Friday, 27 September 2013

I escalate my complaint to KCC and a few pictures from Ben and others

Here are the first batch of Ben’s pictures, which relate to a demolition and subsequent deserted building site in Bellevue Road. 





On to my KCC complaint.

From: CEDWebteam <CEDWebteam@kent.gov.uk>
To: michaelchild <michaelchild@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 10:41
Subject: Map facilities on Kent.gov.uk
Dear Mr Child,

I understand you have experienced difficulty when using the map facility on the Kent.gov.uk website.

In order for me to understand more fully how you were hoping to use the map, please could you provide further details of the problems you have been having? This will enable us to look into how we make improvements to this facility for users of the site.

Regards,

C*** ***

From: michaelchild@aol.com [mailto:michaelchild@aol.com] 
Sent: 25 September 2013 13:54
To: Digital Services - CC CE
Subject: Re: Map facilities on Kent.gov.uk


Hi C****
I publish about 150 books about east Kent see http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/catalogue/ and at the moment I am working on a book about the Ramsgate sailing trawlers, I have purchased about 80 photographs, taken between 1870 and 1920 showing these trawlers in the harbour and yesterday I started on the task of positioning and dating them.
I do have some maps of my own e.g. http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/map1849/ and http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/map1872/ I also have directories for Thanet from the 1840s to the 1970s and in the past I have used these in conjunction with KCC’s Kent View. 
I went to the KCC website to consult the historic maps on Kent View only to find that this part of your website had had its access restricted and I now needed a username and password to access it. So I phoned and asked them for these, which KCC refused to give me.
After much telephoning, I discovered that you have the maps in a much inferior form at http://www.kent.gov.uk/HeritageGIS/map.aspx you can’t drag the maps and the zoom has a mind of its own. In the course of the discussion I discovered that the KCC archivists are still using Kent View and in the end I made a complaint to KCC. Along the lines of they have disabled public access to their historic map site, so the public have now to use the inferior site.
The obvious and simple solution, which as the http://www.kent.gov.uk/HeritageGIS/map.aspx site takes ages to use this would also reduce the time spent on the KCC webserver and therefore the cost to KCC, would be to remove the password protection and return things to how they were. 

Best regards Michael

From: CEDWebteam <CEDWebteam@kent.gov.uk>
To: michaelchild <
michaelchild@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:44
Subject: RE: Map facilities on Kent.gov.uk


Hi Michael,

I’ve been in touch with our GIS department, who have sent me the following response which may help:

1.    Access to Kent View is no longer available to the public due to data policy issues.
2.    We do understand that the current Heritage web map is not very friendly – we are currently working on releasing a more user-friendly version soon.
3.    From Mr Child’s explanation – I assume that he already has information on Trawlers and is only interested in background mapping – in  this case I will suggest he takes the following steps to use the current Heritage web map:
i.              Zoom to the area of interest – please note that in other to zoom, the zoom option MUST FIRST be selected at the top of the map – then draw a square on the area of interest
ii.            In order to PAN the map, the 8 arrows arrow the map box should be used to pan in the required direction.
iii.           The option of Historic Map to be displayed can be changed using the “Historic Map” options at the bottom right of the map window
iv.           The print functionality provides a preview of the current map view which can then be oriented using the browser’s functionality.
v.            The “Show on map” box on the left allows the specification of what features should be displayed on the map. It should be noted that some layers are scale dependant and will not be active until the map is zoomed to the extent necessary to get them active.

Regards,

C**** ****

Frommichaelchild michaelchild@aol.comhide detailsToCEDWebteam CEDWebteam@kent.gov.ukCCcasework casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk,  paul.carter paul.carter@kent.gov.uk

Hi C****, I have no idea in which way a data policy issue could relate to an out of copyright historic map.


My take is that a useful KCC historical resource has been closed and so I would like to escalate my complaint, can you please tell me how to proceed?

Best regards Michael


36 comments:

  1. Hi Michael - Thanks for posting up pictures of your shop. Its a lot worse than I remembered...JH

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sadly 9:01, as we know, I post as me, and don;t use initials, a poor attempt ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sadly 9:01, as we know, I post as me, and don;t use initials, a poor attempt ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry John I am 9.01. I wasnt meaning to mislead. I am Jim Hill. I think your posts are spot on. You are one of the few on these forums who speak sense.

      Delete
    2. oh dear self publicist humiltoon talking to himself lol

      Delete
    3. How can you self publicise if you use a pseudonym or no name at all. Think you might have an IQ problem 1:58. If there really are loads of laughs round here most of them are down to a clown like you.

      Delete
  4. Now is the time to find out just how good your local KCC Ukip councillors are.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ah open plan retail.

    Sorry I didn’t get a chance to finish the post off, friends turned up and we made an evening of it.

    Not really sure the KCC one is a councillor issue, I would guess that you would have to use the facility to begin to understand the problem and I don’t know of any KCC councillors who are also historians.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Michael - In order that you can stop the innuendo regarding the condition of your shop, why dont you ask the local fire brigade to do a full inspection,survey and fire risk assesment on your building. Their findings could put to bed the myth that your shop is not safe? I have lived in Thanet for a very long time, and I remember not that long ago when the Bellevue building was in a similar condition to yours....and this is what happens when buildings are not kept in good condition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm particularly concerned about that loose bit of wood above the door!

      Delete
  7. Jim - The trouble with buildings like Michael's book shop is that they are old buildings in a row of terraces.And they are all in about the same poor condition. But perhaps if one of them addressed their dilapidated condition it would encourage the others to do so also. It is such a shame. It really spoils the image of the town.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think it's really unfair to target Michael about the state of his shop. As you will see from his blog, all of his money is spent buying food in local eateries. Anyway what do you expect of a old bookshop? It wouldn't be the same if it didn't have that dusty, musty atmosphere and weirdos browsing the shelves for books of obscure poetry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dont think people are targeting Michael particuarly, they just want to highlight problem buildings. It may be that TDC would offer Michael a grant to help him. I am sure he is well connected at TDC.

      Delete
    2. I also don't think people are targeting, Michael, but just one person who has a grudge against him over Michael blocking or criticising some of his boring and repetitive posts on this site.

      Delete
    3. Michael,

      I suggest you should seriously consider blocking all anon postings. This will not detract from the quality of comment. For, as you know, the anon comments above come from the same person. Who having tired of Manston, etc has switched his attack to you. Perhaps you know his name? Whatever the case may be this irritating little git grows worse by the day and is now running out of control.

      Delete
  9. Holyer, you're like a broken record. It matters not a jot whether a posting is anonymous. There are numerous false names being used on this blog and others, and it is quite obvious that one individual is using several false names. Yet you say nothing about this. How hypocritical can you get?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree. It's quite obvious that private poop and Jim Hill are fictitious. I'd prefer it if you banned John Holyer. He's so boring.

    P.S. I'm one of the anonymous posters but I'm not the others. This proves that Holyer doesn't know what he's talking about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, 9:14, it proves nothing for you are Jim Hill, Private Poop and most of the anonymous contributors. If we all used accounts, and we can call ourselves anything we like without disclosing our true identities if we wish, at least we could identify who said what.

      Delete
    2. William if someone stated something but used anon and then repeated it under his/hers real name would it make a difference as to how you viewed the comments? then consider the real name was a person you disliked would that the colour how you chose to view the statement?

      Delete
    3. No, anonymous, you are not different people but one and the same person. You are easily identified from your slime trail; left wherever you slither over this and other blogs. You speak simply to annoy and deceive. From which you derive pleasure and possibly onanistic satisfaction. You have a personality disorder that comes from your disturbed mind. And you know this. I pity you.

      Delete
    4. Barry, how would we know their real name if they used a pseudonym? I am not against people seeking to hide their true identity, but I strongly object to people who post anonymously, respond to themselves and then later claim it was not them. It happens frequently on this and ECR's blog and serves no purpose.

      There are appalling double standards where anonymous contributors question the credentials of named ones. Then you get other anonymous commentators accusing those of us who do use our real identities of being someone else. Variously I have been Simon Moores, John Hamilton, Allan Mallinson and Tom Clarke, such allegations all coming from probably the same twisted anonymous personage. All rather hypocritical, but you defend them if you feel you must.

      Delete
    5. William I am not defending anyone and sorry if you got that impression. That was not my point at all. I have commented and you responded t your perception of me as a real person. If the post above had been posted by Ian Driver say people would have responded to the statement coloured by their perception of Ian Driver.
      The point I am putting forward people should respond to the "statement" not the person making it.
      It seems whenever anon's post there is, from some quarters, a knee jerk reaction to the use of anon. Now I will agree sometimes that is justified but not in all cases. Freedom of speech is something I remember you saying a while ago. I believe you said "I don't always agree with you but I defend your right to say it" Again apologies if I misquote you.
      Al I ask is people respond to the statements made not the person making it.
      A case in point if hammy's comment below "Clearly James, we can be CERTAIN that if you posted it, it will be untrue or an outright lie, and you will have no evidence." patently not true yet he could not resist the opportunity to attack me and ignores what is actually said. Had the comment above been made by an anonymous poster I doubt he would have commented at all.

      Delete
    6. Barry, I do not have a problem with responding to debating points, whoever makes them, but my objection is to the anonymous who frequents these pages, if such they are, with repetitive one liners about aquifers, 0% salaries, arrests, fines etc. making no case at all for such statement and then resorting to rudeness if anyone questions them. The joke is, and I am sure I am not alone, I know who this person is, but he avoids disclosing his identity as his ageism and bad manners would be detrimental to both his business and political aspirations.

      Yes, I do believe in freedom of speech, but even here we see double standards around the blogs. Whereas said anonymous personage can call me an old duffer, irrelevant, stupid, a waste of tax payers money and so on, there are those that want to run to police if they are offended. Perhaps there are lines, I am not sure, but in my book the odd obscenity, though not my style, is no worse than blatant ageism.

      Delete
    7. Barry,

      For my part I do not object to anonymous postings per se, rather I object to the anonymous pest who infects this and other blogs. He seeks to hijack and then destroy discussions. By which method he endeavours to satisfy his malign narcissistic craving for attention. I both despise and pity him, and I want him gone, preferably to a Doctor.

      Delete
    8. I do understand both of your points which have much merit. As you know I have my blog about Pleasurama and it excites commentary with some from the anon pest. I dealt with it by stating unless the commentary was on topic it would not appear on the blog. Michael chooses his way of dealing with it and is much more popular (views) because of his stance. Neither method will get rid of that anon because of the desire to elicit a response from other posters.
      What I find annoying is the need for hammy "anonomous type" (Michael) "nom de blog" (Michael) to make personal attacks, as evidenced above, because he attacks the named post. If I had made the same post as an anonymous I doubt he would have bothered posting, showing his personal animosity towards me not what I post.

      Delete
    9. There's the rub, Barry, but a name seems to attract attack. If I blogged anonymously I would not be subjected to these anti-council attacks or fool questions about things from well before my term of office and well outside the remit of a parish councillor. In fairness, John Hamilton is also attacked because he is identifiable and he could, after all, if he so wished, insult or expose anonymously.

      I still think that the allowing of anonymous comment, whilst it may add to the numbers game, frequently terminates the meaningful exchange and replaces it with nonsense. Surely we should be looking to up standards, not dragging them down to the gutter.

      Delete
    10. Names certainly do attract personal attacks however it seems unlikely that hammy uses his real name. Michael would have to have had a reason to believe hammy's blogger account hides his real name otherwise why say it in the way he did.
      hammy's personal hatred of me seems excessive especially his use of "posting facts", he obviously reads the Pleasurama blog but never comments on it. He has every opportunity to do so but has never even tried. neither has he proved anything I post is untrue. Everything on there has been research yet he uses the commentary "post any fact" which is patently untrue. Several Tory councillors use it so they can conduct their research to verify what I post yet he ignores that. It is as if what is posted is not the point. It is all about destroying the credibility of the individual.

      Delete
    11. We digress, Barry, from the contribution or otherwise that anonymous commentators make to blogs. As to facts, well I think at times we are all inclined to confuse these with opinions and our interpretation of them will be coloured by our personal views. Look at global warming, is that a fact? Expert opinion seems to be divided so we get coloured by our own perception. The Green lobby would have it as definite and man made. Others support the natural phenomenon theory. Who really knows for sure yet some will argue until they are blue in the face that fossil fuels are the root cause of all evil, but are they really any worse at producing greenhouses gases than cattle and is warming down to greenhouse gases anyway?

      Even your Pleasurama blog relies heavily on opinion in the interpretation of the facts. Several people now claim the developer never had any intention to build yet that does not fit with the evidence of Terence Painter's activity and expenditure. Either way the case for or against is more based on circumstantial than anything else. Similarly with the TEF business, here was a service that had kept the jobs at the Port of Ramsgate and contributed to Thanet's coffers for a decade so were the council right or wrong to throw them a lifeline in an attempt to keep them going. Maybe they should have pulled the plug straight away, but again it comes down to opinion.

      When we step into the limelight and voice our opinions we must expect others will not all agree and some will go on the offensive. Even the issue of distinguishing black from white comes down to colour perception and we humans can also differ in that. Does that make one right and the other wrong?

      Delete
    12. William when it comes to discussions about anything on blogs, facts can always be interpreted either way depending on what we think. at least we are prepared to defend our views, however when a blogger ignores either side of the discussion but attacks the person using the argument "if I can ridicule the person and by doing so discredit his argument" method then that goes beyond reasonableness. Take hammy's remark below how does that take forward any discussion?

      Delete
    13. Sadly, Barry, it happens and it is no worse than the so called aquifer man who dismisses the likes of John Holyer and I as old duffers, ex RAF dreamers, simpletons and so on. As an aspiring political candidate himself you would think he might show more debating skill, but insults is about all one gets along with the aquifer and 0% nonsense. None of it takes the discussion forward, but at least some of us try.

      Delete
    14. sorry William I am confused. To whom do you refer "As an aspiring political candidate himself you would think he might show more debating skill," I'm afraid you lost me at that point.

      Delete
    15. Our anonymous friend commonly known as the aquifer man is a Ramsgate resident who, whilst hiding behind the cloak from which he spits his bile, has himself run for office and still claims to be a candidate in waiting. I know who he is, as he obviously does himself, but I am waiting to see if he has the guts to go public himself, now some folk have latched onto him, before I or somebody else outs him. Let's see how he behaves now the net is closing.

      Delete
    16. thanks William. maybe over a coffee you might like to see my file on Pleasurama as it is difficult posting documents. It might show to you that it isn't opinion I post.

      Delete
  11. Clearly James, we can be CERTAIN that if you posted it, it will be untrue or an outright lie, and you will have no evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bit of psychobabble

      I have a bet riding on your performance John. But now I am told I should have read this article first.

      The other guy has bet that in time you would attack your sponsor meaning Michael. I am refusing to pay up until it is either established or disproved that you are none other than the shop state of repair critic.

      Delete
    2. Lyndon, do a bit more research around the more obscure blog sites and you will find the shop state critic and he ain't John Hamilton. The critic is more of the far left green type, whilst you must admit John H is some way off in the opposite direction.

      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.