a low profile you will be left alone, but more that the higher your profile the more likely you are to attract criticism from some quarters.

      I used to comment on blogs under a pseudonym and, whilst attracting the odd reply, escaped personal attacks. Persuaded by Michael to adopt my real name, someone promptly latched onto the fact I was a parish councillor, identifiable on a web site, and in came the insults. I became an old duffer, not worth tax payers money, doing nothing other than having tea and biscuits, driving around in a chauffeur driven car, failing my electorate, stupid and with a whole host of other character defects. It is the price one pays, but my profile is far lower than that of Ian Driver and I do not seek the limelight.

      All this stuff about skeletons is nonsense. Most councillors serve their wards to the best of their ability, but act responsibly on collective decisions. Throughout time armies, company and individuals, even including the highly successful, have made mistakes or taken wrong decisions with the benefit of hindsight. From the Romans, through M & S to Allan Sugar they have made the odd strategic or business mistake. It doesn't mean they are corrupt, hiding anything or even consistently unsuccessful, but just things do not always work out as planned or anticipated.

      What I find ironic is that in Thanet some of the biggest critics of TDC are those who have themselves failed as candidates for office. Perhaps the public are more perceptive than they are also given credit for being.

      Delete
    6. William I think what is being said by us is largely similar with perhaps a difference in emphasis. I note that using your real name does lead to personal attacks which is to be deplored. (hammy take note)
      I have sat in Cabinet meetings and full council meetings and what passes for debate is laughable. decisions that are made are being made by well meaning people who seem to be acting without considering the long term future of Thanet.
      As an example currently we (the ratepayers) are being asked to swallow £836K of slippage (current shortfall in budget) because TEF have gone bust but at the same time being asked to swallow the lie that during the previous 4 years no one lost money because TEF didn't pay their way. Now that is basically absurd yet no one from either party (tory and Labour) are raising any objections.
      The people of Thanet who are affected by this so called slippage are upset yet who is in the wrong?

      Delete
    7. Barry, it is but interpretation. TEF provided trade and jobs to Ramsgate Port plus income to Thanet for a decade or more before they got into difficulties. When they did, TDC, as was replicated on the other side of the channel, deferred payment of berthing fees to try to help keen the ferry company going. It was an attempt to save the prime trade of Ramsgate Harbour, but it failed. Since this decision was originally reached by one administration and then continued by another, who exactly do you think would be asking the questions.

      Should Labour councillors be attacking the original decision by a Tory administration or should the Tory Councillors be attacking the decision of the Labour administration to continue the arrangement. Neither can really do so when it was at some stage party to it. What people also cannot seem to grasp is that had the plug been pulled on TEF as soon as they could not pay Thanet would still have never got that money. I would not expect Driver to understand that, nor would he want to as this is too big a drum to bang, but I would have thought you might.

      Delete
    8. Barry, here is a little observation for you on this less than sunny morn. Ian Driver, who you said does not insult John Hamilton, has just referred to him over on Thanet Press Releases as a 'rabid right wing fool.' Now I am in no way disputing the good councillor's right to reply to the insults he suffers, but 'rabid' surely smacks of a medical condition and Ian has been very critical of the use of such labels in the past. Seems double standards are alive and well.

      Delete
    9. Couple of points. Firstly, yes - Driver is vocal. And - as you pointed out William - sometimes he may be wrong. But he is vocal in his opposition and that is more than the current opposition party are doing. Which leads to point two - yes - both the reds and blues are culpable in the TEF debt. So if anyone is critical of Clive, you can feel Iris and Rick preparing a barrage of "In 1876 you lot did this" which would drag both parties down. But is this in the interests of the people of Thanet, or is this in the interests of the serving councillors? And I think the big point is, the money was accepted as an income and spent accordingly. I believe that is the big point here. Dont spend money you havent got!

      Delete
    10. Don't dispute what you say about opposition, Duncan, but I am not sure where this takes us. Whichever way one views the TEF disaster and who was responsible, the fact remains it has happened. You are right that both administrations, blue and red, played a part, but who was the most culpable is surely irrelevant now. What is needed is to move forward, try to bring back some trade to the port of Ramsgate and to take on board the lessons from this experience.

      I am not convinced shouting, demanding documents and levelling accusations achieves much other than raising the profile of the shouter.

      Delete
    11. I guess the nub of the thing here is that sometimes Ian Driver is wrong, but sometimes he is right, going down the John Hamilton road of Driver is always wrong has only one result and that is to make the person doing this lose all credibility as has happened with John Hamilton.

      Although I am very much against ongoing historic recrimination, which is one of the most damaging factors within our district politics, it is obvious that Ian has highlighted aspects of the ferry saga that need addressing in terms of current and future debts to the council.

      In these enlightened times when as a retailer every invoice I receive makes it very clear in the small print that the supplier has a charge against my assets until it is paid in full, it seems incredible that the council, with its own legal department, could have let the ferry dept arise without a charge on the ferry company’s assets.

      Frankly the whole business of councillors changing sides comes about because party politics is played a district and county level and the fundamental intention of local people representing local people is eroded.

      Delete
  5. Hi Barry. Driver is not my cup of tea but I support his right to shout about things, to express his views, to speak to the papers, and I support his right to get to the bottom of wrong-doing. I imagine most reasonable people would have a similar view about Driver. What you have to ask yourself is who is he damaging with his activities? He has clearly damaged the Labour group by jumping ship, thereby reducing their control of the council. However, as you rightly point out, so have others and they aren't subject to this kind of abuse. Maybe the reason is more sinister? Driver is clearly intent on damaging the people who are responsible for the Pleasurama and Transeuropa fiascos. If I were one of those people I would be doing everything I could to derail his campaign. In contrast, the other councillors you mention aren't really trying to do anything. They aren't digging to get to the bottom of any scandal and they aren't plastering their findings all over the internet. In other words, they may have jumped ship but they are not rocking the boat, or the gravy train (if that makes any sense). Driver's most aggressive critic is the person using the pseudonym John Hamilton. I believe he uses a variety of other peudonyms and the Gazette has postulated that he may actually be a councillor. If it turns out to be true, we would have to look carefully at that person's motivation in going to such lengths to discredit and undermine Driver.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Gazette postulated that he may be in politics, not that he may be a councillor. It was a brief comment by Smudger, not known for serious journalistic investigations, and amounted to nothing more than speculation. John Hamilton has equally attacked John Worrow, Barry James, Duncan Smithson whilst also being pretty hostile on one or two blog sites. If Ian Driver gets more hits than the others it is probably because he does more to attract attention to himself.

      Delete
    2. He never ever complains about Simon Moores, Roger Latchford, Ken Gregory or Mick and Shirley Tomlinson though (and indeed at least one of these has publicly defended him). Strange that!

      Delete
    3. "pretty hostile" anon 8:15pm that is a major understatement. Calling a videographer a monkey is more than hostile. Saying old people "smell of wee and should be hosed down" is vicious and belongs to the 19th century.
      The person doesn't belong in any company let alone have the freedom to blog uncontrollably.

      Delete
    4. Maybe they are lesser clowns hardly worthy of such ridicule.

      Delete
    5. You've obviously never met them 8:34!

      Delete
    6. 7:05, Driver can say what he likes, but he and his minions really shouldn't whine his BS gets called out! An interesting point though, Drivers minions whine he should be allowed to BS as he wishes, yet believe I should be censured for simply pointing out lies and BS that appears in these blogs and on FB. What a deliciously hypocritical position to take.

      8.15 seems accurate enough.

      8:28, yet to see the people you name leap upon every passing bandwagon...

      8:32 Tongue, a videographer HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That's like calling the 2008 Margate sandcastle champion a sculptor! Oh, ever heard of an organ grinder and his ............. keep up up there's a good boy ;)

      Were old people hosed down in the 19th century? How entertaining that you believe in free speech, but only free speech you approve of ;)

      Delete
    7. Hamilton you don't "just whine" you are rude, nasty and should not be allowed your vitriolic platform.
      "Free speech" where does it say free speech allows anyone to make personal attacks on others?

      Delete
    8. Is not calling someone 'rude and nasty' a vitriolic attack in itself. Where would you draw this line on who can call who what, 9:41, or is it only people you object to that should have their freedom of expression curtailed.

      Delete
    9. The two anons above,

      You cannot insult someone that you do not know. By posting as an anon nobody will know who you are so how can you be insulted? For example: if I were to call you a troublemaker it would not be an insult for in truth you might well be a troublemaker. Do you grasp the logic?

      Delete
    10. Think the point here is, John, that the Anon at 9:41 is calling Hamilton nasty and rude and, since John Hamilton says he blogs in his real name, that must constitute a personal attack, which is what that anon was accusing John Hamilton of. Agree though that one cannot insult an unknown, say like 9:41, for as far as we know he could very well be an obnoxious middle aged failure with a king sized chip on his shoulder and, therefore, I am not stating a falsehood by calling him such nor do I damage his good name because he has not got one.

      Delete
    11. anon 9:41 am,

      You ask. "where does it say free speech allows anyone to make personal attacks on others?" In reply I suggest that you search case law to find your answer.

      But let me turn your question around. It is a tenet of our Law that we are free to do as we please, providing there is no specific law preventing that action. Can you tell me under which Act or Precedence you believe that you have protection not to be insulted, or as you would call it personally attacked?

      Are you certain that you go through life being polite to everyone you meet? I bet you would launch a personal attack on John Hamilton were you ever to meet him face to face? Which would conclude that while you consider yourself protected from 'personal attack' you do not extend that protection to others.

      If you stop to think about it the whole point of free speech is to allow us to make personal attacks on others. Ask any politician. It is this right that guards our freedom and thwarts any would be dictator.

      I suspect that my reply may have annoyed you. Consequently, should you decide to reply then choose your words carefully; otherwise you might find yourself making a personal attack.

      Delete
    12. Interesting response Holyer and Epps. however it is also true that if I called Barry and Hamilton awful names and accused them of doing something bad would they then need to prove they are real names before any action is taken. Michael himself said Hamilton was a "nom de blog" which makes you believe he posts anonymously something he hasn't said about barry james which also makes you believe they know each other in the real world

      Delete
    13. Anon 4:30 pm,

      If you are thinking about the Law Of Libel then I suggest you look it up on the internet. Everything you need to know about this subject is there and is easy to find and understand. In the event it is only a Jury who can decide whether a person has been libelled.

      Frankly, I believe that your questions have a concealed motive, probably to stir up argument on this blog.

      PS: anons do not and never can exist in what you refer to as the real world.

      Delete
    14. John having just read the preceeding posts I will correct one issue. I do not believe, despite provocation I have ever been nasty to hammy and funnily enough I cannot find any commentary on blogs were Driver has been nasty to hammy either (driver has been singled out for much unpleasantness and hasn't responded in kind) I actually feel sorry for hammy and hope one day he finds the courage to state his views in a manner that allows his victims to reply to his face.
      I have read that his comments may fall foul of the communication act but as I don't know whether they do or not I will leave it to the police and any investigation they may be asked to undertake.

      Delete
    15. Sad day, Barry, when our over stretched police are reduced to investigating name calling on blog sites. As I have already told you, I have been subjected to some insults, but would never turn to the police over them. If it did become what I considered libellous then I might consult my solicitor, but I would not expect such to be funded from the public purse.

      Delete
    16. Barry,

      As I said, only a Jury can decide whether or not you have been libelled.

      I am sure you realise that there is nothing to be gained from your attempting to debate Law on blogs such as this. What do you hope to achieve by complaining here about John Hamilton. If you truly believe that you have been harmed by him them your only sensible recourse is to consult a Solicitor. .

      Delete
    17. This isn't about libel it is about the right of reply. I will discuss with anyone face to face but hammy doesn't give you that option.

      Delete
    18. Anonymity on the internet should be made illegal!

      Delete
    19. Barry,

      So it boils down to the fact that John Hamilton refuses to meet you face to face. I can appreciate how frustrating and annoying this might be for you, but after all he cannot be compelled to meet you can he.

      Delete
    20. Oh how entertaining. James libels/slanders a well know Kent company and is forced to remove such accusations, yet whines that people are "nasty" to him, and his hero Driver, how very entertaining!

      Can someone please point me at the legislation that requires me to meet a repellent, dishonest pedant such as you James? The right to reply is clearly available to you via the medium where someone was "nasty" to you. However, childishly, you expect others to deal with a situation of your own making where your BS has been exposed, and you seek ways to wriggle out of the humiliation that I heap upon you with such little effort.

      If Driver had been honest with the people who voted for him then just maybe he might have some credibility, and some respect. Clearly that is something that Driver and James are unlikely ever to exeprience.

      Delete
    21. so predictable Hamilton. but then as a "nom de blog" you couldn't meet anyway could you.

      Delete
    22. Are we to suppose you could then, 9:00? How delighted you must be with your pathetic little 'nom de blog' that you will now presumably flog till kingdom come. Did you think it up all by your little self?

      Delete
    23. The big difference William is that "John Hamilton" makes out he's using his real identity when he's not.

      Delete
    24. Peter,

      What you say may well be true, I do not know, but what leads you to conclude that 'John Hamilton' is not the writer's real name, as he claims it to be?

      Delete
    25. I always know when people are lying to me.

      Delete
    26. Obviously then, Peter, you are in the wrong job for you should be with the security services. I spent several years interrogating people and could often tell by their body language if they were lying. I never detected such when I could not even speak with or see them, so you must have a very unique skill if you can.

      Delete
    27. Of course my posts are predictable 9:00, I only post facts and truth, and that doesn't ever change my boy. The rest of your post is as inaccurate as we have come to expect.

      Delete
    28. No William, Michael 1st used it, and some of the more vacuous posters have taken that to mean it MUST be true, sad really.

      Care to flesh out that claim with some evidence Peter? Or have you been studying at the feet of the master of bullshit, James? Ah, I see, your evidence is that you guessed it, well done, you are certainly a student of James.

      Delete
    29. Mr Holyer I don't know what makes Peter think Hamilton is not his real name but in previous posts Michael, who has access to the back office of his blog, has already stated that Hamilton uses a "nom deblog" and is an "anonymous type".
      It seems to be apparent to him that Hamilton is not his real name so it seems to be odd that you and Epps do not. Or is it that you defend someone who uses a blogging account and have a knee jerk reaction to the use of anon posters no matter what they say.

      Delete
    30. What pray tell constitutes an anonymous "type" 10:02, and how pray tell do you think that would be evident from a weblog? How is it you are willing to swallow such no evidence, or "hear say" as a conclusive statement 10:02? Lets hope you never end up on a jury ay ;)

      Delete
    31. Why ask an anon Hamilton. Should you not direct your question to the person that posted the remarks?

      Delete
    32. Anon 10:02,

      I do wish that you would read rather than assume what I said. I have no evidence one way or the other as to whether John Hamilton is the writer's real name or not. Whereas you claim to know because someone told you and you assume, but do not know, that this person has the means to uncover the truth. What you claim is nothing more than hearsay (gossip) and as such is unreliable evidence.

      The rest of your comments are too muddled for me to understand and reply.

      Delete
    33. 10:44, please do try and keep up, there's a good boy ;)

      "AnonymousOctober 02, 2013 10:02 am

      Mr Holyer I don't know what makes Peter think Hamilton is not his real name but in previous posts Michael, who has access to the back office of his blog, has already stated that Hamilton uses a "nom deblog" and is an "anonymous type". "

      Delete
    34. oh dear lets make it simple Hamilton so you can understand. Michael posted those remarks which have been repeated. You should direct your questions to the original poster, Michael Child. Please keep up.

      Delete
    35. By repeated hearsay, 11:25, you become a party to it and must expect to attract responses, otherwise there is no point in you writing it. There is no proof either way whether John Hamilton is blogging in his own name or not. Indeed unless known to us personally there is no proof anyone is and, on top, names are sometimes hijacked.

      You lack a certain perception, Tim, which could explain a lot.

      Delete
    36. Once again 11:25, what is it you think these weblog's prove, are you even aware what information they contain? I am, that's why I realise what a fool you are making yourself look. Michael can guess (wrongly) all he likes, that i have a "nom de blog" but the allegation from an anon, who has been found wanting yet again, really is highly amusing ;)

      I have no questions, except to fools who re post guesswork that they don't understand ;)

      Delete
    37. Many of the people on the blogs I've actually met (Michael, Simon, Louise, Matt, etc), but even though I haven't met Tony Flaig or Ian Driver I still believe they're real people because (a) There's plenty of photos of them, & (b) Many people I know have met them... Seems like not ONE person of the many 100's who read the blogs, are on the facebook groups or read the Gazette can vouch that "John" is real though, despite the fact that he claims to have lived in thanet for decades! Now John Holyer, don't you at least find that a little strange?

      Delete
    38. Of course, if he wants to settle those rumours all he needs to do is pop into the Gazette offices and say "I am John Hamilton". Simple!

      Delete
    39. Why's that Peter? I don;t share friends with a piss poor photographer, and I don;t splash my private pictures around in public, why would i, why should that be a surprise. Is that your "evidence" Peter, seriously? Oh dear, seems your guesswork is as poor as your photography ;)

      Delete
    40. Personally, I could care less who the peons think I am, in fact it amuses me watching clowns like you Peter making a fool of yourself as you adopt the James "I have no evidence, but must be right coz I guessed it" school of "investigation", running about trying to find out who I am, when my name is there for all to see.

      Delete
    41. Peter,

      Your 9:29 in which you say that you can always tell when people are lying to you. Sorry, but I could not resist your challenge. Can you tell which of the following are lies?:

      1. Tim Rice once bought me lunch that included pink champagne.

      2. I have had leading parts in Bollywood films.

      3. The Queen once wrote to me to say that I was trusty and well beloved.

      4. I once had a short but passionate affair with a Bollywood actress.

      5. My friend and I had to briefly swap wives in order not to embarrass the Duke Of Edinburgh.

      6. I used to be a member of the Secret Intelligence Service.

      7. I once got drunk with the England Cricket team and the President of the MCC.

      8. At party in Portugal Ronaldo gave me lessons in taking a penalty.

      Delete
    42. I don’t think the issue of whether JH’s nom de blog happens to be his real name or no is of any real import.

      The key here is about various types of anonymity, there is the person who posts just as anon, this is difficult because others trying to follow a particular thread can’t tell who is who.

      There are anons who give their nom de blog, but not as a signed on blogger and this is open to people pretending to be other people.

      There are people who comment signed on, (their name appers at the begging of the comment in blue) sometimes this links to a blog sometimes it doesn’t, if the name the use, real or false doesn’t link to some sort of identity in the real world then they are still anonymous. The only real difference being that when they comment using their signed on blogger i.d. you can be certain that the JH or whatever is the same JH that commented under that id before.

      All of the people above are anonymous and I guess have equal rights in the blogging world, but because of their anonymity I would doubt many people take their comments with more than a pinch of salt, I certainly don’t.

      Then you have the people whose identity in the real world is know to a lesser or greater extent, but their identity doesn’t link to councillor details or their business website.

      Then you have the people like me or Peter, Ian or Simon, whose blogging identify links to real person in the real world, giving everything the say much more credibility.

      Now the real problem for those who fall into the various anonymous groups is that everything they do online leaves a trail, so if they behave in a way that they wouldn’t behave if their real world i.e. if their identity was known, they always risk their identity being exposed.

      For the rest of us i.e those who behave online with the same courtesy and circumspection that they use in real life, then obviously those who don’t are a bit of a sad joke.

      Delete
    43. Peter 11:47,

      I do not find it strange little or otherwise.

      I accept that you have offered some evidence but I do not find this compelling. For example: there must be thousands of people in Thanet that neither you nor you acquaintances have met. Perhaps John Hamilton moves in different circles from you.

      Delete
    44. Well I know Ian Driver is real because I met his stomach coming out of the Broadway Practice one day and he followed a short distance behind. It is just like the many photos I have seen of it from blogs to media.

      Delete
    45. I don't mind being exposed as long as it's in a good cause. But then again, I've already had a spotlight shone on me!

      Delete
    46. John Holyer, my point isn't whether "John Hamilton" moves in different circles to me; it's the fact that none of HIS friends, neighbours or work colleagues contribute to his blog or fb page, and (even stranger) NONE of them have come forward after several thousand people have read or heard about "Smudger's" post. Now if you don't find THAt strange then YOU are strange...



      Delete
    47. Peter,

      The fact that people challenge your point of view does not render them "strange".

      Who is 'Smudger' and what did he or she say that you found so convincing?

      You have stated that you can always you can always tell when people are lying to you. So here is a repeat of my earlier post:

      'Your 9:29 in which you say that you can always tell when people are lying to you. Sorry, but I could not resist your challenge. Can you tell which of the following are lies?:

      1. Tim Rice once bought me lunch that included pink champagne.

      2. I have had leading parts in Bollywood films.

      3. The Queen once wrote to me to say that I was trusty and well beloved.

      4. I once had a short but passionate affair with a Bollywood actress.

      5. My friend and I had to briefly swap wives in order not to embarrass the Duke Of Edinburgh.

      6. I used to be a member of the Secret Intelligence Service.

      7. I once got drunk with the England Cricket team and the President of the MCC.

      8. At party in Portugal Ronaldo gave me lessons in taking a penalty.'


      Delete
    48. I'm not even going to respond to you anymore. Hopefully if John Hamilton ever meets you he'll hose you down!

      Delete
    49. Fair enough Peter. So I can take it that you now withdraw your claim that you can always yell when someone is lying to you.

      I do not understand your final sentence.

      Delete
    50. John Hamilton said that all pensioners should be hosed down because they smell of wee.

      Delete
    51. You get very foot stampy when you bullshit and get caught out don't you Peter. So why would any of my friends or family want to involve themselves in the ridiculous accusations made by a selection of anonymous cowards, and a wanna be pornographer who doesn't have the talent to pull it off....

      There was an amusing thread where is was suggested that old people smell of wee, and should be hosed down. Sadly Mr Holyer, some are SO stupid, they actually took that suggestion seriously.

      Delete
    52. Are all your posts light-hearted jokes then Hamilton. How does anyone tell the difference?

      Delete
    53. Another selective reply from Hammy! Presumably none of your friends or relatives support Tesco at Arlington then?

      Delete
    54. Do you see it as a "light-hearted joke" John Holyer?

      Delete
    55. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    56. Anon 6:35,

      Do not presume to use me to stir up trouble for your satisfaction.

      Delete
    57. Reo posted to correct spelling and grammar.

      John Hamilton @ 5:47,

      Ah I see: so that was Peter Checksfield's reference. I had not heard it of it before now, but then he is always closer to these things than I am . I do not think that I smell of pee - but I do enjoy taking the p*ss out Peter and others of his ilk. Perhaps that's what Peter meant

      Delete
    58. Who is Reo?

      Delete
    59. It was a spelling mistake. I added an 'o'. Oh dear. Should have read 'Reposted '.

      Delete
    60. Her name is Reo and she dances on the sand, just like that river twisting through a dusty land.

      Hope that helps.

      Delete
    61. Selective Cheggers, no my boy,merely relevant. The views of my friends and family are broadly similar to my own, however they don;t feel the need to justify those views to a wanna be pornographer .

      Glad to hear that Mr Holyer, and likewise, I do however hope that if I ever do ever up smelling of wee, that someone will have the good grace to hose me down, to save embarrassment.

      It is fun to take the piss out of cheggers isn't it, so SO easy, and relaxing as it takes no effort, and is entertaining.

      Delete
    62. Anon 9:26 pm,

      Thank you, it does help. Is there more to the poem?

      I must excuse myself for my earlier spelling mistake. When I wrote that post I was desperate because I was already late for my hosing down. You see pensioners can only go free at certain off peak times, whereas others can get hosed at any time, and some probably should.

      Delete
    63. It's no problem Mr Holyer, pop over if you are particularly grimy, and I will happily jet wash you when I am washing the car. (note to some particularly stupid Thanet bloggers, I am not suggesting with any seriousness that water canon should be turned on pensioners at will ;) )

      Delete
    64. John Hamilton,

      Thank you. Can you please use a soft brush. You see I knew this girl once and she used to ..........err....to me ....(grin)....... yeah....(sigh)............. -------..zzzz......... oops, sorry I drifted off there for a bit. I'd better go now, I need a wee, or something.

      Delete
    65. John Hamilton @ 8:18 am

      WILL has asked me to convey the following message. He is relieved by your reassurance regarding the water cannon.

      Delete
    66. Have no fear Mr Holyer, I shall purchase a new lambswool bonnet for my angle grinder, that should make certain you are gleaming, I've even got some turtle wax if you want to take it away for later application :)

      Tell Mr Epps, I am more than happy to put his mind to rest on that particular subject.

      Delete
    67. John Hamilton,

      I once sported a lambswool bonnet for my angle grinder, but I subsequently promised the Magistrate I'd stop.

      Delete
    68. John Hamilton,

      It is always disastrous to explain a joke but the fictitious 'will' I referred to came from the 'at will' in your earlier post. I suspect you knew this and in which case I apologise for being a bit of a drip. We are having fun and I don.t want to upset an innocent party.

      Delete
    69. Not upset at all Johns to the power of 2. Not much real debate around the blogs this AM but a touch of humour here and there. No bad thing to lighten up once in a while rather than indulge in such silly conversations, as currently on Thanet Press Releases, about who has the most guts. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.

      Delete
    70. LOL not at all Mr Holyer, I was trying to make my reply a little to tenuous lol.

      I will be careful with the bonnet, I know they can be horribly abused, if they get into the wrong hands! No drips here, I have lovely fluffy towels :)

      Delete
    71. John Hamilton,

      As the double entendres build to a climax, I must cease to stretch this metaphor and my bonnet which is long enough and much abused, though not so much of late. - No, no no, someone please hose me down.

      Delete
  6. Michael's promised commentary on the state of Thanet blogging should be informative. He has provided a platform for Hammy. But what has Hammy ever written that he has supported with substance ? We have seen this blog used to promote the argument that elected tory cllrs should not be publicly questioned. Outrageous to ask an elected cllr to clarify his gun range membership and Royal Marines Reserve service. Outrageous to ask a cllr what he said on oath in High Court evidence. That question, by the way, remains topical because Thanet water abstraction is still turned off (some 20 years so far).

    But these purported defenders of blogging standards (when it involves legitimate questions to elected tories) nonetheless reveal hypocrisy by their own spiteful attacks on messengers (whilst always avoiding engaging on the detail of the message).

    Why would Thanet tories deploy a blog spoiling posse ? Cast your minds back to thousands of skilled men put to dole on closure of mines and RN Dockyard. Cast your mind back to headlines of 27.1% male unemployment in Margate. Many skilled engineers. Then ask yourself who got the job, ahead of all those unemployed skilled men, as Sericol site safety engineer. The Kent Police Authority called for inquiry some years later in 1997. One year after the groundwater remediation at Sericol, supervised by EA, really got under way. On its way to recovering a colossal 470 tonnes of cyclohexanone from the chalk plume over the first twelve years of remediation. Was there inquiry at Sericol in 1998 as a result of the Police Authority call for police inquiry ?

    What were the circumstances in 1998 in which a tory cllr Sericol engineer was given severance ? Then appeared in a Civil High Court case only weeks later to be found guilty of libel ? And the blog posse would have you believe that the evidence was an event consigned to history. The blog posse would have you believe that it is outrageous to ask a former Planning Cttee and Police Authority cllr what he said on oath. But your local groundwater will remain a contamination issue for the foreseeable future. The issue is very much topical.

    The blog posse are wont to emphasise history as a basis for assumption of irrelevance to the present. . Such as the idea Ssricol contamination occurred over 30 years IE Starting years before their man became site engineer. But the thirty year leak is but one of a number of possible explanations. Another possible explanation is that the leak began after the tory was employed as site safety engineer.

    Of course, by inference, it would be condemned as outrageous to ask if the tory got his engineering qualifications courtesy of Cyril. Or if Roger Gale MP had supported that tory's application for a firearms certificate or to question the circumstances in which the firearms cert was withdrawn. What did the local tory witness tell the High Court about that aspect of inquiries called for by the police authority on which he sat.

    And the typical method of the spoilers is to misrepresent legitimate questions as "Accusations" and to pontificate about "Libel" to scare Michael. Ending up with Michael publishing comments which refer to a disabled lady as a monkey.

    That is why there are tory spoilers on blogs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rick, why do you think that someone should be required to prove some statement in their personal profile, unless say they were applying for a post where such a claim had relevance to it. You have stated that you were an NCO in the army, a police officer and a member of a TA unit. Has anyone demanded you prove it?

      I have said to you that I was an officer in the Royal Military Police, RAF Regiment and Rhodesian Corps of Infantry. As I am a Tory parish councillor do you expect me to prove I held those commissions. For the record I also have an MID, five campaign medals, one general officer's and one air officer's commendation plus a medal from the Malaysian government. Do I have to prove that as well.

      Trying to discredit people in no way enhances your case which must stand or fall by its own merits. You have given well researched statements regarding pollution which are of merit in their own right. They are not made any stronger because some councillor has not proved his military service which, frankly, has no bearing on his position anyway.

      Finally, Rick, why just Tories or is this some personal vendetta. Is it not a Labour led council that is currently being attacked from some quarters over local issues, fairly or otherwise.

      Delete
    2. I think I should create a post about this water abstraction being turned off in Thanet and why?

      Can anyone assist?

      Delete
    3. Think you are treading on Richard's ground, Solo Gays, for I very much doubt that you could come up with anything he has not covered in detail in the past. Furthermore, Michaels has previously done a very informative post on Thanet's water supply. According to Southern Water that which comes from our taps conforms to EU requirements and is safe to drink. That we might have longer term problems, particularly if we are to have hotter, dry summers, aggravated by the industrial pollution of some of our possible sources in the past, is open to conjecture.

      That said it is a bigger issue than TDC could handle, or indeed that we can solve by twittering amongst ourselves, but pressure on Southern Water and MPs is likely to be more productive if it does become a problem.

      Delete
    4. I am interested in listing a short informative piece based on the turning off of the Thanet Abstraction William, not the water quality we currently drink. Hopefully this should lead onto further discussion around future need etc. The more you blog about all kinds of stuff the more you link into feeds worldwide.

      Delete
    5. Michael or Richard should be your men then so best of luck with that. I do also recall some time back that Dave Green wrote an informative piece on Thanet water.

      Delete
    6. Here is the rub, from my point of view, this is a post about a local exhibition, local craft market and a new supermarket

      And yes the thread rambles about with locals conversing about what interests them and then 12.00, is it Rick, impossible to say, does this comment relate to the rest of the thread, hardly at all. In fact it is very similar to or possibly the same as masses of other comments and it is this very repetitive nature that makes me consider it as spam.

      With spam it isn’t the validity of the comment, whether it is truthful or not that counts, it is that it is trying to slide something that someone wants to sell in, perhaps all Tories are monsters and all socialists are saints.

      Obviously it is full of half truths to justify this end, lets call it; all Tories are monsters and all socialists are saints.

      So it could be any one of several similar comments copied and doctored up a bit to get over the view that; all Tories are monsters and all socialists are saints.

      With the half truths, here are a couple merely as examples:

      “Ending up with Michael publishing comments which refer to a disabled lady as a monkey.”

      Sounds convincing, don’t it, but then it don’t mention I deleted the monkey comment when I saw it and anyway it isn’t me who publishes JH’s comments it’s him.

      “That question, by the way, remains topical because Thanet water abstraction is still turned off (some 20 years so far).

      Sounds convincing, don’t it, but then it don’t mention, that only one of the boreholes is turned off and that actually Thanet water abstraction is still, er abstracting.

      So is it a Rick comment? Is it a doctored Rick comment with some half truths in it to discredit Rick? And further if Rick did want to comment here, why not do it under his blogger identity; Richard Card?

      So once again, if the post isn’t about, gun ranges, 0% and so but the comment is, best not to reply to it as I am likely to spam it and your relies go into the bin automatically.

      SG, nothing you can say as it isn’t turned off, at the moment Thanet's potable (drinkable) water is blend of water from Plucks gutter (river Stour). Lord of the Manor Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 1 and from the Wingham Well. It's all then held at the Southern Water works near the Airport. The Source Protection Zone (SPZ) 2 lies within KIA.

      Delete
    7. Michael, so I just need to know which bore hole is turned off and why, and how much water previously harvested is not now available? I can then, if I felt like it, search for a striking water image to complete a post, and see what happens?(ok, not a lot probably, as William has said!)

      Delete
    8. SG I looked into this when the solvent leak at the paint works went into the public domain, I should qualify this by explaining that there are chemical leaks all over the country and the Thanet ones are not particularly unusual.

      Going back historically, our drinking water was abstracted much nearer the towns however as development spread so the abstraction moved away from where the development above contaminates the aquifer below.

      From a mixture of memory and common sense I think public water abstraction in the Westwood area stopped around the time industrial development started there, so 50 or 60 years ago.

      Delete
    9. Thanks Michael. As a blogger I am open to suggestions for new subject matter, and I can be contacted by email by clicking on my Blogger Profile. I did read somewhere on Google, (or think it might have been the Internet Psychologist you highlight on your blog reading list), that you need about 10 subjects to build a decent following?

      Delete
    10. Naked women. That will get you a following.

      Delete
    11. Water Abstraction and Naked Women?

      Delete
    12. Peter, I will always follow one or maybe two if I'm feelig lucky.

      Delete
    13. I wonder what will happen if it turns out that water abstraction has been turned off because the water quality doesn't meet the minimum standards? We all know that water quality has been very low and that they've been diluting the borehole water with imported water to bring it back within spec. If it turns out that the quality has fallen further will the old bores who have constantly slagged off the aquifer man, be issuing grovelling apologies for their failure to take this use seriously? How about it John?

      Delete
    14. Very much doubt it, Tim. With you it is not so much the subject as the way you plug it that offends.

      Delete
    15. Look anon this water thing is a complicated one and abstraction isn’t turned off and on like a tap, trying to understand it you are best to think in terms of not digging the well next to a soakaway toilet.

      Back in Victorian times the water the towns used was pumped from wells under the towns and people died of related diseases, so the water was drawn from wells under farmland.

      One of these wells was at Westwood, when Westwood had factories built on it we stopped pumping drinking water from there and will never do so again.

      The area we do pump water from has been farmed for millennia and the farmland quality maintained by using fertiliser high in nitrates, seaweed is an example, so the main damage to the usable part of the aquifer is nitrate contamination.

      With the time nitrates take to soak through chalk the contamination getting into the water is probably related mostly to fertiliser applied more then fifty years ago, for the last fifty years regulation of fertilisers has been much more stringent, if you want to put seaweed on your land now you need a permit and you wouldn’t be able to do in a water abstraction area.

      Delete
    16. You missed out the word "attractive" Peter, I think you do that a LOT.

      Delete
    17. Actually, abstraction IS turned on and off exactly like a tap. That's how they control the supply of water. I'm willing to bet that it's been turned off because it isn't meeting the spec It won't take long to find out. I doubt they'll make me jump through the pointless hoop of requesting the info under FOI.

      Delete
    18. Not exactly switched on are we, 6:03. Michael already said it had been turned off because factories were built at Westwood thus increasing the risk of contaminated water. Happens all round the UK where industrialisation or urban sprawl extends out over what was once farmland. The days when water was pumped up from underneath towns are happily long gone. Perhaps you would like to go back to that.

      Delete
  7. (P)rick forgot to sign in!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just saw Duncan Smithson on the local news so he must exist. He was sitting in a café spouting his opinions. Meanwhile, the hardworking people that Cameron was aiming to impress with his speech were all...working.

    ReplyDelete
  9. when are those shops at the bottom of the plains of waterloo going to be repaired

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You picking on poor old Michael again, Garbage. Just asking fool questions is hardly going to achieve anything. Try contacting the RTC or your local councillor.

      Delete
    2. Anon 9:43 pm,

      Are you offering to do the job, or are you content just wallowing in the gutter.

      Delete

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.