Thursday, 3 October 2013

Thanet District Council meeting tonight and the occasional ramble

I have pasted the main tweets from the meeting here:
Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Do you ask @ThanetCouncil permission to vote on polling day? We have the #RightToFilm  council meetings in England http://margatearchitecture.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-right-to-report-film-and-tweet-from.html …
ReplyRetweetFavorite
46m
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Hi @ThanetCouncil when will the video be online from last night's Council Meeting?
1h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Public wins right to film all council meetings @thanetcouncil http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10119059/Public-wins-right-to-film-all-council-meetings.html …
Show Summary
10h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Vote @mehdirhasan Honestly he is the man #bbqt Otherwise, read what he writes.
10h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Mind you @EricPickles in spirit of #opengov if you could release my DCLG FOI re Margate #MaryPortas and lift S36 exemption
10h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Does anyone else get a tab called 'Modern Gov' when they open Councillors' page on @ThanetCouncil  website? Funny! pic.twitter.com/2codu7nENJ
 View image on Twitter
10h
 Simon Moores @SimonMoores
@margatearchi   Full Council meetings are filmed in their entirety with edits to remove interruptions. Quality is a factor of cost.
Retweeted by Louise Oldfield
Expand
10h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Here's a blog post I wrote about filming council meetings with current guidance http://margatearchitecture.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-right-to-report-film-and-tweet-from.html … @ThanetCouncil @EricPickles
Expand
11h
 ThanetStar @ThanetStar
@DuncanS @SimonMoores How are we #dyslexics meant to take notes? Are you anti-disability simon?
Retweeted by Louise Oldfield
⌘ Expand
11h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
“@EricPickles: @margatearchi @GBPizzaCo @SimonMoores @GazetteMargate Let the cameras in. A good council is an open council” #ThanetCouncil
Expand
12h
 Eric Pickles @EricPickles
@margatearchi @GBPizzaCo @SimonMoores @GazetteMargate Let the cameras in. A good council is an open council
Retweeted by Louise Oldfield
Expand
12h
 Thomas Brown @GazetteMargate
@SimonMoores What evidence did they have? Distrust of public is inevitably going to be reciprocal for TDC. Your colleague Pickles said so.
Retweeted by Louise Oldfield
Expand
12h
 Peter Davis @peterdav2000
“@margatearchi:Member of public thrown out for suspected filming @ThanetCouncil shameful!”Rather than deal with their own shameful behaviour
Retweeted by Louise Oldfield
Expand
13h
 Thomas Brown @GazetteMargate
1984 in 2013 as chairman Cllr Dark ejects taxpayer as she "assumed" he was filming on tablet computer despite protests from public gallery.
Retweeted by Louise Oldfield
Expand
13h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Resident thrown out of #ThanetCouncil meeting despite him clarifying not filming! @EricPickles is this right?
Expand
13h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Member of public thrown out for suspected filming @ThanetCouncil shameful!
Expand
13h
 Thomas Brown @GazetteMargate
Orwellian moment: meeting stopped to ask if I am recording meeting. Is that not my job?! Taxpayer warned they'll be ejected if they film!
Retweeted by Louise Oldfield
Expand
13h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Cllr Bayford re bedroom tax ethics seems to not understand most people on benefits are also working on low wages.  Not just unemployed.
Expand
13h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Dear @EricPickles can you please reassure @ThanetCouncil to allow recording of public meetings?
13h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Lordy. Why is #ThanetCouncil so worried re public filming of public meetings when Central Govt say permitted?
13h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Meeting halted to inspect bag of a member of public re filming!  #ThanetCouncil
Expand
14h
 Thomas Brown @GazetteMargate
Tory leader Bob Bayford says he refuses to support CWU. Motion carried to lobby Government and Post Office bosses.
Retweeted by Louise Oldfield
Expand
14h
 Thomas Brown @GazetteMargate
Cllr @willscobie asks if TDC plan to demolish buildings for Live Margate scheme. @EastcliffMatter says no but can't guarantee going forward.
Retweeted by Louise Oldfield
Expand
14h
 Thomas Brown @GazetteMargate
Cllr @irisjohnston1 brings motion to support @CWUnews campaign to keep Crown post office in Margate and write to PO chief and Sir Roger Gale
Retweeted by Louise Oldfield
Expand
14h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Cllr Bayford stated he'd only been in Crown Post Office 5 times in 28 years so doesn't see problem #ThanetCouncil
Expand
14h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Debate re The Crown Post Office in Margate. Party politics at its worst. Come on local Councillors. Serve your community #ThanetCouncil
Expand
14h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Cllr Green happy to meet with Conservation Groups interested. @MargateCaag & @MargateCivicSoc will no doubt welcome this #ThanetCouncil
Expand
14h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Cllr David Green says historic buildings not main reason why people investing in area but The Live Margate scheme #ThanetCouncil
Expand
14h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
.@willscobie asks re further demolition in Cliftonville as residents concerned re loss of historic buildings #ThanetCouncil
Expand
14h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Really good to see residents asking questions at tonight's #ThanetCouncil meeting #opengovernment
14h
 Thomas Brown @GazetteMargate
At Thanet full council meeting. 4 questions from public tonight on: Millmead Road safety, Royal Harbour, transeuropa debt and governance.
Retweeted by Louise Oldfield
Expand
14h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
Public question to Cllr Iris Johnston re traffic crossing at Millmead #ThanetCouncil
14h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
.@IanDDriver asks if reply to Harvey Patterson from LGA has been received. #ThanetCouncil unclear if actioned or not.
14h
 Louise Oldfield @margatearchi
At #ThanetCouncil meeting. Introduction of Stephen Boyle as interim head(?) of Legal Services. No Harvey Patterson?


Lunch at The Belle Vue in Pegwell today, I wanted somewhere to sketch and at just over £6 for cheeseburger salad and chips this is very good value, the quality of the food is excellent.  

I didn’t go for the economy job of a French stick and cheese as it looked like rain.


here is the view from our table.


tricky sketching when it is about to rain, I had hopes of a quick sketch in ink trying to grab the atmosphere and not the detail, this was while the food was coming.

Then after the food a quick bit of colouration whit watercolour, unfortunately as soon as we finished eating the heavens opened.

Here is the video about the slippy house in case anyone missed it



206 comments:

  1. Those tweets by Thomas and Louise are making interesting reading, what a farce!

    ReplyDelete
  2. How do they know the evicted person was a taxpayer. Many of those able to attend do so because they have not got to get up for work the next morning being on benefits including council tax benefit.

    If this is your idea of interesting reading, Peter, I would hate to see what you consider boring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I consider your comment extremely boring, much as you hate to see it.

      Delete
    2. If that is how you feel, Peter, by all means spit it out for I really do not mind. Be a dull place if we all agreed, but we still do not know if the evicted person was a taxpayer.

      Delete
    3. I've no idea, but unless he / she never ever pays VAT on anything then I'd say it's highly likely!

      Delete
    4. VAT goes to the national purse, not the local one. You have to pay council tax to claim rights as a tax payer on TDC matters.

      Delete
    5. ALL adults in Thanet have to pay council tax. No-one gets 100% council tax benefit anymore.

      Delete
  3. Eric Pickles @EricPickles
    @margatearchi @GBPizzaCo @SimonMoores @GazetteMargate Let the cameras in. A good council is an open council.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A member of the public was warned not to film. He agreed to stop. Thereafter he was reported for filming and was asked to leave. That's that. Council rules are clear on who may film and of course, the video of tonight's meeting will be broadcast. Let's consider for one moment that for all the fuss being made about filming Council meetings, only a very tiny fraction of residents watch these videos and I think the average is no more than four minutes, so it's hardly riveting for the public but of great interest to around 20 people with their own keen interest in the subject.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who cares whether it's 20 or 20,000, why prevent people from filming (and why ignore Eric Pickles' guidance on the matter)?

      Delete
    2. Simon I was sitting behind Duncan and he was taking notes only

      Delete
    3. I think a charity or community group should be paid to archive meetings. If I had access to filmed planning meetings going back several years I would have a lot of blogging material! I don't know about the other 19 though?

      Delete
    4. Why should anyone be paid to do this? As the equipment is already there, it doesn't cost anything to put them on YouTube.

      Delete
    5. If anyone wants to research a Councillors behaviour, voting patterns and attendance record etc on a particular matter then we need a system of labelling, not just raw footage

      Delete
    6. Well label them then. There's nothing stopping you from downloading from YouTube and putting them on DVDs, but this doesn't deserve payment.

      Delete
    7. nah..... can't be bothered, keep leaving it to Bristol to sort out!

      Delete
    8. Despite your language I will grace you with a reply before I head off to work.

      Planning "mistakes" by councillors and officers very often end up with the Appeals service in Bristol. This can cost the local ratepayer tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds each year.

      For those of us caught up in this merry-go-round, we see behavioural patterns emerging which some of us might be inclined to challenge publicly. But without some support from the community it is simply too risky and is far safer to just keep plugging away through the appeals system. But that is not always possible for private individuals unless they have plenty of reserves of cash and/or are well enough educated or connected to be able to keep going.

      In conclusion, do you just keep treating the symptons or tackle the root causes of dysfunction (which would be far cheaper)? And where have we all heard that before?

      Delete
    9. Ok, thanks. I thought you were referring to the cockney rhyming slang for breasts!

      Delete
    10. The point about filming is not the number of members of the public that view the meetings. Its just that the councillors know that their meetings are open and could be viewed if the need arises.

      Delete
    11. John since the revelation that you are actually Superham and definitely not Clark Kent, so as it were are not basking in the previous level of anonymity, perhaps it is time to cut down on the old BS.

      Have you actually tried to watch one of the council’s webcasts? If you have what did you make of them and since they are costing a fair amount? To me there is something rather disingenuous about the council producing very poor quality videos and publishing after most of the interest in the meeting is over.

      Since one could easily do a better job with a mobile phone’s camera and hosting them for nothing on youtube and they could either be live streamed or uploaded the day after the meeting, I wondered if you have an opinion.

      Delete
    12. I always welcome less BS Michael, hence why I challenge James, and your highly tenuous flooding claims with such regularity.

      I have yes, it does what's supposed to, put's the actual meeting in the public domain, God forbid the likes of 5th home video editors like Tongue get to edit it 1st, and that is the issue here, the likes of the Thanet watch comic, and driver. neither of whom can be trusted, abusing and the process by posting dishonestly edited video.

      Except for the 5 usual suspects that will ever watch and whine about it, this really is a non issue.

      No anonymity Michael, name as always at beginning of post, told you before.

      Delete
    13. "I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm so so sorry". Cleggy edited.

      "I always, I always, I always BS", Hammy edited. (I begin to see why Hammy might object to editing)

      Delete
  5. Simon. I was the one that was rejected, as you know. What you may not have known is that I was using my mobile phone to send a text and then my pad to type notes (I am dyslexic and it helps me). Must admit, I felt slightly bemused by this as I was simply trying to get a record of the meeting prior to the two week turnaround provided by TDC. Do you object to being filmed? As always, I felt that your comments were well considered and well made.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What a laughable attempt to create a media incident for Driver to take advantage of hahahahaha, Not sure that laughable covers properly, but it will have to do for now.

    James, all your protestations prove is the exact opposite of your claim, as you are a proven liar.

    Your attempt to engineer an incident smithson was pathetic, and the recruitment of the usual suspects to try to create it, predictable, and SO childish.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's at times like this that it's a GOOD thing that Thanet has people like Ian, Louise, Duncan, Barry and Matt. But of course you only want to "cut through bullshit" when it suits you; at other times censorship suits you just fine!

      Delete
    2. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Thanet needs that group of clowns as badly as it needs wanna be pornographers trying to help those clowns destroy Thanet.

      Censorship cheggers, I censor nobody except a particular worthless spammer. This was one of Drivers pathetic media stunts, no more no less.

      Delete
  7. What happened last night was regrettable. I even had a speech lined-up in favour of "finding a compromise solution that protects the privacy of individuals while recognising the need to encourage greater transparency." Sadly the matter was overtaken by events and Members, seeing this as evidence of a potential Pandora's Box of unresolvable issues, with those same 'Usual suspects' sitting together in the gallery, closed ranks with no interest in debating the matter further. As a consequence, the official video recording of Council meetings continues and others wishing to film must seek permission in advance. No different perhaps to Westminster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's all this "protects the privacy of individuals" b*ll*cks? Surely if MPs can be filmed then lowly cllrs can too?

      Presumably all this "sticking to the rules" will also include TDC giving people 28 days notice of "private" (non-filmed) meetings, and accept challenges from the public?

      Delete
    2. One oddity if one were to film the council meeting from the public gallery permission from any members of public would hardly need to be sought as the council chamber is directly in front of the public gallery and no members of the public would be in shot. This would not be the case from TDC cameras which are mounted away from the public gallery.

      Delete
    3. Exactly Barry. It's just a feeble excuse.

      Delete
    4. http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/Eric-Pickles-tells-Thanet-council-open-filming/story-19888369-detail/story.html?fb_action_ids=10200355578003497&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210200355578003497%22%3A1385139198387619%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210200355578003497%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

      Delete
  8. Its funny Simon but the seats were marked with the names so the 4 who sat together were actually told where to sit. So, of course, they sat together.

    ReplyDelete
  9. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10119059/Public-wins-right-to-film-all-council-meetings.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. While the great mass of Thanet folk really could not give a monkey's cuss whether the meetings are filmed or not, who gets kicked out and what a tiny minority do in protest. As ever, the overweight one hits the keyboard with one of his corruption epics, giving his jaundiced opinion of a council decision. JH is right this time that the antics of the usual suspects are laughable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The great mass of people don't care about Showaddywaddy either, but that shouldn't stop me from listening to them if I want to!

      Delete
    2. Nobody is stopping you from doing anything in the privacy of your own underwear, Peter, but I was commenting on what is of greater public interest. If you want to listen to Showaddywaddy go ahead, but please stop pretending that lots of people are interested in whether Smithson gets kicked out of a meeting or what the fat one says.

      Delete
    3. Of cours ehe can listen to Showaddtwaddy at any time once it's released, just like he can the film of the council meetings.

      This is just yet ANOTHER laughable Driver media stunt.

      Delete
  11. Is this about the public demanding greater access to council debate, or a handful of well-known agitators seeking publicity?

    ReplyDelete
  12. 9:11 may have a point about 'seeking publicity' . And the privacy of individuals refers to members of the public who may not have given their permission to be filmed at the meeting, rather than Councillors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon apologies if I am being a bit thick here, I couldn’t go to the meeting due to having children to deal with.

      But as there is no tweet from the council saying which of the options the council decided on, no film of the meeting, I don’t know what the council decided about filming.

      Public.

      Accredited press.

      Council only.

      Any chance you or someone would actually say?

      Delete
    2. Clive doesn't seem to have done much from the Council Leader report: and the monitoring/inspection of Manston cancelled by the councillors is now reinstated 3 months later.

      Looks like delay on the air pollution. Did they not know of the pollution when they voted to cancel the airport committee?

      Delete
    3. Would you like to take a stab at who this "well known" group of agitators are that are seeking publicity or do you just make general statements Simon. If there are such a group would you be prepared to meet them in public and discuss with them the issues you allude to?

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

      Delete
    5. Moores is Hamilton!

      Delete
    6. Whereas Clarke Kent is Superman!

      Delete
    7. And your view on filming council meetings John? Or don't you have an opinion for once?

      Delete
    8. John and his fellow old cronies are far better at complaining about others or reminiscing about the war than talking about current local news!

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 4:55pm.

      Tim, behave yourself, before you become the 'local news'.

      Delete
    10. OK, Uncle Albert.

      "During the War..."

      Delete
    11. Tim,

      Stop it. You're getting over excited.

      Delete
    12. Go easy, John, it is how poor old Garbage gets his kicks.

      Delete
    13. Feel free to join the discussion on filming council meetings John and Allan, and why has William gone so quite all of a sudden?

      Delete
    14. Nice of you to think of me, Peter, and not really quiet but have been out today followed by a later than usual dinner. Filming meetings, yes I think they should be recorded for posterity, excluding any items that might infringe someone's (non Council) privacy. Mind you, that filming should be done officially and not by individual members of the public who could edit and take things out of context to suit their own political ends. Sadly it is not down to me as a humble town councillor.

      As for dear old Ian's corruption rant again. I was on the planning committee for two years and no one offered me so much as a cup of tea let alone a gift of any kind. He does so love his little outbursts, but what is more dishonest than using a party banner and machine to get yourself elected, dumping them and then flogging your vote back to them in return for the chair of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee and the nice little allowance that went with it, rather more than £25 or £100 I suspect. I suppose that is OK.

      If we are going to demand standards let's have them all round.

      Delete
    15. William I was at the meeting sitting in the public gallery behind and to the right of the man accused of filming.

      At the time of being accused he had in his hand a samsung tablet (same as my wife's) on the screen (I could see it clearly from were I sat) it was showing samsung's version of Word ready to take notes.
      Cllr Dark was at the top table circa 30 feet away and Cllr Moores was sat on the Tory bench circa 20-25 feet away. Neither had a view of what was on his screen.

      Now I live in the UK not a dark ages Country and I always thought you were "innocent until proven guilty"

      At no time did Cllr Dark prove he was filming in fact he wasn't just using technology to take notes as he is dyslexic.

      Can you tell me what is fair about the behaviour shown last night?

      I might add Tom Brown from the Gazette was spoken to in a similar manner as a journalist should he not be able to film?

      Delete
    16. Barry, Peter asked me what I thought about filming and I responded. I was not commenting on anyone's eviction though, from what you describe, how was Cllr Dark supposed to know for what purpose the gentleman was using his phone. When all said and done, the chap was only asked to leave the meeting and he was not convicted of any offence, thus your innocent until proven guilty does not apply. If there is a no filming rule in place it would seem sensible to me, if you want to stay for the meeting, to avoid even giving the impression you are filming. This stunt, for publicity, has, of course, been pulled before by Christine Tongue so how are poor councillors (especially Labour ones) supposed to know the difference.

      Like I said, I think official filming is the way forward, but I am not convinced this kind of scene, especially when it is always the same small group involved, actual helps take things on. You get labelled the usual suspects and rather discredited in the eyes of the people you are supposed to be trying to influence.

      Delete
    17. ? "usual suspects" what do you mean?

      Delete
    18. William it was a tablet device not a phone

      Delete
    19. Barry, please do not expect me to believe you are that naïve or that you have not seen the term used around Thanet's blogs before to describe a group that become notorious for protest and turn up to do so at every opportunity. Legitimate protest is fine and part of democracy, but it can be over done to the point where such protesters are not taking seriously, even ridiculed as happened when those gathered to protest at David Cameron's visit to the Turner managed to boo the RNLI crew going down to their boat.

      Delete
    20. Barry, tablet or phone, how is the poor old chairman supposed to know. You are splitting hairs and, like I said, if it says no filming don't look like you are. You will be telling me next it is OK a point weapon shaped piece of wood at armed police. You may mean no harm, but it is not clever.

      Delete
    21. William I was sitting behind so I would take exception if I was included hence my attempt to get clarification from your comments

      Delete
    22. William. I am sorry for this post - please see it as healthy debate. However. Can I make a couple of points clear. Unless you went to the Cameron visit, you will have heard about the booing of RNLI staff from my source. I was there. I reported it that way. I was disgusted. In fact, the crowd booed and shouted names at a friend who is an RNLI controller locally (not involved in politics - he was there as an invited guest) so please do not tar me with the same brush. Yes - I agree that some people object to the opening of a bag of crisps if it is not fair to all. However, there are others in the community that work hard to try to do the work that many local councillors are failing to do, arrogantly assuming they know the facts simply because they are elected. So - please - be careful when you throw accusations around.

      However, some facts. I was the person ejected last night - I found it highly embarrassing - I have never been in that position before. The first accusation was a result of me texting on my phone. I put my phone down. I then moved to my tablet in preparation for the leaders speech which I wanted to transcribe by typing (a method I find quicker than writing). The accusation was completely wrong. I accept that Cllr Dark was acting on the information of the officer who was sat behind me, but I am sorry, they were wrong.

      The paranoia of local councillors in light of transparency is getting too much for the electorate in the 21st century when - all parties agree - e-democracy should be at the forefront.

      So a simple question to you William -does the council accept that new technology should be allowed in the chambers or not? If not, we should stop councillors tweeting as meetings go on. Personally, I find it a positive thing. Perhaps you disagree

      Delete
    23. Peter @7:31 pm,

      Thank you for your kind invitation.

      Delete
    24. Come on John, tell them what you think!

      Delete
    25. Allan Mallinson (the real one)October 05, 2013 9:46 am

      For the record the person above is masquerading as me. Guess I will have to get off my butt and sort out a google account.

      Delete
    26. Allan (the real one),

      Yes please do. If only to stop Tim's latest wheeze dead in its tracks.

      Delete
    27. Duncan Smithson

      As a mere parish councillor, Duncan, I am unable to say what the view of TDC is on the filming of meetings. I have, however, previously recorded my view that I think filming, but officially and not by the public, would enhance openness and help to allay some of the accusations agitators are currently able to get away with.

      Your experience on Thursday evening is regrettable and I do appreciate it must have been embarrassing for you. I suspect you became a victim of the distrust of the public gallery built up in some councillors minds by the antics of a certain protest group. Perhaps there is too much protest aimed solely at criticising rather than constructive lobbying of councillors to bring about desired results. Some of that is down to the 'we know best' attitude of some politicians and some is down to the 'oppose everything' attitude of some of the public. How much better if we could all work together for the good of the community.

      The comment below at 10:15 summarises all I dislike about the attitude of the protest group. Here this person opposes everything, seeks to personalise and insult and has contributed to the increasing absence of councillors engaging in discussion around Thanet's blog sites. The ironic part is though that this person, despite the cloak of anonymity, is himself a candidate for mayor and parliament according to his own trumpet blowing blog site,

      Delete
    28. I am the real Allan Mallinson, though sometimes I use the name John Holyer. That's why I don't have two google accounts.

      Delete
    29. 10:31 You are not Mallinson or Holyer but that self important pratt Garbled again trying to be clever. Get used to it, mate, you ain't. Nobody who is has to come up with silly, meaningless directorship on the blog site.

      Delete
    30. 10:31 am,

      Tim, you are being tiresome. It must be time for your morning nap.

      Delete
    31. Not as tiresome as you keeping on assuming that you know all the anons John!

      Delete
    32. I've known Allan for over 30 years, and I can assure everyone that he is real.

      Delete
    33. So you had to join in this nonsense, Rick. Next you will be telling us that you have known Bluenote for years as well. As a word of advise, be careful you do not get yourself labelled as a sidekick of old Garbled. Even you are better than that.

      Delete
    34. Peter, after a lot of investigative research, John, I and others do know one of the anons and, since he posts repeatedly, sometimes even in response to himself, that can look like a lot of anons. It isn't, it is just he famous for the aquifer, 0% and trips to Thailand, the latter being somehow less polluting than to Amsterdam.

      If you do not follow that, do not worry yourself. Some of us do and that is all that matters.

      Delete
    35. I know that, just as I know that some people here post under more than one name... but if your investigative research is so good then perhaps you can tell us who "John Hamilton" is?

      Delete
    36. Peter 10:53 am,

      Oh dear, Peter, there you go again, firing from the hip with a hair trigger and with your customary purblind aim.

      I do not know all the anons, just this one. I do not fret over the identity of 'John Hamilton'; Clearly you do and I suggest you get stuck in with your own investigation.

      Delete
    37. I'm leaving that investigation to Ann Barnes and the police.

      Delete
    38. Peter 1:34 am,

      Very wise but I'm confident that Ann Barnes and the Police would benefit from your insight?

      Delete
    39. Peter, a particular anon was seriously annoying a group of us so one member got stuck in, researched dozens of sites and came up with a match wherein said anon listed his pet hates on his own blog being an exact replica of those flogged to death by the aquifer man. Job done and it is pay back time for all the insults several of us have suffered from this creep over a long time.

      On John Hamilton I suggest you do your own research. He does not bother me as, like many others, he blogs under a name from an account. At least one can follow his drift.

      Delete
    40. Peter, why would you be so confident in Ann Barnes investigative abilities. She is but an elected official, not a trained police officer. For the police to investigate there would need to be some criminal activity and, whilst some might not enjoy JH's terminology, calling people names is not a crime, outside the protection given to minority groups.

      Tell me, if JH were prosecuted for what he says, then we might all have to look hard at our descriptions of others. Perhaps you could be next for some of your comments about Simon Moores, who knows where it would stop?

      Delete
    41. William doubt Ann would investigate herself however she has a duty to ask the police to investigate people's complaints, further the people complaining are not just saying that hammy is nasty but are very unhappy about his attempts to denigrate their business acumen (gouging B&B owner, 5th rate reporter). He is a cyber bully with no morals.
      If he wants I know several people that would love to discuss his commentary face to face.

      Delete
    42. Police investigate crimes, Barry, not complaints save those connected to a crime. It is not a crime to call people names on a blog site and, were it, where would we draw the line. Peter himself has often been very rude about Simon Moores. Would you suggest another copper gets diverted to look into that. Far too many people seem to regard the police, the guardians of law and order, as being there to settle their personal disputes. They are not unless such dispute turns to something nastier like assault.

      If one is libelled there is recourse through the civil, not criminal, courts. A defence to libel is, as I am sure you are aware, that said comments were not unfair. Not always easy to establish either way.

      Delete
    43. so William where do you stand on cyber bullying and where would you draw the line. Age, gender, minority group?

      Delete
    44. Barry, just read your last bit again and see you know people who would like to discuss JH's comments face to face. That suggests implied threat, rather like the relatives of Peter's models, and that does get close to crime. All a bit connections with the mob like Sinatra rather than debate.

      Delete
    45. William, please show me where I've said anything about Simon that compares to the hateful comments John has said about several people. I haven't even said anything about his piloting, though ironically HE said something denigrating and damaging about my photography...

      Saying that people want to meet JH face to face doesn't imply anything apart from the fact that they'd like to see & hear him say those things without hiding behind his computer. A perfectly reasonable request I think.

      Delete
    46. Barry, I suspect we are going over old ground. There are laws governing racist, ageist, sexist remarks as well as insulting people's disabilities. Calling some councillor a clown or a media whore does not fall within those definitions. As to whether this is cyber bullying, please, we are all adults here and surely capable of arguing our case. Different when it is some adolescent being hounded by their peer group to the point of suicide, but somehow I cannot see any of JH's targets topping themselves. In any case, he comes in for a fair bit of stick in return including not very veiled threats of physical assault. Just who are the bullies?

      Delete
    47. William are you accusing me of inciting violence when all I would like to do is facilitate a meeting where people could discuss why someone seems to take a perverse desire to attack people for what they believe in. I really do not understand why you would take hammy's side.
      Do you even understand what it is like to be cyber bullied?

      Delete
    48. Barry, I am not accusing you of anything other than a rather childish attitude to name calling in the blogging world. I am not taking Hamilton's side, but started out to address the issue of whether what he writes constitutes a criminal matter worthy of police time. In my view it does not.

      As for cyber bullying I find it abhorrent what some adolescents suffer and, indeed, some less able to stand up for themselves, but here we are talking about adults debating their views on a blog site. I also noticed you ignored my point about Peter insulting Simon Moores, which seems to be a line you conveniently ignore. Perhaps when you address my points I might give a bit more consideration to yours.

      Delete
    49. William having read you 8:09 you are being disingenuous in suggesting that is all hammy does. Where does he have the right to call Louise Oldfield a "gouging B&B owner" does that not imply a less than honest business?

      Delete
    50. It would be a bit like me saying Simon Moores is a dangerous pilot that shouldn't be allowed to fly and that his wife is an old bag who looks like a monkey... now THESE would be unacceptable as well as (probably) untrue, yet you (William) support John Hamilton saying similar things about others AND hiding behind anonymity.


      Delete
    51. William as you were stating something you believed Peter had done I felt, as I had no knowledge of your statement, it wasn't my place to respond to it but rather it was up to Peter, which I believe he has done.
      If you think, as it seems you do, cyber bullying can only affect young people you need to get your research up to date as it affects all walks of life. I know I have been subject to it in the past.
      Speaking only for me hammy does not affect me as he is anonymous and irrelevant however I can see the affect on people close to me.

      Delete
    52. Barry & Peter, I do not support Hamilton, I merely suggest that what he says is not criminal and, accordingly, not a police matter. If Louise Oldfield feels Hamilton has libelled her and her business she has every right to seek recourse through the civil courts, but it is still not a police matter.

      If and when, JH is traced and arrested for anything he has written on his or other blogs I will be the first to apologise, but it is not going to happen. If anyone feels strongly enough about it then consult a solicitor and take action. However, all that seems to happen is moaning about him on blog sites and daft ideas that the police are going to feel his collar.

      Delete
    53. William glad to hear you do not support hammy. The rest we will have to differ on.

      As to whether what he says is criminal or not it is all an interpretation of the communication act 2003.

      This is what Kent Police say about it http://www.kent.police.uk/advice/personal/internet/cyberbullying.html

      It is quite clear "Cyberbullying is when a person uses technology i.e. mobile phones or the internet (social networking sites, chat rooms, instant messenger), to deliberately upset someone."

      Delete
    54. Well there's the rub, Barry. Many people around the blogs have used technology, their PC and the www, to insult and, therefore, potentially upset someone else. Why do you just pick on Hamilton. Driver is always levelling accusations of corruption at the door of his fellow councillors. Is that not upsetting. Or what about Worrow and Driver who accused the councillors who did not support the TDC debate on Equal Marriage of being homophobes. Is that not upsetting.

      John Holyer and I have been subjected to ageist insults. Is that not upsetting. For heavens sake, we are grown ups and we do not have to go on blog sites.

      Delete
    55. William when I see something wrong, and hammy posts on more than just blogs (you may not be aware of other sites but I am), I will say something. As I said before he doesn't worry me but I am aware of others that are upset with his rhetoric. Some of those people are friends and I support my friends.
      Worrow I do not know and he has never attacked me. Driver supported FORS campaign over Pleasurama when no other councillor would and when I think he does something I do not countenance I speak to him face to face an option hammy gives no one.
      I have seen the insults said to you and Holyer however whilst I do not approve I have never seen you ask for support so I assume it must be some sort of game played out on blogs by people who have some banter together. If you want me to condemn then you only have to say.
      Cyber bullying is a whole different thing and I believe you know the difference.

      Delete
    56. Get a grip James there's a good boy. I would challenge you to produce evidence of me attacking specific peoples business acumen or practices, or where it is somehow an offence to point out that a 5th rate journalist is a 5th rate journalist. But then, we KNOW you can't as none exists ay James ;)

      I have yet to read such childish whining bullshit from anyone apart from you James, and now you cheggers.

      I wonder what everyone would think of your morals if I were to point out that you suggested I should attack someone because they have had no children.... Seems Cheggers that as you are a piss poor photographer, the only thing you do well is spout amusing hypocrisy.

      Seems some like to say what they like, from protected blogs and sites, but whine like bitches when their bullshit is exposed. Perhaps they should stand for election, oh yes, 2 of them did, and got UTTERLY routed and dismissed by the electorate, and James simply carries on posting BS he simply has not the 1st shred of evidence to support.

      Don't want to be treated harshly, yet truthfully, don;t post lies and bullshit, easy really, and if you do, don't whine when I expose you and it :)

      Delete
    57. which blog is protected and how is it protected hammy? or is this more imagination than real?

      Delete
    58. Barry, I do not seek protection because I am a big boy now and I do not have to go on blogs. I am sure the same is true of John Holyer who, like me, is ex service and we don't do the cry baby bit.

      What disturbs me about your call for JH's head all the time is how you seek to ignore the insulting comments of others and, in particular, your apparent mate Driver. I was in Malaya on an Australia base during the Vietnam war and we were involved in provided some logistic support to the Aussies. I have seen some of the unfortunate young men with broken bodies who were casualty evacuated to the base hospital from Saigon. Do you not think I find Driver's 'kicking ass' comment both insulting and upsetting? Difference with me is I don't expect any better from him having followed his rhetoric for some years now and I don't have to read it.

      Delete
    59. Which 2 are you talking about? I can think of at least 4 local bloggers who stood for election and lost (Flaig, Brown, Driver and Oldfield).

      Delete
    60. I may well be joining their ranks at the next election though! ; )

      Delete
    61. William the remark was made to hammy as he was the one who said about a protected blog "Seems some like to say what they like, from protected blogs and sites" I was asking him directly which blog do you refer to?
      Please stop insinuating that Ian is my "mate" I already explained that in a previous comment as also the fact that when I think he says something I take issue with I talk to him face to face. When hammy gives me the same opportunity I will do the same.
      If it disturbs you why do you not act a referee and ask him for a face to face meeting so his rhetoric can be discussed instead of posting surely you would approve of a meeting so problems can be discussed man to man.
      As a matter of interest why did you ask about protection (you mention yourself and John Holyer when my remark was to hammy)

      Delete
    62. Good morning, Peter, what an interesting comment. Are you going to stand for election in 2015 and, if so, I applaud your decision? Although I shall not be standing again myself, I think it is good for democracy if a few more people throw their hats in the ring.

      On the two who got defeated I think JH almost certainly means Ian Driver in the county council elections and probably Louise Oldfield, being two of his pet hates. There are many more, of course, depending on how far back we go, but some who spring to mind are Tim Garbutt in the 2010 general election, local headmaster Upton in Kingsgate Ward and a whole army of Lib/Dems and independent candidates. Democracy would be a lot less healthy if we only had candidates of the main political organisations to choose from and, sometimes, surprises happen. Guess we all remember Martin Bell ousting a standing MP whilst Nigel Farage gifted Ladyman the Thanet South seat in 2005. Had he not stood, the Conservative would have won, fought the seat again in 2010 and we would never have got the lovely Laura.

      Delete
    63. William why would you feel qualified to determine what is and is not a police matter ? Maybe, for example, the police are considering a first warning in Protection from Harassment ? To that end police would know the history of the parties whereas you do not.

      There is new information emerging concerning historical harassment/intimidation of Labour lady cllrs. This involved porno cartoons. The new information includes that police identified the cartoonist. Hence they knew of connections with extremist right wing activism in Thanet. This was at a time Cllr Margaret Mortlock was suffering death threats to shoot her or blow her up. Taken so seriously a gardener was trained to check her car and property for IEDs.

      HM Coroner requested CID re-examine a female suicide case of 1978 which had involved access to chemicals. And inquiries should have been resurrected under Explosive Substances Act 1883 and action taken under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

      There is no doubt of the identity of the man who was threatening Mrs Mortlock. No doubt of his access to explosive chemicals (Sericol). No doubt of his history of attempting to solicit explosives from Kent coal mines.

      And, if I may say so, no doubt that Hammy is wont to suggest that any description of the above facts is "BS".

      Rick

      Delete
    64. Barry, you are losing the thread because my response this AM was to one you directed at me, not Hamilton. As for face to face with Driver, we have already had one confrontation in the road during campaigning at the last council elections and it would hardly pass for debate. He is the opposite of everything I believe in or stand for and there is no way we would ever reach any kind of compromise and, thus, I reserve the right to respond to some of his more outrageous comments. We only live a short distance from each other so he knows where I am if he wants a pointless discussion. Think about it though, what would it achieve for no way would I become an atheist, anti-monarchist, communist, addicted protestor or even a member of the LGBT community. Poles apart I am afraid.

      Delete
    65. Rick, you deal in more extreme cases and, yes, I agree with you that there will be occasions when written or verbal abuse could give rise to a police investigation. That said, you and I both take some insults round the blogs, but do we run to the police? My main point in this debate is that some hereabouts seem to constantly target Hamilton and demand police involvement for what amounts to no worse name calling than some of us have suffered from other bloggers.

      Incidentally, as an ex-serviceman yourself, what do you think of Ian Driver's apparent worship of the butcher Giap and his 'kicking ass' comment. Quite obviously he has never been anywhere near active service and is seemingly ignorant of the fact, which you will know, that some British servicemen were involved in the Vietnam war.

      Delete
    66. William your 0921,

      True -their insults have no effect on me. I realise that the ageist would be barbs come from those who recognise their own inadequacy. Which is all a bit of a mouthful so I'll just call them twits - especially you Tim.

      I've been insulted by professionals especially when I had refused them a visa. I remember one teenage appilcant who in response to my questionong threatened me that he was, "Going to kick some white arse". I had the RCMP kick him out. I later granted his Visa after the lad's father had set him straight. I did not run to the RCMP complainig of racism and insulting behavior and neither should I have done.
      .

      Delete
    67. William, I'm seriously considering standing for election. I might not personally support Tim, Louise, Tony or Matt, but well done to them for putting their money where their mouth is and at least trying. For this alone they deserve far more respect than the anonymous moaners on the blogs (whatever happened to the proposed petition on ECR's blog a couple of weeks back?).

      Delete
    68. Well best of luck then, Peter. The petition, much vaunted by the anonymous whiners, has no doubt failed to get off the ground because none of them actually get off their butts and do anything. I agree with you about those that stand, and indeed the likes of Tony, Matt and Louise who also declare their views on their blogsites. However, there is one who stands, but then spends most of his time sniping at others from behind his anonymous cloak.

      Delete
    69. You seemed to have failed to answer the question you were asked and the challenge you were presented with James.... Lets try again...

      Get a grip James there's a good boy. I would challenge you to produce evidence of me attacking specific peoples business acumen or practices, or where it is somehow an offence to point out that a 5th rate journalist is a 5th rate journalist. But then, we KNOW you can't as none exists ay James ;)

      What, James has no evidence.... surely not!!!!!!

      The 2 that were invited to FO by the electorate, but act as if they think they have the support of the whole of Thanet, Oldfield and Driver of course, easy one that.

      Delete
    70. PS I would LOVE to see that cheggers, I look forward to ridiculing you following your utter failure.

      Delete
  13. Let's cut through the b*llsh*t. Councillors don't want to be filmed because they know that the stupid, petty political games they play will not play well with the electorate. They know that the debates which take place are nothing of the sort because they have all been whipped into the line to vote the way their leader tells them to vote. I was disgusted when I first went to a TDC meeting and I have never been to one where a controversial issue has been properly discussed or where the views of the people against a proposal have been properly represented by their elected representatives. TDC is a sham democracy. The councillors know it and they know that the game will be up the second they allow cameras into the chamber, because the stupid nonsense that goes on would be all over the South-East news. I reckon you could probably turn it into a new soap opera: I'd call it "Bitchin' "

    ReplyDelete
  14. The time to make your voices heard will be at the next election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And who do you suggest we vote for?

      Delete
    2. Tim Garbled of course, Peter. He of the pollution and arrest everybody mania.

      Delete
    3. Thank god for that, I thought you were going to suggest Tony Flaig!

      Delete
  15. Don't be silly. People who could make a real difference to our area have long been put off from standing by the childish behaviour of local politicians. It is up to us to persuade better candidates to put themselves forward by pledging to help and support them in the interests of the area. If you sit back and do nothing you will just get the same tired old fools who have made this area a laughing stock.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A good crop of independent candidates put themselves forward at the last district elections and most got nowhere. The only way to solve your perceived problem, 7:52, is to take politics, first introduced by Labour, out of local government. Then you might just get back to a council made up of upstanding members of the community. Trouble is, Labour would see all independents as Tories and so you go full circle again to a position where most will need the backing of a major political party to get elected.

      Perhaps you should take a leaf out of Ed Milliband's late father's book and lead a peoples revolution, but there are no guarantees you will not finish up with another group that sees itself as more privileged and entitled than the people they are supposed to serve. Then it would be their turn for charging and jailing.

      Delete
    2. Think you'll find that anyone worth voting for wouldn;t come within a mile of TDC and having to deal with the nimbys, bullshitters, whiners and serial protesters, much the same as developers and investors.

      Delete
  16. Hi William. I'm afraid you are part of the problem. In your post you suggest that the entire problem lies with the Labour party and (by implication) that if everything were left to the sensible Tories the world would be well. Which would be a valid viewpoint, worthy of debate, if it were not for the indisputable fact that, before we had a Labour council, we had a Tory one, and they were an unmitigated disaster, culminating in their Leader going to jail.

    The sub-text of your posting is that the political parties may be flawed but they are the best option we have. Again, you seem to be living in a parallel universe where this kind of complacent clap-trap means something. It's really very simple. If you and your cronies don't alter your pathetic point-scoring behaviour, the voter turn-out will continue to decline and we will soon reach the point where there aren't enough voters for the outcome to mean anything; we may already be there.

    I think I'm with a significant majority of the people who live around here in saying that I don't want to hear another wrinkled old goat telling me that it's all the other lot's fault; particularly not when I find out that the wrinkled old goat has never done anything of significance with his life, and serving on TDC is actually the highlight and his major source of income.

    Bottom line - if you don't have some constructive suggestions (and never seen you post anything remotely constructive) I'm not interested and I don't think you have any place in local democracy. There are far too many people involved who think their role is to bash the other lot. It isn't. The role of an elected councillors is, first and foremost, to represent the interests of the people who live in their ward, irrespective of whether that person voted for them or not. Hand on heart, how many local councillors do that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 10:15 pm,

      Presumably you do not consider yourself to be a, "wrinkled old goat". What are you then a perky pink piglet. Why is your post so full of hate?

      Delete
    2. And why do you refuse to stay on topic John? Everyone else apart from you are discussing the pros and cons of filming council meetings.

      Delete
    3. Anon 10:15, you are putting your own interpretation on my view of politics. Yes, I have no time for the Labour party, but equally I have said on blogs many times that I despair of Cameron. I have also said I do not feel the introduction of politics into local government has served communities at all well.

      As for my place in local democracy, it is no different to yours. For years I tried through letters and lobbying to influence parliamentary and council decisions. Eventually I was persuaded to run for office, but at parish level one is really unable to make much impact and you lose some of the freedom you had before to campaign, being now seen as a councillor rather than a voter. I have already said I will not stand again.

      All the wrinkled old goat stuff is totally unnecessary and does nothing to support your argument. As for the highlight of my life being a local councillor, you must be seriously having a laugh. Why make such a statement when you know nothing about my life for, unlike you, I do not have some over inflated self important profile on Linked-In surmounted with a podgy faced photo.

      Delete
    4. Cllr Epps decries party politics after invariably trotting out the Tory line and complains about being insulted and then insults Anon. Quite incredible.

      Delete
    5. If you are not the podgy face in the photo you cannot possibly be insulted. You need to sharpen up at bit because at the moment you are an interrogators delight.

      I have never liked the idea of party politics in local government because the issues to be dealt with are non political. Once politics becomes involved local councils get carried away with wasting time debating matters that fall well outside their remit, but as a means to attack central governments of their opponents. I also do not trot out anybody's line but my own. My views are right of centre on most matters whereas yours seem to be anti everything.

      Delete
    6. Who is the podgy-face individual on LinkedIn you think you're talking too? It isn't me because I don't use LinkedIn, but I'd like to hear who you think I am.

      Delete
    7. But which anon are you 8:12? That is the trouble with the anonymous commentators, they can leap in on a thread with no real way of knowing what, if anything, they contributed before. Anyway, I see John Holyer has been using a podgy faced photo on some of his comments so perhaps that is the one you are looking for. They certainly don't come much podgier than that.

      Delete
  17. Peter,

    Thank you for your timely intervention. It would appear that you are acting as the self appointed editor of content. Which is a burden that I am confident you will carry with your customary insight, panache and elan.

    You should know, Peter, that the circumstances of my posting are not dependent upon your approval.

    Here is my suggested explanation of one reason why TDC may be hesitant in installing a state of the art system to broadcast their council meetings.

    Whatever your political leanings be they Left, Right, Centre, Independent, NAAFI [no ambition and FA interest] I commend this book to every tax payer:
    The Blunders Of Our Governments by Anthony King and Ivor Crewe (Oneworld Publications, £25).

    Dominic Sandbrook has written an excellent review of this book which you can find at:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2444651/Government-blunder-Mindless-waste-ruling-class-makes-weep.html

    Is there a cure for this malaise? Are TDC guilty or do they hesitate in order to avoid the risk squandering our money as some might suggest on IT to broadcast their meetings?

    Personally, I would not approve of the public being allowed to turn up and film at random, so they can then edit the result and post a biased report on their assorted blogs.

    The meeting should be broadcasted unedited in it's entirety. The speakers should be identified as they speak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See, I knew you could do it if you really tried!

      Delete
    2. Peter,

      Thank you. I'm always reluctant to let you down. In all honesty it is not a matter of trying, but a matter of my summoning up the will. Many of these topics are rehashed and circular to the extent where I find them tiresome.

      I would very much like to see TDC meetings broadcast live, in their entirety, unedited, with names subtitled and with close ups. If it is anything less than that then I'm frankly not interested.

      Such a system would be costly to install and maintain. Would it be worth it? In the case of BBC Parliament just 1.2% of us watch this channel for more than 3 minutes at least once a week. I seriously doubt that TDC could attract an audience as large as 1.2%

      I do not support the idea of so called citizen journalists and others being permitted to turn up at will, film and then scurry off to produce an edited biased report with which to decorate their assorted blogs. It is the main self indulgent.

      Delete
    3. I don't see anything wrong with edited reports, as long as the full uncut broadcast is available elsewhere. After all, don't the BBC (etc) do edited reports of far more important debates on an almost daily basis? The problem to me is lowly cllrs own self-importance. I've had the (mostly) good fortune to meet many celebrities in my time, and most of the really big stars such Little Richard, Brian May and Jimmy Page have been great; it's the "stars" that had bit-parts in soap operas or came 3rd on TV talent contests that tend to be the prima donnas. Likewise, real politicians such as Roger Gale and Laura Sandys are lovely people, whereas some of local 2-bit cllrs are complete w*nkers...

      Delete
    4. Peter,

      But does it not depend upon whether you can trust the editor to present an impartial view? Or is it the case that, as you claim, you can always tell when someone is lying to you?

      You talk of celebrities that you have met. I once had a brief but torrid affair with Bollywood actress. She was certainly not third rate. WILTY

      Delete
    5. Filming:
      Michael has the right of it film it & broadcast it live on Youtube at no cost. the point about identifying each speaker is not an issue as the chair does that before each speaker.
      No need to edit it as it will go out in it's full glory. No waiting for interest to wane.
      Members of the public will not be in shot as the camera are facing the Chairperson and the public gallery is out of sight.
      The issue for the Councillors is they will be on view scoring points off the opposition. It might even have the effect of making them think before they speak which IMHO is no bad thing.

      Delete
    6. I do not trust ANY organisation or person to present an impartial view. How can they? We all have our own ideas of what's right or wrong. But of course, if everyone was allowed to film & edit their own footage, then (say) John Hamilton could present one view and Louise Oldfield could present another. It's called democracy, not that TDC have much understanding of the word...

      Delete
    7. Peter, what we want is a full film, unedited, so that everyone can see what went on and put their own interpretation on it. Stuff taken out of context or the bits that are unflattering to the person/party the editor does not like are not democracy. That's called spin.

      On your earlier bit about self important 2-bit councillors, surely that is true of all walks of life. There are those, including celebrities, who are full of themselves and others who are totally unassuming. One cannot generalise.

      Delete
    8. Yes, we want a full film, preferably something we can actually see and hear properly rather than the 5th rate rubbish they usually out out (2 weeks late and edited)... but let other people film them too!

      My point about "2-bit councillors" is that THEY seem to think that they're above being filmed, yet those in the houses of parliament and lords fully accept it.

      I'm not one of those people who thinks that most of TDC are corrupt (though I suspect there are some bad apples), but what I DO believe is that many of them are self-serving and / or inept. THIS is what they don't want people to see.

      I'd like to see a list of which TDC cllrs are for or against filming... anyone?

      Delete
    9. You are aware I assume cheggers that people are not allowed to film parliament for themselves, it's done by the BBC, and released accordingly.

      Now I wonder why you think TDC should be any difference, seems hypocrisy really is teh ONLY thing your good at cheggers, or do you really not understand your own argument my boy....

      Delete
    10. If TDC (a) broadcast meetings live and unedited, and (b) in decent quality and with close-ups, then I'd be happy to leave the filming to them. But they're far too incompetent to do anything like that my girl.

      Delete
    11. Parliament isn't broadcast live any longer cheggers, the viewing figures were SO piss poor it was taken of, so why the hypocrisy?

      Your directional suggestions are noted, and correctly ignored, as there is unlikely to be a director and control room, and if there was, the usual suspects would whine about cost. Seems you don't really have a grasp of this issue either my poor lil boy, best you get your facts straight before getting caught out, then ignoring the question you were asked ;)

      Hmm, i see gender recognition continues to be an issue for you cheggers

      Delete
    12. In that case the public should be able to film parliament too Whammy.

      Delete
    13. Excellent, so all you have managed to prove is that you post utter bollocks, that it totally untroubled by facts. Good that you accept that TDC councillors are as happy as MP's and peers to be filmed in the same fashion.

      PLEASE stand for election cheggers, laughing at your failure would bring some happiness to the whole of Thanet.

      Delete
    14. I've never failed at anything before, so it will be quite a novelty for me... unlike yourself, a friendless and unloved loser! : )

      Delete
    15. Think some might regard doorman at the Winter Garden a failure, chummy. It is hardly Dragon's Den stuff is it and you are not exactly David Bailey either. Grow up, Peter, we all fail sometimes

      Delete
    16. You failed to sign in, what a loser!

      Delete
    17. Wrong again, I am a director of an advertising company, a restaurant and a charity who flies all over the world giving important talks. When I am not away I post anonymously on Thanet blogs about Manston, aquifers and other bloggers who are total tossers or geriatrics.

      Delete
  18. Peter, I have left a comment on Matts Blog about what facial expressions and body language can reveal about Councillors

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, can't wait to miss that one.

      Delete
    2. someone say something?

      Oh yes, I have seen the edited minutes of the planning committee meeting I allude to, as presented by Harvey Patterson as authentic at an appeal hearing in 2009 (only to be told earlier this year that he had no idea that this was in fact a false instrument that was passed to him????) LOL

      Delete
    3. Proof, SG, or just another wild, unfounded allegation compliments of the Driver School of Misrepresentation.

      Delete
    4. mmmmm I wonder who yooooou are 12.11?

      But don't worry unnecessarily, proof has been spread far and wide. Sleep well.

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

      Delete
    6. Ahhh, so that's why Matt has that daft beard!

      Delete
  19. Since I will not get published on Ian Driver site I felt I should just comment here. In applauding the recently deceased General Giap, he seems to have no regard for the right to self determination of the South Vietnamese people and looks on the killing of French, American, Australian and Kiwi service personnel, not to mention the many thousands of Vietnamese people, as kicking some ass.

    Evidently still true to his Communist roots, Ian Driver supports the Vietcong and North Vietnamese army who were backed by the communist states of the Soviet Union and China, well known at that time for their lack of human rights to their own people. Maybe he should team up with Jane Fonda, though I doubt she would fancy him and has, in any event, now apologised for her stance on Vietnam.

    ReplyDelete
  20. General Giap's methods were expensive in the terms of casualties on his on side. He held the lives of his men cheap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What one might call a typical commie, John. I am OK in my bunker, but you go and sacrifice yourselves for my ideals and lifestyle.

      Delete
    2. whilst not in my remit, war never did it for me, I am all for the leaders leading from the front. If that were true of modern warfare it would stop overnight.

      Delete
    3. Unfortunately, Barry, it would never happen in this age, but there was a time when Kings and leaders were at the forefront of their armies. It never stopped war then and I doubt it would now. There is always a Paton somewhere who gets a kick out of it and then there are those of us that did it because somebody has to otherwise evil triumphs.

      Mind you, I never looked on it as kicking ass like Driver seems to.

      Delete
    4. Giap was a butcher, nothing more no less, and Driver gives us a revealing glimpse into the laughable 60's socialist bullshit he still clings to, but attempts to cloak, in attempts to be elected so he can inflict his self serving socialist agenda on the unsuspecting people of Thanet.

      Why do you think he hoodwinked the labour party into thinking he would represent them in Thanet, and present that particular fairy story to the people of Thanet? Because, as he proved at the KCC election, the REAL Driver is 100% unelectable.

      Delete
    5. Barry your 8:56pm,

      I appreciate your sentiment. Plausible it may sound but it does not stand up to examiation. I helpfully suggsest that you go down to Michael's bookshop and read up on military history. It will if nothing else open your eyes to man's eternal endaevour that brings out the very worst in us and also the very best.

      Delete
    6. examiation suggsest endaevour

      Blimey. Someone hasn't sobered up yet, or did you start early? I saw someone round the corner shop getting a blue bag of booze at 08:00 this morning.

      Delete
    7. 3 out of 10 for spelling 12:10. If you want to put others down you must do better.

      Delete
  21. So this would be one of those off-topic diversions that the anonymous posters are always getting blamed for? I think there's a good reason why you can't get air-time on Drivers' site.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, he does not like people to disagree with him or point out the error of his ways. Suppose you think your comment at 8:01 is on topic.

      Delete
  22. If I am not very much mistaken, William, it is you who initiated an off-topic discussion on the grounds that Ian Driver wouldn't allow you to use his blog for your irrelevant twaddle. In my opinion, if Driver has gone to the trouble of setting up his own blog he is under no obligation to allow you to use it. Here's a suggestion for you. If you want to control the topic and direction of discussion, get your own blog. You will then be able to post to your heart's content without fear of contradiction. I, for one, will not bother to visit it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, you seem to think you can go off topic but I cannot. Evidently you must consider yourself very important, but if I am so unimportant by comparison and unworthy of a visit if I had my own site, why do you bother to respond to my comments?

      As for my twaddle, there was a need to correct Driver's commie adoration of the butcher Giap and to highlight his 'kicking ass' comment. Reckon that will cost him the votes of a fair few ex-service types of whom there are many in Thanet.

      Delete
  23. Barry & Peter,

    Barry your link to the Kent police leads to a CEOPS page and is addressed entirely to children.
    Therefore, I think you will agree that this link has no relevance for either You or Peter bearing in mind that you are not children.

    If you conclude that John Hamilton has harmed your reputation then I appreciate how you would be driven to seek retribution. In which case you may consider it wise to consult a solicitor for advice before going any further down this road.

    At the moment all I get is the impression that you and Peter are ganging up on John Hamilton and stirring others to join your cause. Possibly with a view to launching a class action. In which case I urge you to be careful not appear as bullies yourself. Some might get the impression that you are baiting John Hamilton in order to advance your purpose.

    Peter, you put your photos on your blog. I understand that you are proud of your work and why should you not be. However, I think you will agree that others looking at those photos are free to comment on them either in praise or otherwise.

    In conclusion I suggest that you, Barry and Peter, go to law otherwise learn to grin and bear it.

    I am neither writing in support of you, Barry and Peter, nor in support of John Hamilton. I am writing in support of common sense which should always prevail.

    I could tell you both, to grow up which would lead me conveniently on to my next point. Which is ageist remarks. I pay scant to these especially when they come from Tim, as in the main they do.

    When I was young I knew how the world ought to be. Nowadays I no longer know how the world ought to be but I'm damn certain of the way it is.

    I remind myself that Churchill was 67 when he became our wartime leader and he saved us. Similarly, Marshall Blucher was in his seventies when he rode to Wellington’s aid at a critical moment in the Battle Of Waterloo. Many eminent Surgeons, Scientists and Authors work well into old age.

    On the other hand I am conscious that Thanet has its saga louts, particularly those that speed down the pavement on their mobility scooters – and you do not necessarily have to be disabled to own one.

    But most of all I remember my 50th Birthday. My daughter phoned to congratulate me. I started to moan about being 50. She stopped me dead in my tracks. My daughter reminded me that I should consider myself lucky in reaching 50 bearing in mind that many people do not get that far. She was right and I have carried her words with me ever since.

    In truth I'm not certain these days when old age begins, nor how you define it.

    [I apologise if this post is too long; I did not have the time to make it shorter]


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Presumably John if there were photos of your wife or daughter on my blog you'd be happy to see people making anonymous nasty comments about them.

      As for ageism, YOU are ageist, as are several other oldie and mouldie old buffers on the blogs. Yes John, ageism applies to the young as well as the old, just as racism applies to whites as well as blacks. It's just a shame that this isn't recognised by most people just yet: can you imagine if over 50's were given a lower minimum wage just as under 21's are?

      Delete
    2. Peter,

      There are not photos of my family on your blog so your example is worthless.

      You purport to be a professional photographer. You publish your work and yet cry foul when someone has the temerity to criticise. I shall be charitable and assume that you care little for yourself, and that you are merely seeking to protect your models. I wonder, do you employ proffessional models? If not then should warn them that your photographs of them may be subject to nasty comments.

      Your comments on my supposed 'ageism' are muddled beyond the point where I can understand them. Only to say that now you have turned 50 you should realise that you are no longer a spring chicken.

      Delete
    3. Peter, if you are going to run for office I suggest you drop the age group insults. Those of us that are retired are well aware we are pensioners, but do not take too kindly to the oldie and mouldie buffers rubbish.

      Having been a victim of racism as a white in Africa I already appreciate the two way aspect of racism though, in UK, it does seem to be much more of a one way ticket to right perceived rather than actual wrongs. Also agree with the full spectrum of ageism, but that should include describing the middle aged as beyond their sell by as often happens in the world of corporate business. Nonetheless, it is not ageism to describe someone as inexperienced as we can all be in some respects at any age. Typically I am a seriously inexperienced bull fighter.

      Delete
    4. Barry,

      I think you will discover that we have a U/T John Hamilton on this blog. Peter Checksfield has just called me an oldie and mouldie old buffer. Really the horror of it all! It made me spit out my soup over the nursemaid. I seek your advice and guidance. Should I take this up with Ann Barnes and the Police? Or just write him off as an angry little man with a camera?

      [There others on this blog who will explain the acronym U/T should you so wish]

      Delete
    5. I'm going for the young people's vote, campaigning for an equal rate of pay for under 21's.

      Delete
    6. Peter,

      Statistics show that the under 21's rarely vote whereas the over 60s nearly always do; and you will not gain their votes by labelling them as oldie, mouldie old buffers.

      Delete
    7. They don't vote because few politicians do anything that appeals to them.

      If need be we should subsidise young people's wages by cutting pensions.

      Delete
    8. Peter,

      Wow, you certainly know how to lose an election. Do you intended to bet on yourself to lose and buy a new camera with the winnings. I do realise that you are being deliberately provovocative and I will not treat your comments seriously.

      Delete
    9. So now John Holyer is offended by Peter calling him an oldie but mouldie yet believes that John Hamilton saying that all old people should be hosed down was a joke. More double standards!

      Delete
    10. Mr Holyer I presume that your remark at 12:14 "I seek your advice and guidance" is in response to my comment "I have seen the insults said to you and Holyer however whilst I do not approve I have never seen you ask for support so I assume it must be some sort of game played out on blogs by people who have some banter together. If you want me to condemn then you only have to say."
      I believe the word I used in the above was "support" not "advice and guidance". Maybe you would like to explain why such an erudite man would need to take advice and guidance from such an novice such as I.

      Delete
    11. Barry,

      I am sorry Barry. In truth Peter's remark does not touch me. I was being ironic or, more acurately, taking the p*ss out him. And I realise that your final sentence is also ironic. Touché

      Delete
  24. "Saga lout"... ha ha, love it :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. I find it increasingly interesting how staunchly JH (John Holyer) defends JH (John Hamilton) despite the latter's appalling record on the blogs and despite the fact that he appears to be using a pseudonym. It is particularly strange when Holyer is so dismissive of people who post anonymously. The comments about consulting a solicitor suggest to me a nervousness about the prospect of Hamilton being unmasked. For the record, solicitors are not required unless Google refuses to co-operate Since May 2010 all Blogger blogs have had to be hosted by Google servers. In the case of JH it seems unlikely that they would refuse because his postings are so clearly beyond the bounds of common decency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Utter bollix, 12:04.

      Delete
    2. Anon 12:04pm,

      Tim, you are spouting your customary vacuous nonsense. Now go away, put your pinny on and do something useful like the washing up.

      Delete
    3. Please shut up John. Not all anons who disagree with you are the same person, difficult though it may be for you to understand.

      Delete
    4. I'm 12:04 and I'm not Tim. I keep telling you this but you keep making the same mistake. Are you stupid?

      Delete
  26. Less interesting than the identity of John Hamilton, is his obsessive use of "BS", or spelling out the word. Is this indicative of a limited vocabulary or a toilet training issue?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's not the only one fixated on "bullshit":

      http://onearseinkent.blogspot.co.uk/

      Delete
    2. Whose blog is that? Some of the posts are quite amusing (cruel, but without JH's hatred). Shame it seems to have fizzled out in 2011.

      Delete
    3. It existed, Peter, for short time in the run up to the 2011 council elections and several suggested it was ECR, who at that time had stopped blogging on his usual site. Others felt it was politically motivated, but, looking back, it could have been an earlier version of John Hamilton. One thing's for sure, nobody ever did find out who it was.

      Delete
    4. It's far too clever for John Hamilton...

      Delete
  27. See page 6:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207528/Your_councils_cabinet_-_going_to_its_meetings_seeing_how_it_works.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gives us a proper link. Too tired to type in that lot so I'll give it a miss. Probably boring anyway.

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

      Delete
    3. Why type it? Just run your mouse over it, right click and then click on "Go to...".

      Simple... a bit like you I suppose!

      Delete
    4. I donate to the RSPCA and would never run over a mouse. The simple bit is to insult people you have never seen.

      Delete

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

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