Wednesday, 30 October 2013

Midweek Ramble, Observer’s Books, Pleasurama again and is the blog becoming too much of a problem?

I have been pricing observer’s books this is a collectable series of books and collecting them is open to all as prices start at less than a pound with the average observer’s in its dust wrapper selling for about £2.50.


Observer’s have just about made it out of the world of collectable books and into he world of general collectables, which means in some case some unusually high prices, reproduction dust wrappers and a mythology all to themselves.


Some have a printers code, either at the front or the back of the book the last two digits of which tell you the year it was printed in, this can be before the year of publication.


There are numerous cover variations for the same book and sometimes different dust wrappers on the same edition (with the same printers code) like the bottom two 1951 British Wild Flowers in the picture.

The Pleasurama task and finish group meets tomorrow, this is the one where the council have supplied answers to the group’s questions which are different to the answers the council have given in response to foi requests.

There is also a rumour that the developer has submitted another set of proposals as to how they could still finance building the development, it is expected that these will be discussed by cabinet in a couple of weeks time.

With so many people now interested in the Pleasurama development I have taken a back burner approach to this business of the financial integrity of the developer, I stated years ago that I had reservations about the council proceeding with a developer without any proven track record. I followed this up with a foi request to the council asking if the council had any information that the developer had ever developed anything, to which the council replied no.

I guess the thing that makes it very difficult is that there is no real point of contact for the developer and no real person who seems to both support the development and be able to answer reasonable questions about the development. The most basic questions, like, why no flood risk assessment? Still have only the; because we aren’t legally obliged to have one, answer.


Blog comment here seems to have degenerated to commentators insulting each other, it has got so boring that I am finding it a struggle to even read the comments, so apologies if I haven’t removed all of the unsuitable comments.

84 comments:

Barry James said...

So the possibility of new proposals. Will they have anymore substance than any previous?

Anonymous said...

Who knows for only time will tell, but, in the meantime, I am sure you will find plenty of reasons to knock whatever is proposed. I look forward to seeing more of your 'truth' fairy tales.

On a brighter note, I have a small collection of Observer Books from many years ago. You may just have inspired me to start adding to them, Michael.

Anonymous said...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-24733692

Anonymous said...

That link took us precisely nowhere, Anon. What was it about?

Michael Child said...

It worked for me anon, here a link to make it easy for you here

Barry James said...

Anon in case you hadn't noticed despite many proposals no buildings stand on the Pleasurama site

Michael Child said...

7.59 any development where the developer first makes the basic safety checks related to the peculiarities of this particular site will do me. Flood risk assessment, check to see how far it needs to be form the cliff to allow for viable maintenance for the life of the development, resolve the psv access issue related to the inclined viaduct, not rocket science really.

Best of luck with your observer collecting

John Hamilton - talking sense and cutting through bullshit said...

" The most basic questions, like, why no flood risk assessment?"

Easy, there is 150+ years of evidence that there is no risk to buildings on the pleasurama site from flooding, certainly not rocket science.

PS love observer books, I have probably 20+

Michael Child said...

John you may well be right, the station building later the Pleasurama building on the southwest end of the site suffered no serious damage over the 150 years it was there.

Serious storm damage did occur at the northeast end of the site both in 1897 and in 1953, this is well documented so I don’t think it is in question. My guess is that this is because there is less sand in front of the northeast end of the site. As we both know it is SFP’s intention to build on this end of the site and this may be safe, there may need to be modifications at this end of the site, either to the sea defence there or the building, my stance on this is; I just don’t know.

My position on this is one of supporting the environment agency’s request and carrying out a flood risk, your position seems to be that if a building is ok on one end of the site it is ok to build on the other without assessing the flood risk, is that right?

William Epps said...

Michael, I recall the floods of 1953, being a teenager living in Thanet at the time and going to school in Ramsgate. The floods were particularly bad on the north side of the island with a huge acreage between Minnis Bay and Reculver virtually reclaimed by the sea. I must say, however, I do not recall much damage in Ramsgate to what would have been Merrie England at that time and, of course, those properties to the north of the Pleasurama site were there then. Were they damaged?

Personally I do not see the problem with having a flood risk assessment, if only to satisfy insurers in due course, but I think, for the purposes of this debate, we should be a bit more specific about how bad the damage was in 1953.

Michael Child said...

Sorry William I have discussed this issue before, with John, the local papers reports for the 1953 storm damage in Ramsgate say that a ten ton crane that had been working on the beach was swept over the sea defence and into the funfair site. John’s previous response to this has been that the development will be fine providing no one leaves any cranes on the beach.

On the point about the flood risk assessment I think the fact that the environment agency have written to the council and developer asking for one means there ought to be one, here are a couple of quotes from the EA letter:

“And whilst we accept that this development already has planning permission,
we would highly recommend that a full FRA is undertaken which could inform
appropriate resilience and resistance measures.”

“ Areas immediately behind defences lie in the High Risk Rapid Inundation
Zone (RIZ) and are particularly vulnerable due to the risk of the defences being over-
topped or breached, resulting in fast-flowing and potentially deep water with little or
no warning. Again, if this were a new application we would expect an FRA to identify
the RIZ and predict potential wave heights. For example the FRA undertaken by HR
Wallingford for The Turner Centre application identified wave heights to be
significantly different from the predicted “200year”static tide level for Margate.”

Apologies for the unusual formatting this isn’t easy to do with a phone.

William Epps said...

Interesting and one wonders if an FRA was carried out on the Pavilion when it was built since that is in a position closer to the sea than the Pleasurama site. Since commenting before, I have been reading reports on the 1953 flood and can find nothing indicating any kind of damage to those buildings to the north of Pleasurama, but on much the same level.

Barry James said...

William I suspect as the Environment Agency asked for the FRA in the 1st place and the Pav was built in 1907 the EA wasn't around to ask for one in 1907

John Hamilton - talking sense and cutting through bullshit said...

William, Michael is trying to put forward the argument that as a 10 ton crane that was left parked on the beach, was swept onto the site in the worst storm of the century, that defences should be built to stop a recurrence of waterbourne plant causing widespread death and damage (lets remember that even the singular waterbourne crane caused none of the 1st, and precious little of the latter).

Such a postition is clearly laughable, and easily dealt with - don't leave plant parked on the beach. Failing that, we must all strengthen out roofs to cope with the inevitable risk of off course parachutists arriving in your front room! Clearly the crane that was swept onto the site is a red herring, simply being seized upon to try to further the scaremongering agenda clearly at work here. I think it's quite telling that the storm was strong enough to drive a crane onto the site, yet cause no damage to the building!

Just to correct James (nearly a full time occupation!) an FRA was not a requirement when permission was given. Risk is largely measured by historic events. Clearly the pleasurama site, and indeed the pavillion are NOT at risk, as 150+ years of evidence proves.

You have to wonder how the pavillion, built virtually on the beach, and with no FRA has survived the onslaught of wind, tide and plant!

Barry James said...

hammy before you post read what was stated not what you think was said.

The EA wasn't around in 1907 to ask for an FRA so your point is irrelevant just like all your other posts

John Hamilton - talking sense and cutting through bullshit said...

Think you need some help understanding a VERY simple post James, Did I say that the EA was around in 1907?

I think it's fair to wonder that if in Michaels view, life, limb and property is in mortal danger without an FRA on a structure in a position that has never suffered any of these fates, it must be pure chance that buildings that have no FRA are able to survive at all!

Please try n keep up James, perhaps you should find a local construction firm to slander ;)

Barry James said...

Maybe you should go back to work I'm sure they are missing you (not). BTW the only thing simple here is you.

Your friends in Medway are missing you but no one here does

John Hamilton - talking sense and cutting through bullshit said...

Gave up working at night a LONG time ago James. Is that right? Seems odd then that my simple posts are still way to complex for you ;)

They shouldn't be, I saw them very recently, but then popularity is something I know is a mystery to you :)

Peter Checksfield said...

Hammy, how's the Pro-Arlington Tesco campaign coming along? Or have you jumped onto another bandwagon now?

Anonymous said...

Aren't you getting your characters confused, Checkers? Hamilton is the bloke for cutting out the bullshit whilst Driver is the bandwagon jumper who creates and spreads the maximum bullshit in his search for publicity.

Talking of publicity, see JW has hit the headlines.

Peter Checksfield said...

If you say so.

What's Worrow done now?

William Epps said...

Look in the Gazette, Peter, yet to get my copy but the phone has been buzzing this morning at the news.

Peter Checksfield said...

Wow, I've just seen it! Anyone know more details?

William Watkins said...

anon 10:47 hammy complains about more people than i've had hot dinners so cheggers is right. and it is only his opinion that he cuts thru BS, for someone who trolls all over the internet and lives 4000 miles away he has a lot to say.

Anonymous said...

Only what's in the paper, but maybe Solo Gays could get his roving reporter out there to sniff out more background. Certainly all those dubbed 'homophobes' (like most of Thanet's conservatives plus Mike Harrison) are planning to crack the champers later in celebration.

Anonymous said...

But, William, you have no proof he lives 4,000 miles away, which is pure speculation and, as John Holyer pointed out, there are fifteen John Hamiltons in Arizona alone with hundreds more across the states. Which one is he?

Anyway, my earlier point was that he is not a bandwagon jumper. You may see him as being nasty to lots of people, and you may well be right, but that is not jumping onto things purely for publicity. That is Driver's thing, straight out of the Marxist guide on how to get elected in a democracy. See he is now milking the fact that the Met kept a file on him whilst trumpeting an illegal, but desperately overdue, demolition of an eyesore in Ramsgate. This is a man who is happy to break the law, like seeking to prevent the legal trade of animal exports by blocking and harassing vehicles, yet screams from the rooftops about a demolition team possibly exceeding their brief being lawbreakers.

William Watkins said...

anon who said we have no proof. and his name isn't hamilton either

Anonymous said...

A statement like that, William, backed up by nothing means nothing. No doubt you will pull the usual cloak and dagger nonsense of those peeing into the wind, by saying you cannot give away your sources. Ha bloody ha, but tell me, even if you know who he is, what exactly are you going to do about it? SFA would be my guess.

Peter Checksfield said...

My "bandwagon" comment was obviously to wind Hammy up. I am genuinely interested in how the "Yes to Arlington Tesco" campaign is doing though. This is one thing me and Hammy can pretty much agree on.

William Watkins said...

without your name anon you mean pretty much nothing either

Thomas Spencer said...

Don't you just love it, a bloke without a google account calling himself William Watkins accuses an anonymous poster of meaning nothing. OK here, let's say my name is Thomas Spencer, so now will you answer my question or is it simply there is no answer whoever I might be. There are some serious jokers hereabouts, William Watkins, and at least John Hamilton, who might be somebody else, has a google account. You are just a name tacked onto a comment.

Barry James said...

don't you just love it anons by another name arguing with themselves!!

Barry James said...

anon 1:47 calling hisself tom so what store do you set by a google account. Michael called hammy a "nom de blog" and "you anonymous types" so I suspect he thinks that's not hammy's real name either

Farnie Barnard said...

With no particular axe to grind and having only a temporary interest in Thanet, whilst staying with friends as I look at what UK has to offer, it seems to me that there are a group of people in Thanet that approach everything with total negativity, be it Manston airport or the Turner Contemporary, supplemented by a group that protest anywhere and everywhere, all of whom have latched onto a local politician who loves the limelight and also protests about everything. These are the people rubbished by John Hamilton.

I have yet to see Hamilton rubbish any other local politicans, Driver and Worrow excluded, be they Labour or Conservative nor does he rubbish those stalwart citizens who go about their daily business without whinging all the time. Somebody needs to fight the negativity that is holding back this potentially delightful corner of Kent.

Frank Spencer said...

Thomas, have you seen my beret?

Anonymous said...

Hammy doesn't rubbish ECR or Tim (both anti-Manston), nor Flaig or Moores (both anti-supermarkets).

William Epps said...

Barry, I think we have previously agreed that a named account enables others to follow the thread of that persons argument. In the extreme case it is also easier for the police to trace through, say Google, if serious offence were given that contravenes law. Some of the others with accounts, like you, Peter and I, are known and easily contactable should anyone so wish.

Those, however, who simply append a name to a statement are as anonymous as those that don't, so anon at 1:47 is quite entitled to query the so called William Watkins right to describe him as nothing. Who is William Watkins, do you know?

Barry James said...

I know as much as you do William. and I know even less about Thomas anon.

Anonymous said...

2:05, does he really have to rubbish everybody in your book. I think he dismisses Tim, as he does Rick, as a local nutter, Flaig is hardly the forefront of the Thanet protest group and Moores simply represented the views of the people in his ward over the issue of two stores in Westgate. He has not opposed Arlington Tesco, but then you know that Peter.

Anonymous said...

John Holyer is right. There's one person using multiple aliases on this blog. Hamilton=Frank Spencer=Farnie Barnard=William Watkins=Thomas Spencer. And now the big question. Are they all aliases of John Holyer, who persistently acts as Hamilton's apologist, whilst simultaneously attacking others who wish to post without revealing their real identities?

Farnie Barnard said...

Oi anon I'm not hamilton and I'm not Farnie either

William Epps said...

You seem to have your wires crossed a bit, 4:37, because William Watkins is one of the 'hunt the hammy' lot who, allegedly, have tracked Hamilton down, confirmed his real name is not Hamilton, but will not tell what they know in case he slips the hook. Frank Spencer was a bloke on a TV sitcom and his brother Thomas was invented by another anonymous as an example of how meaningless it is just to conjure up a name. John Holyer, however, is known to some of us as a real person so your links are without credibility.

Peter Checksfield said...

I don't know why everyone's talking about Hammy when we've Worrow to gossip about.

William Epps said...

True, Peter, but no juicy details yet. Have you heard anything on your grapevine for no one I have spoken to knows anymore than was in the Gazette. Be interesting to see if he still shouts "criminal" across the council chamber at Ken Gregory after this.

Barry James said...

If allegations prove true (and no court case as yet) will be the end of his career. Remember innocent until proven guilty which is why gazette is circumspect

William Epps said...

Seem to recall many people were not so generous, Barry, when Sandy Ezekiel was arrested and Ken Gregory only accepted a police caution. He was never tried and convicted by a court of law yet certain councillors still dubbed him a criminal. As you say though, we must not prejudge.

Anonymous said...

End of his career, he was never going to get re-elected in Birchington so, unless he switched to Labour, if even they would have him, his career was over anyway.

John Holyer said...

I can't get out to buy the Gazette. I'm decorating. I can find nothing on the internet. Will someone please put me out of my misery; what has Worrow done?

Peter Checksfield said...

Where's Solo Gays when we need him?

According to the Gazette it relates to an incident in 2012... I seem to recall comments on blogs around that time referring to an alledged incident in a club or pub, so perhaps it has something to do with that?

The Gazette also mentions that he planned to give up politics in 2015 though 6:28 is right of course, he'd never get re-elected anyway.

Peter Checksfield said...

For those who haven't seen The Gazette:

Councillor arrest over 'sex assault'.

District councillor John Worrow has been arrested and questioned in connection with allegations of a sex assault.

Mr Worrow is the member for Birchington South. He came onto the political scene after helping launch the Grey Party, which was renamed the Independent Party. The group folded in 2008.

Cllr Worrow joined up with the Conservatives in 2008 after meeting with then-parliamentary candidate Laura Sandys.

The carpet cleaning firm boss quit the group in 2011 over the party's stance on animal exports.

In 2012 police were called after Mr Worrow reported receiving a message saying "With any luck you'll get Aids."

Tory councillor Ken Gregory was cautioned for malicious communication and suspended from the party for six months.

Cllr Worrow has vowed to quit politics in 2015, claiming he has been a victim of a homophobic hate campaign.

He said: "I wholly deny the twisted nature of the allegations against me."

A police spokesman said: "A 44-year-old man has been arrested in connection with an allegation of sexual assault."

Barry James said...

William I am confused. Are you saying the acceptance of a PC is not guilt

William Epps said...

No, I am not, Barry, but neither is it a conviction which can only be obtained through a court. It gives you a criminal record, but it is a way of avoiding court action for lesser misdemeanours. What many people fail to realise is that a caution is often offered when there would be little or no chance of a court conviction anyway.

John Holyer said...

Peter,

Thank you.

Barry James said...

This is what Wiki says "A police caution (since 2005 more properly known as a simple caution is a formal warning given by the police to an adult offender aged 18 years or over and who has admitted that they are guilty of an offence."
To me that makes Ken a criminal for admitting guilt. If this is not true please explain why

Peter Checksfield said...

I don't think even Cllr Gregory denies that he did it, unlike Ezekiel and Watt-Ruffell to name just two...

Anonymous said...

Interested to read that Worrow claims he left the Conservatives for their stance on animal exports. Surely Laura Sandys was one of those that campaigned against this trade, stood down at the Port of Ramsgate and raised the matter in parliament. The Weasel resigned from the Conservative group because Bob Bayford would not give him the cabinet post he thought his talents justified. He then sold his vote to Labour in return for the chair of a committee, lovely bloke.

Peter Checksfield said...

That's probably the true reason 7:04, but didn't even he claim that he left the group over parking charges in Birchington rather than animals exports?

William Epps said...

Why, Barry is because it would be at cross purposes with the role of the police which is primarily to prevent crime. Police should not, as the prevention and investigation force, be involved in trying, convicting and sentencing the accused. Only courts of law can convict and to be a convict it necessarily follows that you must be convicted.

A police caution is precisely what it says, a caution and it is administered to those that admit the offence. Yes, that makes them guilty, but they are not in consequence convicts.

That said, I do not actually agree with the process because it puts police in the position of awarding punishment and, as it often the case with youngsters, they get frightened into acceptance of a caution or else you will finish up in court. A year or so back , I got a young relative off a caution because of this very implication of threat of worse if you do not accept it. That, I might add, arose out of a school playground scrap between boys.


William Epps said...

You are right, Peter, and I recall some woman in Birchington, Ann something or other, defending him around the blogs for what he was doing for traders in the village over parking. Bit like his story now that he is standing down, not because he would be kicked out by the electorate if he did not, but because he is a victim of a homophobic hate campaign.

Barry James said...

If I admitted doing something then by definition that makes me guilty. I am therefore a criminal surely " Yes, that makes them guilty, but they are not in consequence convicts." I will agree with that statement to a point however by admitting my guilt I am also by definition "convicting myself" of the offense. The rest is semantics.

My understanding is the reason for bringing in cautions is twofold
1, saving magistrate court time and therefore money
2. speeding up process
Remember you cannot be given a caution if you deny the offense.
It might make sense that teenagers cannot be cautioned unless they have discussed the offense with a neautral 3rd party as a safeguard

William Epps said...

Barry, I strongly recommend you take your research a little further, but let me help you.

If you look at Gov.UK - Crime, Justice & the Law you will find the following:

"Cautions are given to anyone aged 10 or over for minor crimes.

A caution is not a criminal conviction but could be used as evidence of bad character if you go to court for another crime"

Like I said, a caution does not make you a convict which is the label Worrow, and another, were throwing at Cllr Gregory in the chamber. Not defending what Gregory did, but let's try and deal in a few facts round here for a change.

Barry James said...

do you not have to admit your guilt first?

Anonymous said...

If you admitted speeding, Barry, would that make you a criminal or would you just get a fine and points on your licence. Speeding is a crime you know.

Barry James said...

Anon that has nothing to do with police cautions as me and william are discussing

William Epps said...

Barry, you have to accept the caution and, thus by implication, your guilt of what it is you are being accused of. Nonetheless, as the Government site states, a caution is not a criminal conviction. It is also worthy of note that a caution is only offered for minor crimes, so Anon at 8.30 is right in a way. Many people do regard traffic offences as minor crimes and would not consider themselves criminals for accepting a statutory fine without going to court.

The indisputable fact remains that Cllr Gregory was wrongly branded a convict.

Barry James said...

William you didn't answer my question Can you be cautioned if you deny the offense? or to put it another way Can a police caution be given if you deny the offense?

Anonymous said...

INTERNET IS HERE I AM MADE OF INTERNET

William Epps said...

I said quite clearly that you have to accept the caution and, after telling you of what you are accused in the proper manner, the police offer you a caution which, by accepting, means you should be admitting your guilt. As I said earlier, my worry is, as happened with my eleven year old relative and his parents, that if not accepted they would finish up in court. In fact I was able to subsequently show to the Chief Constable that there was in fact a strong defence and the caution was scrapped.

We are, however, splitting hairs for the fact remains that a caution is not a criminal conviction whatever it is you have admitted to.

Barry James said...

I agree it is semantics we are discussing.
As Gregory admitted he left the voice mail he is guilty by his own admission and as such was punished by the tories. I had thought that in Worrow's eyes he felt the tories should have kicked him out of the party and the fact he doesn't think the punishment fitted the "crime" says much about him.
Others have said even if the case had gone to court it is doubtful a greater sentence would have been imposed if fact it would probably have been less. But then that didn't happen

William Epps said...

Precisely, Barry, but the point I was simply trying to make is that Worrow was wrong to publicly call Gregory a convict in the council chamber.

My personal worries about the caution system are another matter for I know of youngsters who have accepted cautions unjustly basically out of fear of going to court. I also have serious reservations about police giving what is in effect a punishment.

Barry James said...

but surely he could be reported to standards for his outbursts and dealt with that way. Or am I missing something

John Hamilton - talking sense and cutting through bullshit said...

Fine thanks Cheggers, sorry, would have commented earlier but drifted off to sleep for a while reading James's irrelevant pedantry.

Barry James said...

I see "nom de blog" is trying to poke fun, Maybe falling asleep was the best he could aspire to.

John Hamilton - talking sense and cutting through bullshit said...

Falling asleep is certainly more entertaining than reading your irrelevant drivel. Mind you, it's quite entertaining watching just how obsequious you can be around Michael, it's like watching someone who has a new puppy.

Barry James said...

lost your bottle on Geoff's blog hammy thats over a week now, it is more than obvious you are running scared of posting.
BTW how are the tenants getting on in Gillingham?

John Hamilton - talking sense and cutting through bullshit said...

Oh James, if only you could get anything right ;) No idea James, i have never been a tenant anywhere. How are Cardy's finances these days, have they had to force anyone else, apart from you to remove libelous comments?

Barry James said...

You know you are so boring and who said you were a tenant anywhere have you added misreading to your many skills. I hope you are declaring the income your get.

John Hamilton - talking sense and cutting through bullshit said...

Oh James, I have to disagree, your ill informed pedantry is way more boring than almost anything I can think of, apart of course from your libelous statements about Kent businesses. As I have no income from tenants anywhere, then it would seem silly to declare such, but then from a "forensic accountant" (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA) of your "quality" that is the kind of advice I would expect :)

William Epps said...

Barry, not quite sure how our discussion about a police caution not being a criminal conviction got around to what Standards might have done about Worrow's behaviour in the council. That was not really the point for I was just correcting the Wiki over simplified definition.

What Standards do about councillors behaviour is yet another matter and it never ceases to amaze me how a couple of councillors have been allowed to malign their colleagues, to the point of slander one would suggest, without retribution. That, however, is for another day.

Peter Checksfield said...

Still no mention of the (alledged) Worrow incident by Solo Gays, though I did notice that he's written a blog post about me for the 3rd time in a week. Looks like this has become the new Flaig and Hart / Hammy and Driver (or is it James?) / Holyer and Garbutt / etc... and all because I'm opposed to his sort b***ing in the bushes!

William Epps said...

Yes, Peter, I noticed that SG was complaining that Simon Moores had seemingly given priority to your comment on Thanet Life over SG's expert opinion on the issue, totally ignoring the fact that the comments are published in date/time order. I tried to point this out to him on his site, but I am not one of the accepted persons - perhaps I should be glad about that.

Solo Gays said...

William
The sub-text of my latest post was that people are better off being part of a community and communicating with their local councillors wherever that is possible, certainly not a criticism of Cllr Simon Moores. Imagine how dull and overlooked that would be if I just merely stated that!

Peter
John Worrow is not part of my circle. On a professional footing, he had chosen to ignore the issues I had raised with him regarding planning issues. This in part could have been because he was advised to steer clear of me when he campaigned for equal marriage, although he would not say who on the brief occasions that we spoke.

Regarding my alleged obsession with frequenting public places where sexual activity allegedly takes place. I will seek help.

John Hamilton - talking sense and cutting through bullshit said...

Careful or the homophobe finder general will unleash all his wrath upon you all!

John Holyer said...

Peter Checksfield 09:48

You persist in mentionioning my name. Do I loom that large in your life. I hope not because you are the kind of person that gives failure a bad name.