Monday, 21 October 2013

Pleasurama, Royal Sands Development in Ramsgate, another moan.

I mostly try to avoid this one now as it has been taken over by plenty of people who seem to want to get it resolved. Frankly I don’t think much is going to happen about it until the end of this winter when the development agreement runs out.

What does worry me though is that the abandoned site isn’t being looked after, the picture taken last Thursday shows the tip of the iceberg, no proper site security.

Not really sure how dangerous going onto the abandoned building site is, but it isn’t somewhere you want your children going or to have to get your dog out of.

The main issue here for me is the cliff façade and I think this is particularly important with the winter coming on, there are two aspects of this and I will treat them separately for clarity.

Firstly dealing with the latest inspection report, that relates to the inspection of the cliff façade around the end of 2011 the report draft dated 02/03/2012 the final report dated 31/07/2012; this says:

“For the arched and portal sections, vegetation shall be removed and the various fine cracks in the facade should be prepared with an angle grinder and filled with a suitable flexible crack repair filler such as Watco flexible crack sealant and over painted after 24 hours. Weep holes shall be cleared of vegetation.

The infill panels of portals 13 and 18 of the portal section shall be removed, the chalk face inspected and the block work replaced with 30N/mm2 200mm thick block work and painted.

For the concrete barrier, defects in the top original coping should be repaired by scabbling to sound concrete and applying a suitable epoxy levelling mortar such as Sikagard-720 EpoCem or high build cementitious repair mortar such as Sika MonoTop-615 depending upon the depth of the defect.

For the masonry wall, the render should be hacked off, the brickwork re-pointed and a new render applied retained and reinforced with expanded metal laths fixed to the masonry. Joints in the render shall be provided.

A suitable inspection and maintenance regime should be instigated. This can take the form of regular visual checks of the high level promenade looking for tension cracks in the new surfacing or settlement especially after prolonged periods of rainfall. A detailed structural survey of the wall façade and concrete barrier should be carried out every 3 years.”

I don’t really know when the council intends to do this work nor do I know what the effects of leaving it for a few years is likely to be, whether there is a “stitch in time” element here that is going to cost the council in the future. I do know like everyone else who looks at the thing, that it looks bad and it also looks a lot worse than it did in the winter of 2011 – 2012 when it was last inspected by professional engineers.

Secondly is the façade foundations issue, what has happened here is that the developer’s contractor has temporarily lowered the ground at the bottom of the cliff façade. In some parts of the façade this doesn’t matter as the foundations are much lower, but in some parts the ground below the façade foundations has been exposed.

Exposing this for a short time while the development’s groundworks were done is one thing, leaving it exposed for several years while the legal problems relating to the development agreement not being adhered by the developer, is altogether something else.

In short what is happening here is that public bill is accumulating, the thing has already suffered from neglect resulting in the council having to spend about a million on it and now it is evidently being neglected again.


248 comments:

  1. Michael, nothing worse that saying " I told you so" when this eventually becomes a huge liability on the local public purse.

    Lets hope TDC get their arms around it soon enough.

    Wonder if pleasurama will become the next local landmark sold for a £1?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well the site used to have a hoarding with lovely paintings on until a certain mouthy councillor called on the local graffiti artists (falls about laughing, but then if what Emin does is art anything is possible) to deface it. It was much admired by our Ramsgate visitors before the vandals stepped in, but now it is a mess. Perhaps the Green party should pay for it to be returned to its former splendour or the man himself. Sorry, forgot, he has fracked off to some old mining site to protest. Once he used to protest at their closure and now he protests that they might be brought back into use again supplying us with affordable gas.

    ReplyDelete
  3. anon 9.02 is this never let the truth spoil a story. Ian Driver joined the Socialist Labour party in 1996 by his own admission but the miners strike was 1984/5 so please explain how he protested at their closure. Maybe you should do your research.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Before that he was SWP and then Militant. Perhaps you should do your research. Pleased to see you have not denied the responsibility for encouraging vandalism.

      Delete
    2. Reading this I wonder if anon 9:28 you have some proof that Ian was on the picket line protesting during 1984/85.

      Why is it when Michaels posts about a hole in the fence which is big enough for our kids to get inside a building site you find in necessary to bring up old history. The upkeep of the fence is down to the builders and should be enforced by KCC who allowed its erection and has granted the builders a licence.

      Delete
    3. Barry, the point was why the fence came to be vandalised in the first place and have you already forgotten that it was Ian Driver who went public with his call to the graffiti fraternity to do their worst. Once such debate gets underway the firebrand history of said councillor becomes very relevant.

      Delete
    4. The damage you can see in the photo has been caused in the last 2 months and that section of the fence never had any paintings on it either. As Michael said this is not about Driver despite your protestations but about the lack of security on the site. As a matter of interest the builder erected CCTV to cover that end of the site over 4 months ago so why havent they noticed. Have they stopped monitoring it?

      Delete
    5. Which builder would that be, Barry. Since the developer appears to have no finance with which to proceed I doubt any builder is being paid to do anything. Back to your point of the damage, when one calls on the lawless to vandalise how do you draw the line on where to stop. It was an irresponsible act by an elected representative and nothing you can say now can change of defend that.

      Delete
    6. When did I defend it? it is irrelevant to the hole in the fence in the photo above, The builder has a duty under the KCC license to maintain the fence for H&S reasons that are self-evident.

      As Michael said below (which you are ignoring) if you want to complain about Driver post on hammy's blog not on here. " if you want to vilify Ian Driver Superham has a whole blog dedicated to doing this, where I am sure you comments would not only be allowed but welcome"

      Delete
    7. Barry, did I say I want to vilify Ian Driver. Simply pointing out you cannot ignore the start of the demise of the once attractive hoarding. As for Michael, well, if he wants to be Driver's minder and delete all critical comment, that is his choice as the blog administrator. He will not though because he enjoys attracting more comments than most which is why he tolerates us anons however extreme.

      Delete
    8. Good to know you believe your vilification of Driver is "extreme"

      Delete
    9. Not what I said at all but you go ahead and wet yourself with delight at your little witticism. Pathetic!

      Delete
    10. I think it is the posting about Driver causing the current hole in the fence which is pathetic and completely irrelevant to Michael's blog. As he said go post on hammy's blog.

      Delete
    11. And like I said, if Michael wants to delete the anti-Driver comments it is his choice, not yours. Nobody said Driver caused the current hole in the fence, but he kicked off and encouraged the vandals and the rest of the fence then became fair game. You are still pathetic, James.

      Delete
    12. Good I'm glad we have cleared that up about Ian Driver not causing the damage above. Only an anon could link cause and effect the way you have. If you had looked at the pictures of the paintings at the time it is clear the letters EDL are on some paintings and as I understand it a roller and marine paint were used. Now if you believe someone was responsible for the damage I suggest you take those suspicions to the police as I suspect they still have an open file on the case.

      Delete
    13. You have serious grasp problems, James, Ian Driver encouraged people to write graffiti on the hoarding to support his campaign at that time. He was condemned for it by other councillors as an irresponsible act by an elected representative. No, he did not do the actual painting himself, but his conduct was certainly unbecoming a councillor and law abiding citizen. As to whether the then encouraged culprits were your average graffiti artists, mindless vandals of EDF is irrelevant.

      Delete
    14. anon my name is Barry. use of the surname is condescending and uncalled for. If you want a serious debate then use your proper name and meet up. You are sounding more like hammy each post.
      Keep posting from behind an anon does your argument no favours. If you believe your points have any merit then why hide.

      Delete
    15. Barry, perhaps the anonymous poster has reasons for not disclosing his identity, some do and it does not totally invalidate their contribution. If it did, why would any blog administrator allow anonymous comment?

      Actually, whoever the person is, they do have a point for the incident when Ian Driver called on people to paint slogans on the hoarding was well covered at the time in the Gazette and on the blog sites. He almost certainly did not mean for them to deface the paintings or damage the hoarding, but, once you appear to encourage that kind of thing, you cannot control how far it goes.

      Delete
    16. William my point was agreeing with Michael who asked that sort of commentory not be made here but on hammy's own blog. A point I agree happen to agree with.
      Also his use of my surname is rude and very hammy like.

      Delete
    17. Thanks, William, precisely the point I was trying to make and now supported by a named contributor.

      Delete
    18. Barry, the remedy is in Michael's own hands I think, but debate would suffer if the restrictions on contributions extend to not criticising the conduct of others. After all, Ian Driver himself is not slow to accuse his fellow councillors of corruption and incompetence at every opportunity.

      Delete
  4. Interesting James, where did anyone suggest that Driver manned the picket lines of the pits whose closure he opposed, but now seeks to ensure they will not re-open?

    I would suggest that Driver, being responsible for the encouraging the destruction of the previous art, should be equally volumous in encouraging those who took his encouragement literally to make recompense, and repair the fence, now that would be paying their debit to society.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hammy are you suggesting that Ian caused the damage shown in Michael's picture above. Or are you just causing trouble again. The maintenance, and therefore the safety of the public, is down to the builder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting James, where did anyone suggest that Driver manned the picket lines of the pits whose closure he opposed, but now seeks to ensure they will not re-open?

      I think you'll find that my post was fairly self explanatory James, but incase you need to have another read, I post it again for you here, Try and get a grip ;)

      I would suggest that Driver, being responsible for the encouraging the destruction of the previous art, should be equally volumous in encouraging those who took his encouragement literally to make recompense, and repair the fence, now that would be paying their debit to society.

      Delete
  6. Drab pensioners criticising Driver over cancelling Pleasurama?

    Wasn't Clive trying to develop it before Xmas with Poole? Now it's just left to rot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh Tim, please give it a rest. You have nothing to fear. You are not being hunted by, "drab pensioners". Even a zombie would give you a miss for fear of intellectual indegestion.

      Delete
    2. Holyer a full-on weirdo now with a picure of Tim and accusing everyone of being Tim. Hilarious but Sad and gone the way of Hamilton with Driver.

      Delete
    3. I'm inclined to agree. Fact is there's almost certainly more than one person on the blogs who dislikes John, just as there's several who dislike me. All this assuming it's the same person all the time is getting very tiresome, and is dragging the blog down even more than the anonymouses.

      Delete
    4. Come now, Peter, nobody dislikes you. Maybe we do not always agree but what is to dislike for you are not full of spiteful bile like a certain anon nor do you decry people because of their age, colour or creed.

      Love this bit from 10;58 which makes you wonder how he knew it was a photo of Tim if he is not Tim. You we all know by sight because you have long used a picture of yourself on your comments, but most people are total unknowns facially.

      Delete
    5. William & Peter It isn't the points spamilton makes it is the way he uses condescending language to make his point. His use of the surname rather than the first name. Someone pointed out his points are lost in all the hate and bile he uses. Which if you think about it is the point about anons calling people on here "Old Duffers".
      Everyone has a point of view and if you feel strongly you will argue your point however not acknowledging someone else's point of view or twisting the argument to irrelevances as hammy does above (a hole in the fence has nothing to do with Driver) is also wrong. Isn't that a "strawman" argument.

      Delete
    6. Even you might dislike me if I'd persuaded your wife and/or daughter to pose nude for me! ; )

      Seriously, I couldn't care less what certain individuals think of me, particularly if they haven't the guts to reveal their identities.

      As for Tim, I'm not him either, but as a follower of both local blogs and local politics I'm aware of what he looks like.

      Delete
    7. William,

      Your 11:12 am final para: precisely.

      I don't dislike Peter, whether he cares or not.

      Delete
  7. I have to admit to being a bit surprised at the comments here, if you want to vilify Ian Driver Superham has a whole blog dedicated to doing this, where I am sure you comments would not only be allowed but welcome.

    The issue here is an important one, both for Ramsgate and for Thanet council taxpayers.

    I guess the erstwhile supporters of The Royal Sands now have difficulties saying anything constructive about the project and that both councillors and council officers are doing their best to disassociate themselves with the whole thing. But nonetheless there it sits like a great wart on the seafront and I would say the trick now is to get it sorted with minimum expenditure. Leaving great cracks in the cliff wall so that if we have a hard winter then ice will get into them and expand making them even greater cracks, is not necessarily the best way forward.

    It is almost as though those involved would welcome some sort of cliff catastrophe there, which makes one wonder who could possibly benefit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's just an irrevelent joke who rants about any passing bandwagon.

      Spamilton, that is.

      Delete
    2. Peter it might surprise you to know that Spamilton posted this on a gun range in Phoenix, Arizona in May this year "Sounds GOOD! Do I have to be a member to shoot at your C2 location? If i buy a gun from you, how long do I have to wait before I can take it home, or use it at your range?"

      Now that is what I call worrisome.

      Delete
    3. You know, Barry, it is not illegal to own a gun in Arizona or to use it on a gun range or even to take it home in that state. In a different age before the tightening of our own gun laws so that only criminals can have them, I owned a Smith & Wesson revolver and used it on a gun range. It may surprise you, but as a sporting item it is really no different to a cricket bat, but both can be lethal in the wrongs hands. Owning a gun in itself does not make you a gunfighter or a psychopath.

      Delete
    4. Makes me wonder where hammy lives tho William

      Delete
    5. Now I am worrying about you, Barry. Do you seriously think some gun toting cowboy by the name of John Hamilton in Arizona would seriously waste his time running a blog site dedicated to attacking Thanet based people. Most Americans do not know there is a world outside their own county let alone state.

      Delete
    6. It seems like a conspiracy theory too far to me also, but (a) Hammy uses a US IP address (which can be done from anywhere if you no how), and (b) He seems to live by US time (up all night and then offline until after lunchtime). So he may well be US based.

      Delete
    7. I reckon he is a hit man for an American property company looking to make a killing from Thanet's cheap prices, but interested in eliminating all opposition before launching their takeover. Arizona based, gun toting, cheroot chewing man with no real name, yep if I was a NIMBY or Driver I might just be worried!

      Only joking and, yes Rick, as you can tell from the exclamation mark, I went to Chatham House. Also, Rick, everybody who works for a banking corporation is not necessarily a banker, my speciality was property.

      Delete
    8. Actually William the quote was from hammy's FB profile verifiable as the same who posts on his blog (linked to Michael's) not some lookalike fake. Hence the wondering where he resides. And yes anon both your points have been noted.
      If he does live in Arizona I am wondering why the invective against Driver.

      Delete
    9. William I am Rick and this is my first and only contribution to this interesting thread.

      Delete
    10. Rick, I realise you have not commented before on this thread, but I am aware of your previous references to the Chatham House excessive use of exclamation marks and your general disregard for bankers. Hence the message to you. No offence intended.

      Delete
    11. "I guess the erstwhile supporters of The Royal Sands now have difficulties saying anything constructive"

      Not really Michael, just bored of the scaremongering. I am waiting for the calamitous cliff fall into a tumultuous crane filled seething ocean, as it crashes landward with much loss of life, as buildings are swept asunder, as has occurred so frequently in the past...... oh, wait..

      Delete
    12. John to clarify these points.

      The environment agency say the flood risk should be assessed.

      As a local historian I have discovered that the site has had a serious flood about every 50 years.

      The council employed independent civil engineers report says the cliff needs some repairs now.

      As a local historian I have discovered that the cliff has had a serious collapse about every 50 years.

      In the past, and I guess mostly because the problems are related to winter weather and the site usage was mostly summer there has been no injury or loss of life, the tidal surge storms and the cliff collapses have all happened in the winter.

      What is being proposed is a building with a life of about 100 years that will have getting on for a thousand people in it summer and winter.

      Could you kindly tell me if there is anything you disagree with here?

      Delete
    13. Could you clarify how long the Pleasurama building stood in all it's guises, despite the apparently dire risk of falling rock, crane laden storm surge floods, and at what point the hotel and flats will be filled with approximately 5 people per dwelling at the very minimum? If there are 1000 people there, would that not indicate that the development is stunningly popular...

      Also can you give us a total of all those many lives that must have been lost in such an appallingly dangerous and life threatening area...

      Bearing i mind that you contend that the most appalling danger to life limb and property in in the winter, it would seem that your last paragraph is moot at best, but more likely scaremongering at it's worst.

      I await clarification of these appalling losses to life and property that have clearly occurred in the past.

      Delete
    14. Thank you John, from your answer I conclude you agree with the points I have made apart from the number of people, what I said was getting on for and I had assumed there was to be a hotel in this development and some cafes bars etc, am I mistaken here?

      I don’t understand why you are asking about lives lost when I have already said there weren’t any, can you expand on this?

      Where you seem to be getting most confused is about who it is that is asking for what.

      I will reiterate, the civil engineers employed by the council that surveyed the cliff wall two years ago, say it needs repairing and the Environment Agency says it need a flood risk assessment.

      What I am saying is there have been a number of cliff collapse and flood incidents here historically and that I think the advice of the professional experts should be taken, are you saying that it should be ignored?

      In short, the idea here is to prevent injury and loss of life by following the advice of the specialist civil engineers involved. You seem to have got confused into thinking that I am against developing the site, my take here is that development should adhere to normal safety practices and that a development there should remain economically viable for its expected life.

      Delete
    15. Actually, JH, does have a point because the properties that already exist at the same level as Pleasurama and that are backed by a cliff face have been there a lot longer than 50 years yet, according to Michael we are supposed to have a flood or serious cliff fall there every half century. I have lived in or been a regular visitor to Thanet since 1944 and I cannot recall one life lost at the Pleasurama site from flood or avalanche in all that time.

      I am not saying any development there should not have proper risk assessments carried out, but let's not get carried away with melodrama.

      Delete
    16. Thank you Michael. It appears there is no evidence of any kind, that there is a danger to any structure built on the pleasurama site, and can be evidenced by the existance of such a structure on the site for nearly 150 years, that was neither washed away by crane laden waves, nor crushed under monumental rock falls.

      The surveyor that valued my house over 30 years ago said that the crack around the wall by my bathrrom should be measured and monitored incase there was a structural issue with the house. Guess what, common sense dictated that such a course was a laughable waste of time, and a simple case of CYA, as is the case at pleasurama.

      Scaremongers would shout loudly from the roof tops about the appalling risk of house collapse, but experience, common sense and history once again, in my house, and indeed at pleasurama that the scaremongers should be rightly ignored.

      "In short, the idea here is to prevent injury and loss of life"

      As there has never been either, then we can all rest safely in our beds, happy in the knowledge that the chances of that happy situation continuing for the next 150 years, exactly the same as the last 150 years will continue to be pretty much a certainty.

      Now, I must go and take shelter in my cellar, I was told earlier that parachutists practice their sport not a million miles from my location, and while none has ever crashed through my roof, and broken my neck in a horrific accident, it's obviously a risk I must take account on in my daily life!

      Scaremongering, no, it could happen!

      Delete
    17. and Hamilton adds clairvoyance to his skillset as he now can predict the future. agreed 10:17 Hamilton is a twat

      Delete
    18. You are such a hero, 11:51. No problems with anonymous contributions, but if you want to insult people at least have the courage to say who you are.

      Delete
    19. John you seem to have missed the fundamental point that the new development is about four times the size of the old Pleasurama building.

      The crane landed in what was then the funfair part of the site, as did the 20,000 tons of cliff fall.

      The new development will be built on this part of the site, so the crane would have hit the front of the building had it been there in 1953 and the 20,000 tons of concrete and chalk would have hit the back, had it been there in 1937.

      And no I am not saying that this will happen again during the life of the development, just that the expert professional advice to help stop this from happening shouldn’t be ignored.

      Delete
    20. Michael, there's a nice 2-page spread on you and Ramsgate Harbour in today's Gazette.

      Delete
    21. Thanks Peter I haven’t had time to get a paper yet.

      Delete
    22. Sorry Michael, you are missing the fundamental point I'm afraid. There is 150+ years of evidence that there is absolutely no danger whatsoever from terrible noahesq storms, nor tectonic level earth movements at Pleaurama.

      The only danger would seem to be from cranes parked on the beach, to which a simple solution of not parking any there would seem to suffice.

      Sorry Michael, but you are scaremongering with 0 evidence I'm afraid, as has been obvious for a long time now.

      Delete
    23. The Superstorm this weekend is exactly the kind of storm/flood that is dangerous for Pleasurama and the cliffs that Michael is right to raise (and the sewers flooding again - a cholera risk). Where are the checks and safety reports from TDC?

      Delete
  8. Do you know Michael if TDC ever do regular cliff inspections around the Thanet towns?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Michael, I could not agree more that this eyesore in Ramsgate needs urgent attention though do agree with those that suggest the vandalism of the once not unattractive hoarding did not help the scenario. Perhaps your concerns for the safety of the cliff would be best taken up with the Ramsgate Town Council for, once notified of such concern, they can hardly ignore it, just in case.

    As for Cllr Driver, well I think he himself would accept that he does nothing to avoid attention, quite the opposite, and with fame (or notoriety) goes the risk of criticism. Look at me, and we have discussed this before, if I kept quiet or blogged under a pseudonym, I doubt anyone outside my local community would know I even exist. As it is, by using my name I become an old duffer, senile, stupid, obtaining allowance under false pretences and a waste of rations to some. Goes with the role I guess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We know you exist William, often simply denigrating Driver presumably in line with Tory policy, and that your opinions are usually incompetent or foolish eg fracking or 0% corruption. Describing you as senile or stupid is simply a reflection of that rather than mere insult.

      Delete
    2. As you wish with your brave insults, 5:05, but for the record the opinions I give in my comments are my own and not those of the Conservative party. Furthermore, I very much doubt that Ian driver, now he is no longer Labour, is of very much concern to the Tories either. This is not Brighton and the Green Party are hardly likely to sweep to power in Thanet.

      Delete
    3. Anon 5:05pm,

      I go away for a couple days and return to find your signature slime trail all over this blog.

      Delete
    4. They are indeed your own opinions William, and foolish as described. As a Tory councillor you're also invariably trotting out the party line too though - and as with Hamilton simply denigrating Driver. And for TDC corruption you remain silent again, at least Driver has raised that issue. No wonder you've resigned as councillor.

      Delete
    5. There's no corruption at TDC, just incompetence. Of course if you had proof of corruption you could report it to the police.

      Delete
    6. My, my, 7:09, you seriously do have an understanding problem. I have not resigned as a councillor, but simply advised I will not stand for office again come 2015. There is a difference even if it is difficult for you to comprehend.

      Cllr Driver is on the political left whereas I am on the right. Quite obviously there would be much we would disagree on, but that is democracy and I would defend his right to hold his opinions. I am not a TDC councillor whereas Cllr Driver is, so it is hardly surprising he concerns himself with TDC matters. If I had proof of any crime I would report it to the police and I suggest you do the same, if in fact you have anything remotely resembling evidence.

      You keep taking the tablets and maybe one day you might be able to join in with the grown ups.

      Delete
    7. William the cliff and the sea defence belong to TDC as does the responsibility for maintaining them, with the previous lease the cliff was the responsibility of the funfair operator.

      On the subject of the hording, this has been there for about fifteen years since the previous building burnt down and there was a bit from the end of 2010 to the beginning of 2013 when most of it had pictures on it that looked attractive. For the rest of the time it has looked awful.

      My take is that period of just over two years when the pictures looked ok did help with the problem that Ramsgate’s main leisure site was and is derelict, but the main problem here is getting the dereliction sorted.

      Delete
    8. There's no corruption at TDC 7:13? The Leader was jailed for 18 months remember? The O% salary fraud is councillor and civil servant corruption. Various other activities eg Ferrygate are not corruption nor incompetence but illegal misuse of funds. None of the councillors reported the above to the police despite strict procedures. But then as with Epps we can see the dismal councillors we have. A resignation 2 years before the election is going some - and a waste of the rates until then though: why not go now?

      Delete
    9. 11:06, if you REALLY believe that there's corruption at TDC then which of these do you think would be the best way of dealing with it: (a) Take your evidence to the police and / or the press, (b) Post anonymous comments on blogs?

      Delete
    10. Why do you think it is either/or Peter? And you seem to be suggesting there is no corruption at TDC or at the very lest that you don't care - nor whether councillors raise these problems.

      Delete
    11. I'm suggesting that IF you're right then you're going the wrong way about trying to do something about it.

      Delete
    12. funnily enough the basic issues with Cllrs is their naivete in believing everything they are told without checking for themselves. I wonder if when asked to jump off a cliff they would comply without question.

      Delete
    13. Thanks, Barry, I wondered why my legs keep getting shorter. Must be all this jumping off cliffs!

      Delete
    14. William when you read the files on Pleasurama you would realise why I made that last remark. As I understand it you hadn't had any dealings with Ramsgate so I doubt you made any decisions over that development. Michael has expressed some degree of disbelief over some of the decisions made and this Blog post started off about Pleasurama so I assumed people would make the connection

      Delete
  10. John Hamilton is the product of an American Thunder Jet pilot from Arizona, once stationed at Manston, and a lady from Margate. He lives in Arizona, but has regularly visited Thanet over the years to spend time with his grand parents, one of whom is a well known Tory councillor. Is everybody happy now or, come tomorrow, will he be Roger Gale?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Droll and not verifiable. Maybe you have pertinent evidence you would like to share anon 3:10

      Delete
    2. Barry, over the months I have seen John Hamilton accused of being sundry folk round the blogs and even a councillor on the strength of a bit of satirical writing by Smudger. The Thunder Jet pilot's son sounds about as verifiable as any of the others and, who knows, he may actually be a chap named John Hamilton.

      Delete
    3. I have been accused of being various people, from councilors from any and all parties, a Tesco employee/shill, businessman, unemployed, policeman, secret service, council officer, the list lengthens daily, yet my real actual name appears on every post I make. Cheggers opinion of me, along with a political chancer, and a wanna be "detective" really is of no consequence.

      Delete
    4. Except it's not your real name, is it. We all know it, you know it. You've been rumbled, yet you still keep up this ridiculous facade.

      Delete
    5. Yet again an anonymous contributor rumbles a named one. What does it matter if it is not his real name you twit, at least he has a name. You and I are just passing trolls and totally unaccountable.

      Delete
    6. I was pleased to see that a judge has thrown out a case in which a woman using Facebook was abused by trolls. He said, rightly in my opinion, that the woman had interacted with the trolls and had, in effect, brought the abuse upon herself. This is great news for anyone keen to abuse the likes of Cheggers, Epps and Holyer. (You can say what you like about John Hamilton anyway because it isn't his real name).

      Delete
    7. Is that you idea of debate, 5:35, simply to abuse those who are prepared to use their own names.

      Delete
    8. Some people who have been abused by the likes of Hamilton have had no interaction with him. Christine Tongue is just one name who springs to mind.

      Delete
    9. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-24646850

      Delete
    10. "You engaged with the 'trolls' contrary to the specific advice given to you by Sussex Police on at least three occasions."

      This is exactly why several people who've been abused by Hammy have stopped responding to his posts - because of police advice!

      Delete
    11. See from Twitter that Tim Garbutt is back from Vietnam (tee hee) and planning another trip. That guy's carbon footprint must add up to more than all the KLM flights from Manston to date.

      Delete
    12. There's probably only one person on here who cares 7:56 (and it's not me!).

      Delete
    13. If he has been in Vietnam then I'm sure he has had far better things to do than endlessly post anonymous comments on here.

      Delete
    14. The operative word of course is 'if' and that is about as likely as his fictitious directorships, wouldn't you say, Tim.

      Delete
    15. Peter 9:01 pm,

      I DO!!!!

      Delete
    16. Peter,

      Which 'John'?

      Delete
    17. Lennon!

      Which John is so obsessed with Tim that he accuses every anonymous of being him and even uses his profile picture?

      Delete
    18. Bit unfair, Peter, for John Holyer, like you, always uses his name, is a real person and never posts anonymously. If he appears to have an obsession at the moment about a certain creep, that is hardly surprising having taken a lot of insults from him for some considerable time in the anon's guise guise as the aquifer man. There are really very few who post regular anonymous comments on this site so a lot of such are in fact down to the one culprit. Look for ageist insults, references to stupidity or senility, constant calls for arrests, about corruption or 0% salaries and you have got him.

      Delete
    19. I still believe that most of the anti-Manston anonymous comments are by another NIMBY though.

      Delete
    20. Thank you, William.

      Peter,

      At the risk of being frank, Peter, you are at times pernickety. I do not see why Tim should be allowed to get away with his gratuitous and vile insults. How would you recommend that I deal with him bearing in mind your own actions concerning Louise Oldfield and John Hamilton?

      Peter, Are you charging to the defence of Tim, as you have done with Louise Oldfield against John Hamilton? If so can you please explain your reason in order that I may understand you better.

      Delete
    21. The difference is that I'm not convinced that the comments are from Tim.

      Delete
    22. Peter,

      You have been presented with evidence which indicates with force that Tim is the primary culprit. In the light of this on what grounds do you conclude that most of the anti-Manston comments are made by someone else?

      Delete
    23. I posted the links to Steve Higgins for you John, take them or leave them.

      You wasn't on the blogs when he was posting under his own name 2 or 3 years back. The style is exactly the same.

      Delete
    24. Peter, I don't doubt that Steve posts anti-Manston stuff anonymously, but what distinguishes Tim, apart from his obsession with pensioners, is the constant references to the aquifer, 0% salaries, corruption, arresting all and sundry from council officers to pilots and pollution. Check out his older postings on his own blog site or his exchange with James Maskell prior to the 2010 election and it is all there. There are far too many matches, bit like DNA, for it to be anyone else.

      Delete
    25. I thought Holyer was the repeat-insulter eg Anonymouse etc etc. And certainly a pointless and stupid old fart on that basis, and similar to Epps, as the pair of them now seem to stifle debate on these blogs having been proven utterly wrong if not idiotic on the potential for Manston. They are not the future.

      Delete
    26. Thanks, Tim, you are not that far off OAP status yourself and it comes around a lot quicker than you expect, probably even faster in your case as you do not look exactly athletic. As for Manston, nobody has been proven anything yet and only time will tell what the new owners make of it.

      Delete
    27. I do not contribute much these days having got thoroughly fed up with the constant mindless comments by a certain anonymous and the gratuitous insults that he seems to think contribute to debate, nonetheless I felt I had to jump in here. I reached exactly the same conclusion as John Holyer and William Epps some time back having researched old blog postings. There is no doubt, the so called aquifer man is Tim Garbutt, obsessed with ageism and the arresting of all and sundry, something he was openly challenged about by James Maskell in 2009, but to which he never responded.

      The man is a joke, but a rather rude and unpleasant one, who claims to hold directorships of an advertising agency based in Broadstairs that has no address or phone number, a school building charity which has never built a school and his wife's small restaurant. This all makes him a bit shot. A total nonse is more accurate.

      Delete
    28. Mallinson pops up as nasty and stupid as usual - no corruption at TDC apparently. The Three Stooges of Epps, Holyer and Mallinson in full flow now, somehow obsessed with Tim and that Manston is not a failure.

      Epps confirms that on Manston "nobody has been proven anything" - about what? The pollution? The missing monitors? The banned flights? Speak up ex-councillor - what did you know about these and when?

      Delete
    29. Holyer and Mallinson are the same person. Even Epps suspects that.

      Delete
    30. I certainly agree that they come across very similar, and (ironically) if they were posting anonymously we'd all think it was the same person.

      Delete
    31. Peter 12:34pm,

      You are a twit. You behave in this way anytime that someone has the temerity to challenge your preconceived notions about what is what and who is who. I am not Allan Mallinson and he is not me.
      You have a peculiar notion that if named people agree on a topic then they must necessarily be one and the same person, especially if the comments counter your own point of view.

      If you wish to meet me face to face and discuss your mischievous insinuations about my identity then I would be pleased to see you.

      Your recent postings on this subject has encouraged TG into flooding this blog with insults. He sees you as a friend and ally.

      I have frequently accused Tim Garbutt of being the irritating troll, including sending him emails. He has not disabused me. I don't know about you Peter, but if anyone ever falsley accuses me of an act then I get onto them with alacrity.
      Tim Garbutt remains silent in the face of my accusations. Can you explain that, Peter?

      Delete
    32. I met Tim Garbutt a couple of weeks ago. He was sitting on a bench down by the sands doing a crossword. He certainly wasn't in Vietnam as some posters have claimed. I did mention this web-site and the abusive troll called Holyer. Garbutt told me that he never bothers even reading this site any more, partly because he's got his own web-site where he posts his views freely, and partly because this blog has been ruined by Cheggers, Epps and Holyer who cannot allow anyone else to express an opinion without challenging it, and seeking to have the last word. So much for Holyer's claims that all of the anonymous postings are by Garbutt. I wouldn't be surprised if Holyer is using several names. He spends so much time posting, I don't imagine he has much else to do. Perhaps he's posting all of the anonymous stuff to give him an excuse to respond.

      Delete
    33. John, have you ever met Allan? If not then you should get together, as you'd no doubt have alot in common. Seriously, there could be a nice friendship there (Allan, please email John or vice versa).

      1:45, I'm sure you're right about Tim. He may have some crack-pot ideas, but I'm sure he has better things to do than argue anonymously on blogs.

      Delete
    34. Oh and John, in answer to your question: If someone contacted me about having imaginary dialogue via blogs then I think I'd dismiss the messages as being from a nutter and ignore them too. Generally it's those who have something to hide who respond, such as "John Hamilton".

      Delete
    35. 1:45, if Tim Garbutt was not in Vietnam why did he say on twitter that he was and even, on the 11th October, that he was staying for another week followed by a further message a couple of days ago that he had returned. Tim Garbutt has posted nothing on his own blogsite recently so why tell you he posts freely there. There is only one possible explanation here and I will leave you to work that out for yourself.

      Peter, you have long advocated that people should post honestly using an account and their name. Now you seem to be picking on three that do in support of an anonymous who mainly just insults. I am easily checked out on the Broadstairs Town Council website, John Holyer I know of as we were both in Malaysia with the RAF at the same time whilst, though I have never met Allan Mallinson, I understand he is ex army. Surely it is bad enough trying to guess who anonymous commentators are without then trying to link up named ones.

      Delete
    36. You're obviously obsessed with him too William. Why even bother reading his twitter account?

      You too should try to meet Allan, as well as John Hamilton who you seem to believe is a real person and lives in Thanet.

      Delete
    37. Peter, last attempt at keeping on sides. I am not obsessed with Garbutt, but I do object to people like him who shoot a false line and then insult others who are trying to have a sensible debate. Like you, I know nothing about John Hamilton other than what I read on blog sites, but at least he is traceable through his google account if he goes too far. Those he accuses have a prospect of retribution which is a bit different to those who insult from behind a cloak of anonymity.

      Why I should meet Allan escapes me. Belonging to a number of ex-service associations I already meet many veterans so I may have bumped into him somewhere in Thanet like RAFA or British Legion Club, but I have no way of knowing.

      Delete
    38. Something is very obviously adrift here, Anon 1:45, for you say you met Tim Garbutt by the sands two weeks ago which, by my reckoning, would be around 12 October time.

      On Tim's twitter he says on 30 September that he has nearly finished in Hanoi and is moving on to Saigon. On 10 October on his blog site he talks about the busy time he is having with the trade mission in Vietnam. At the same time he says he is staying on in Vietnam for a further week and he then announces on his twitter on 18 October that he has returned.

      From the above the only way you could have met him two weeks ago locally is if his Vietnam trip was a complete figment of his imagination and his twitter comments were just for effect or, 1:45, you are very mistaken. Perhaps you met his doppelganger.

      For those like Peter, querying my credentials, until recently I lived in Broadstairs but have just moved out to the country. I still shop at Westwood and visit friends in Thanet, but am busy fixing up the new home and getting into the concerns of my new community

      Delete
    39. Peter,

      I appreciate that you become spiky or dismissive when your argument is challenged. However, I am unable to follow your current synthesis which is nebulous in the extreme.

      Delete
    40. Peter, You and anon 1:45pm appear to have much in common.

      Delete
    41. Agree with 4:18 below and 1:45 - for some reason Epps and Holyer seem obsessed with Tim. Holyer even posting Tim's photo. While Mallinson seems equally obsessed but only to insult or smear Tim. And all three occasionally do much the same with Driver. They certainly are rude and stupid and quite possibly homosexual and mentally ill. And all because they cannot explain why Manston has failed again, or the pollution problems. That's the military for you I suppose: shite first and ask questions later!

      Delete
    42. How can they insult and smear Tim if he is not on here, but then he is, is that not so 5:10? Just he never has the guts to use his name, not that he has a shortage of same round his middle.

      Delete
    43. Phew, glad you called him fat and not me!!!

      Delete
    44. Well I stopped short of obese, Peter!!

      Delete
    45. It's called libel 8:09 whether the person is present or not. But then you're too stupid to know that aren't you?

      Delete
    46. Can't wait for the writ to arrive from your solicitor, 9:04, but then you are too stupid to have one.

      Delete
    47. 6:48 you're as stupid and unpleasant as you were at 8:09. Granted you recognise now your foolish libel points. But you compound your idiocy by referring to hiring a solicitor as requiring brains. Possibly for you it does. Most of use the phone book. And if you're so sure of not being libellous then print your name and address here. The value of your house or savings or car may be worth more than your foolish opinions. Probably not.

      Delete
  11. I'm John Hamilton.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No you're not we are so there.

      Delete
  12. Anyway hole in fence is now fixed

    ReplyDelete
  13. If John Hamilton, John Holyer or Allan Mallinson were to write a guest blog on Thanet Online what subjects would they choose ? What evidence would they cite ?

    The stipulation being that they write on a subject and advance an argument. Without mentioning the name or suspected identity of anyone else.

    Perhaps they could be given a subject. EG Aquifer, Pleasurama Development, Manston, TEF, Policing, Education, Mobility of Labour or restoration of national service

    If contributors are asked what issue they associate with John Holyer, John Hamilton or Allan Mallinson, the likelihood is the reply would be "Tim Garbutt, usual suspects, nimbys, Louise Oldfield,"

    John Hamilton has exhibited a recognisable pattern of behaviour. He selected a "Mentor" Michael Child. His whole approach is to damn those who question authority. Michael has an excellent history of doing that and being right. Yet needing Michael's blog as a platform JH stayed his hand in his full vitriol criticism of Michael re Pleasurama.

    John Holyer has exhibited the same sort of obsession with Tim that John Hamilton has exhibited towards Ian Driver and Louise Oldfield.

    Have they sent an FOI ? Fought a local issue ? Taken authority to court ? Taken anyone to court ? IE Done anything as an individual other than expound on blogs ?

    It is well known that weak men mock how the strong man stumbles. But perversely in their mocking they recognise the strength of the those they target. They steer clear of the man they fear to face. but where they perceive vulnerability in those they mock their resentment festers on such targets. Tim. Christine, Louise.

    My prediction now is that one or all of the three will now claim to identify me.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It has to be you Rick because it is too literate for Garbutt and Steve is under the influence by now. Guess what though, I am none of the three you list so your turn to be the detective.

      Delete
    2. You are Clarke the RAF Regiment/Police thug.

      Delete
    3. anon 4:18pm,

      I many not know who you are but I know what you are. Which is a rambling, muddle headed twit with a tenuous grasp of english and with a style that I recognise from before.

      I do not feat to face you. Quite the reverse in fact, so tell me how to contact you.

      Delete
    4. Give it a rest Holyer you have nothing to say and we are bored of you. Go post on your on blog and we can all read your pearls of wisdom and contact you there. If it is any help whatsoever to your crackpot ego, I do not believe you are Mallinson: he is the rude one and you are merely stupid. Neither of you can explain the Manston pollution and cancer other than it should somehow be an RAF base for your daddy.

      Delete
    5. Peter,

      Can you not see that by your defence of Tim you have unlocked his cage and allowed him to run amok. He believes that he has a friend and ally in you. Tim has now sunk to his lowest level yet. He is using accustauions of homsexuality as a term of abuse. Now surely a bien pensant, right on chap like you will view such action as abhorrent?

      Delete
    6. Wow, accusations of homosexuality "his lowest level yet" and "abhorrent"? I never knew you were so anti-gay John!

      Delete
    7. Why is your being homosexual in the post above a term of abuse John? It is simply pointing out your unusual obsession with Tim, even posting his photo. Similarly Hamilton seems to have strong and unrequited feelings for Driver that go beyond criticism of politics or lonely pensioners filling their days etc.

      Delete
    8. Peter,

      I'm never sure if you do not understand or just affect not to understand. Go back and read what I said after all none of the words was over long. I said clearly that TG was using the word homsexual in a pejoritive way. As you well knew.

      You have succeeded in rambling your way into being a fan of the troll TG. You look good together.

      I grow tired of you Peter. I leave the door open for you to have the smug satisfaction of the last word.

      Delete
    9. 5:54 and all your other posts, Tim,

      You are the kind of person who would stab his best friend in the back just so you could write something vile on his tombstone.

      But, curiously, I prefer you to Peter Checksfield. Perhaps this is because I pity you.

      Delete
    10. Tom Clarke has been in Nigeria on a security job for over a year now. So the odd anon cannot be him.

      Delete
    11. Is it Paul Twyman of KIACC failing to reveal the lack of Infratil and TDC monitoring and fines and banned aircraft unlikely to be given any public position again? Or is it all of the resigned TDC councillors in the Airport Committee and the suddenly created new Cabinet Airport Committee, not monitoring the airport each month?

      Delete
    12. Are you the Director of the new Chemotherapy Unit at Margate Hospital?

      Delete
    13. No, but then neither are you, holder of meaningless directorships, Mayor and MP candidate without actually putting in electoral papers or paying the deposit and Vietnam dream visitor. Incidentally, did you ever meet Jane Fonda?

      Delete
    14. John, you said about Tim "He believes that he has a friend and ally in you", well what's wrong with that? I have no argument with him, indeed I don't recall ever even corresponding with him.

      And how does someone "use the word homosexual in perogative way"? Surely it's only perogative if you find the term offensive?

      Personally I'd be more offended if someone implied that I was overweight than gay, though having said that both my weight and sexuality have wandered off course in the past!

      Delete
    15. Doesn't Nigeria have internet access? Not that I'm saying it's him...

      Delete
    16. General Mallinson going a bit random at 7:35. Surely it could be the Director of the Chemotherapy Unit at Margate Hospital? That's more likely than Jane Fonda?

      Delete
    17. No idea, Peter, but I know he went and it is ages since we heard from him. He is probably too involved in his new job and world to be bothered with Thanet blogging. Do recall that Rick Card used to refer to William Epps as Tom, but such is the blogging world. Everybody has to be somebody else so I suppose you were Gene Pitney in another life?

      Delete
    18. 7:58, the comment at 7:35 is mine, not Mallinson's, and surely Jane Fonda used to be known has Hanoi Jane. Just thought you might have met her in your dream world.

      Delete
    19. And to think Clarke was so keen on Manston yet he moved away. Maybe he's moved to be near a busy airport?

      Delete
    20. He moved to get a job which might be an idea for you instead of living off your wife's labours.

      Delete
    21. Peter your 7:45pm,

      I do not know why I am bothering with you but the word I used was 'pejorative' [though I misspelled it pejoritive in my earlier post].

      For the last time: you are wrong to infer that I was offended. What I implied was that TG meant his remark to be offensive. Can you really not grasp the difference.






      I

      Delete
    22. John, you're a white man! And I mean that in an offensive way!

      Delete
    23. Peter, you of all people should know better than to seek to offend someone because of the colour of their skin. We are all the colour we are because of an accident of birth. Actually this thread is getting a bit dangerous when sexuality and colour start to be used as offensive comments.

      Delete
    24. Neither sexuality nor colour have been used offensively here William, you're acting like an old woman.

      Delete
    25. Careful! Don;t want the homophobe finder general making an appearance of cheggers ridiculous attempt to find "homophobia" where clearly none exists.

      Delete
    26. Funnily enough, someone seems to be doing the same with me:

      http://gay-in-thanet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/checksfield-exclusive-ban-bum-sex.html

      I'm looking forward to John "I believe in equality for everyone as long as they're gay" Worrow's response! : )

      Delete
    27. Don't worry about it Peter, just the usual Thanet nastiness that crops up now and then. ti reflects badly on Sologays not you.

      Delete
  14. Are you David "Foolish" Foley the pompous chamber of commerce chap who is invariably wrong on everything to do with commerce and thus concentrates on council brown-nosing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't that Elton John's other half?

      Delete
    2. Foley looks a bit like Elton John now you mention it.

      Delete
    3. Are you Charles Buchanan hastily resurrecting the Manston Community Fund for Cancer on the cheap with gullible local personages to try and prevent being prosecuted as Infratil's Directors ditch you?

      Delete
    4. Where did that little gem come from, 7:09, and what has it to do with Royal Sands. You accuse others of hi-jacking blogs but you are the world's worst. Every thread is not about Manston so go play with yourself or whatever it is you do.

      Delete
    5. Are you former Cllr Moores of the 0% salary committee?

      Delete
    6. You've lost me 7:31. What concerns you about the Buchanan post?

      Nobody said it was about Royal Sands it was referring to the question at 4:08. Why so glib about cancer or the fines for the Cancer Fund?

      Delete
    7. Read the post heading, dimwit, it is about the Royal Sands Development, not Manston.

      Delete
    8. No it's definitely about the Cancer Fund for Manston - it says so in the post, rude lips. That's a £1 for the swear box - although you could buy Manston for that couldn't you?

      Delete
    9. The Cancer Fund is much more interesting than Pleasurama. How much is in the Fund?

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

      Delete
  15. I don't know about anything about what's written on Tim Garbutt's web-site but I met him at the beach a few weeks ago. I can't be sure of the date because it wasn't an earth-shattering event and I don't keep a diary. He said he was due to go to Vietnam and we had a chat about his charitable activities. Frankly, whatever your view of Tim's politics and the way he approaches issues, he's a much bigger asset to the area than John Holyer, who just seems to be an embittered old whinger.

    P.S. I'm not Tim Garbutt, Steve Higgins, Barry James, Jack Cohen, Dave Green, Malcolm Kirkaldie, Richard Nicholson, Ian Driver, Kim Gibson, Alan Poole, Frank Thorley, Michale Childs, Will Scobie, Bill Brewer, Jan Stewer, Peter Gurney, Peter Davy, Daniel Widdon, Harry Hawke etc. etc. I'm just one of the thousands of other ordinary people who think that Manston shouldn't have night flights; and on that issue I'm with Tim Garbutt and not with the in-breds who have ruined this area over many years, or the DFLs who want to turn it into little Hounslow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm still not sure whether I'm an in-bred or a DFL...

      While I disagree over night flights, I agree we need people like Tim with a different point of view and I'm sure he's a good guy.

      Delete
    2. But you are Tim Garbutt and you have changed your tune because Allan Mallinson caught you out. If these charitable activities are so useful how come the Surin Schools Charity launched in 2006 has yet to start one school?

      Delete
    3. I thought it was John Holyer who caught him out, or is that the same thing?

      Delete
    4. It was Allan Mallinson who spelt out the Vietnam time line showing that the anonymous could not have met Tim on the sands two weeks ago unless Tim was twittering porkies. Now the same anon changes his tune to say that when he met Tim he said he was going to Vietnam. Not only is Tim not a good guy, Peter, but he is now trying to take us all for idiots., It is said, of course, that the mentally limited think everybody else is mad.

      Delete
    5. 8:14 says Peter Checksfield is Tim Garbutt? Or 8:14 is saying that 8:05 is Tim Garbutt claiming to meet Tim Garbutt?

      And both Alan Mallinson and John Holyer have caught somebody out over something?

      And 8:27 claims that 8:05 never met Tim and Tim made it all up anyway about going to Vietnam. And Tim is not a good guy and is taking us all for idiots on something or other.

      What strange and rather unpleasant wee characters write on these blogs. Must be something in the water.

      Delete
    6. So if Tim was in Vietnam then Mallinson etc would be liars and smear-merchants? If you reread the post it was Mallinson who claimed that " a couple of weeks" was two weeks exactly. And Epps piped up that it was probably lies. And Holyer swings into action that everything Tim does is a lie etc etc. And an Anon or two much the same too.

      So if Tim was in Vietnam they would be the liars and presumably open themselves to prosecution?

      Delete
    7. I don't think I've ever heard the phrase "the mentally limited think everybody else is mad". I can't work out what it means? Anyone?

      Delete
    8. Mallinson, Holyer and Epps certainly have an axe to grind or a point to prove. Probably just upset at Manston being a disaster and their being shown to be idiots. Maybe a libel case and fines on their pension would be viable.

      Delete
    9. Of course you cannot work it out, 9:17, which is the whole point, dear. Please do not strain yourself trying.

      Delete
  16. So, Holyer, Epps ans Mallinson all confess to following Tim's twitter feed... I think I was right when I said that their posts were all very similar and would be confused for the same person if they commented anonymously (as Mallinson has indeed confessed to doing on here occasionally).

    Maybe I'll support Tim in the next election. I don't know anything about him, but - like Driver - he must be doing something right to get everyone so rattled!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter,

      Peculiar choice of yours to pick the. word 'confess'. Be that as it may I have not said that I follow Tim's twitter feed. I have not accessed twitter for years. You are peeved and as a result you are scratching and thrashing around in your purblind way struggling to get even.

      I do not understand your remark about supporting Tim.

      Delete
    2. My apologies; your obsession only went as far as using his photo.

      Delete
    3. Peter, you will have a job to support Garbutt in the next election for though he claims to be a candidate for parliament, when it comes to the crunch he does not put in his papers to the electoral officer or pay his deposit. Check out 2010 for yourself, he started campaigning, claimed he was a candidate, but appears no where in the official results. He is just a joker.

      Delete
    4. That's a shame. I've just been reading more about his views and policies, interesting stuff.

      Delete
    5. Peter 8:13am,

      That's OK, Peter,

      Not an obsession, Peter, but rather a tactic. A tactic which may have backfired. For I suspect that Tim enjoys his photo and regards my use of it as an accolade.

      I am sure that Tim will confide in you as the two of you grow close during future elections. You may wish to remind Tim that a wise candidate avoids insulting the punters.

      Delete
    6. Peter, see elsewhere that you and I are allegedly in league over the use of parks and gardens, No doubt we will now be on the hit list of the homophobe finder general.

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

    ReplyDelete
  18. I really wish he'd join in the debate William, but then again we all know that he doesn't debate - he just rants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably because he does not have much of a case, Peter. As you say, he is great at the ranting, storming out and calling people homophobes, but not so hot at arguing his point of view. You either have to agree with him or be branded a bigot.

      Delete
  19. Just returned from a stroll from the new pad down to the conservation area at Stodmarsh. How pleasing it is to get lost in a world of lakes, surrounded by just the sounds of nature and the sights provided by the flora and fauna. Then, rather naughtily I thought, what if this place was in Thanet? Someone from the Red Hall would be demanding it be used for social housing with the cry of "Homes for People before Newts," some nimby would be alleging that all that water above old mine workings was a recipe for seismic disaster and calling for a risk assessment of some kind, whilst a chap with a large belly would be protesting that the frogs are contaminating the drinking water.

    Thanks be that this beauty spot is in Canterbury jurisdiction and not Thanet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or some elderly Lance Corporal would be wandering around it trying to cause mischief before returning to the retirement home for soldiers who never fired a shot in anger. And you don't even live in Thanet Mallinson but prattle on about Manston etc?

      Delete
    2. How sweet of you to promote me, Tim. You try so hard to be insulting and like everything in life with you, you just finish up a dismal failure. You then compound things with your ignorance for the last thing you do is fire shots in anger. That is how you finish up in a court martial. Stay calm, identify your target and make quite sure that firing is permissible within your rules of engagement. Glad I never had a tosser like you beside me.

      Delete
    3. Mallinson obsessed with Tim again, and such rudeness. Drummed out of the Pay Corps no doubt for answering back to the corporals.

      Delete
    4. Ignore him, Allan, for he cannot help it. His other half will be home from the restaurant later to calm him down, give him his hot chocolate and tuck him up in bed.

      Delete
    5. But 7:24, you are Tim so addressing you by your name is hardly obsessive. Your style is unique so, whilst everybody knows it is you, you have a problem admitting it to yourself. Split personality perhaps?

      Delete
    6. 7:25, isn't that what Allan's doing? Shame you're not.

      Delete
    7. Tim seems flavour of the month for the pro-Manston fanatics, and insults seem to have replaced any explanation of Manston's future or cleanup of the pollution or TDC/KCC's role in endangering the public.

      Delete
    8. As with the newts thanks be that the reptillian Mallinson is in Canterbury not Thanet!

      Delete
  20. 9:14 can't explain and they wrote it! A Thanet Cabbage if ever there was one.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I know one thing, if Tim ever does decide to stand for the next election, he certainly won't need to hire a publicist! Holyer and co have given him even more plugs than Hammy has given Driver!

    ReplyDelete

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

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