Friday, 22 November 2013

Audio recording of yesterdays Thanet District Council standards committee meeting.



My take on embedding the recording here that was made against council rules is that it is on YouTube and in the public domain. As a blogger I don’t want to fall foul of the council while as one of the local electorate I see it as my civic duty to listen to important council meetings.

There is no way that I could do this by attending the meetings, I have a business to run and two preteen children to look after, time and cost make it impossible.

I don’t think that anyone would dispute that this was an important council meeting, I don’t think anyone one would dispute that the modern world means that there are a great many people without the time to attend lots of council meetings.

Having paid for this meeting via taxation the only way the local electorate can understand what went on at the meeting is via a covert recording mad against the council’s rules.


To me this state of affairs is the strongest indication I have that the council is not merely perceived as unfit for purpose but actually is unfit for purpose.

I know I am getting in a Catch 22 type of area with this post, which is partly why I delayed writing the text to go with the recording until I had slept on it, I will also try to add to it as and if I get the time.


I don’t know about anyone else but so far I have managed to listen to about a third of the audio recording of the meeting and already I am beginning to have an inkling of the nature of the problem here.

There are a lot of things that don’t fall into the democratic remit of the councillors and many of these things fall pretty much outside of officer control too, much of it because of national government legislation.

I guess the councillors could vote that the council stops collecting the rubbish or stops picking up the dog poo, but I don’t think this is going to happen, nor do I think arguing that the council does those things that it either has a statuary requirement to do or really just has to do, makes any sort of case that the council is fit for purpose.

There is also the business of individual councillors sorting out problems for individual residents, I don’t think this produces a valid argument that the council is fit for purpose, while at the same time I do agree that councillors do a lot of very good and useful work in this field.

What the crux of this fit for purpose are seems to be is the small area where either the councillors democratic decision making process or the actions of officers and perhaps a combination of the two, actually change anything.    


There are areas where the democratic process combined with officer functions just produce a huge waste of time and money and this business of filming council meetings is a prime example of this.

At the moment my understanding is that pretty much all council meetings are recorded and saved on disk. When I first discovered this back in 2009 I started pressing the council to upload these disks onto youtube, a free and easy way of making the council’s democratic process open to the majority of the local electorate.

After about a year the council finally started putting up videos not much larger than a postage stamp on a paid server that were pretty much unwatchable. In other words a taxpayer asks them to do something free and beneficial to the local community and after a considerable delay the council do something expensive and pretty much useless. I think the idea of this sort of activity is to make the local taxpayer give up and go away.


Now to understand my point there, you have to understand that all of this time wasted, meetings preventing filming of meetings, finding expensive, unsatisfactory and incomplete solutions to the problem takes place in a climate of moving towards more open and accountable democracy and ultimately national legislation that will allow the recording of all public council meetings. In other words if the council don’t come up with a reasonable quality recording in a format I can embed in a blog post then someone else will and I will use that instead.

So which is the indicator of here of the council being unfit for purpose – keep wanting to write porpoise – is it the existing and illicit recording or is it the council’s failure to address the issue.  

Cllr Driver has made a short video about this meeting and his actions related to it, here it is



Incidentally if any of the other councillors have material related to this issue please let me know and I will add it too. 

212 comments:

  1. Is this the pirate copy or from some official source?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon this is the recording made covertly by Cllr Driver and put on YouTube by him, to my mind a sad reflection on the council that this is the only way the meeting that many local people want to hear is available to them.

      Delete
    2. Michael, rules are rules until they are changed and, whilst I agree with you that meetings should be recorded and available to the public, I find it inexcusable for a councillor to flaunt those he signed up to. By all means campaign for change, but what Driver is doing is anarchy and in my view unacceptable in a public office.

      Delete
    3. Cllr Epps is coming out with his party propaganda again. Government has instructed all councils to allow filming. Why TDC has suddenly introduced restrictions is desperation to cover up their incompetence. As was Moores' blog protocol attempt to censor blogs.Why councillors blog on political issues and then pretend it has nothing to do with their role is as ludicrous as Cllr Epps here.

      We also need to keep track of which councillors are attempting to restrict filming for the next election. Who's the chap at the beginning of this recording? Also Clr Gideon and Fenner seem active in censorship and denying the standards report. They are of no use.

      Delete
    4. 11:43, ill informed as ever for whilst the government is in the throes of making it mandatory for councils meetings to be filmed it has yet to happen. As for Thanet, I think there is general support for the filming of meetings, but for a rules change to happen it would have to be voted on at a full council meeting, not just a committee.

      Overall, and for once I tend to agree with you, it is TIME FOR CHANGE.

      Delete
    5. Correction, 12:28, I do not argue for secrecy, but I accept rules need to be changed rather than blatantly broken. To succeed society must operate within clearly defined guide lines and one simply cannot have mavericks doing their own thing.

      There was a police investigation following on from the Sandy Ezekiel matter and I recall you predicting many arrests. There were none and whilst there may be some incompetence, since humans are fallible, there has been no further evidence of corruption. Just because you do not agree with things does not make them criminal matters.

      Delete
    6. The old Thor factory site is on The Ramsgate road down hill to Margate and outside the jurisdiction of the BTC. The 0% salaries situation has been explained, including several times on this site by Michael, to the point of boredom. It was raised by Tim Garbutt prior to the 2010 election and was even historic then.

      In case you had not noticed, people have moved on to Pleasurama, the Royal Pavilion, the TEF demise and the Arlington Tesco. Why not concern yourself with something a little more current. If you are still not happy, perhaps Cllr Driver could find out about Thor and 0%. He loves a bandwagon or two.

      Delete
    7. William if you must reply to comments containing “thor” “0%” etc please don’t use those words in your reply, as promised comment containing certain words and phrases are automatically spammed from my blogger dashboard.

      Delete
    8. What's the issue with spam on Thor and 0% Michael? They seem suitable topics for discussion rather than censorship?

      Should they be referred to as "the pollution factory" and "Moores payments" instead?

      Delete
    9. Anon let’s be quite clear about this, there is an individual who stifles debate on the local blogs by repeatedly commenting about these issues in a fashion that is totally out of context with the debate, this activity is called spamming and isn’t allowed here.

      My own feelings are is that when this anonymous commentator finds the debate here to difficult to follow he or she becomes frustrated and this impotence causes them to paste these oft repeated comments into the comment form.

      The same applies to people wanting to sell ppi recovery, it may be the best ppi recovery but it has no place here like butter has no place in the works of a watch, arguing that it’s the best butter doesn’t help when you want to know the time.

      Delete
    10. A dig at Driver at 11:15 William!

      Delete
  2. So what's stopping the council from making an announcement that filming/recording of its meeting can take place immediately as is the wish of central government?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because they're waiting until they're legally forced to do so. Meanwhile the secrets remain secret (or they would do if it wasn't for Ian Driver!).

      Delete
    2. Another gullible soul taking in by the Driver drivel. God help you if he were ever to get control of the local council.

      Delete
    3. Sorry, it was a Tory cllr who taped the meeting the other day, my mistake!

      Delete
    4. What are you prattling on about, Checksfield, or is this a private problem you have. You were singing Driver's praises and I responded. What has a Tory filming anything got to do with it.

      Delete
    5. I was being ironic you imbecile. I praised Ian Driver for taping the meeting the other day, which according to you somehow makes me "gullible". Please explain how?

      Delete
    6. Far from being an imbecile Checksfield, I'm an elected councillor which is more than you will ever be. I also know that we can't run a council efficiently without safeguarding a few things that are said at meetings. Trouble is all you bloggers think you know how to run things when you can't.

      Delete
    7. Interesting, 1:50, I wonder which side of the political divide you are on. Presumably must be Labour as the Conservatives are already on record as saying they support filming.

      Peter, I do not know why the anon thought you gullible though I would have to say I find it sad that people applaud a councillor breaking the rules he signed up to. Campaign for change by all means, but what Driver does is more about publicity for him than any real public interest motive. Perhaps your inability to see that is what was meant.

      Delete
    8. I've said many times that Ian is a publicity seeker, but if he also seeks (and maybe even achieves) positive change in the process then so what? I'd much rather Ian Driver than someone like John Worrow (now there's a publicity seeker who ONLY cares about himself!).

      Delete
    9. Might be more believable if you would add your name on your post anon 1:50

      Delete
    10. William there are many people who have broken what are today considered stupid rules (tolpuddle, sufferagettes) however I wonder if it is Ian's motives you really question not the rules he breaks.

      An argument about what his true motives would be more realistic and we would then see whether it is a political argument or an argument about personalities.

      Delete
    11. A councillor speaks at 1:50 and proves what a bunch of pompous apes they are.

      Delete
    12. Barry, how does one determine another's motivation when it is such a personal thing. All we can judge by is what we see for I do not know what makes Ian, or you for that matter, tick. Motivation comes from within.

      From what I see, Ian has been a loud person ever since he appeared on the local political scene. He proclaims to oppose just about everything I believe in or support, he changes parties with almost predictable regularity showing little loyalty for even his own short term held beliefs and he jumps on and off every passing bandwagon, some of which have been complete non events.

      I am not opposed to campaigners, but if you do not agree with something why sign up to it. Seems to me Ian wants the role and title of councillor without accepting the responsibility that goes with it. The suffragettes campaigned for votes for women, but they were not themselves MPs breaking the rules of parliament.

      Delete
    13. William we can only determine motivation by what we say rather than what we conceal. All I can say is I do not conceal my feelings about what I consider wrong.

      Most people who do not know me assume what my motivations are because I do not disclose my political affiliation because to do so would colour the issues discussed.

      Delete
    14. Barry, sorry, but I did an in depth course on motivation and it is very much a private thing coming from within. People often talk about motivating others, but it is actually impossible. All you can hope to do is to find out what their internal motivation is and feed it.

      I would not pretend to know what motivates Ian Driver, but I can observe what he does, how he behaves and maybe form some idea at times of his objectives. What drives him is from within.

      Delete
    15. Who is the elected councillor at 1:50? It's bad enough Epps calling the public shit stirrers and anoraks and at least he's resigned and was only on BTC.

      Delete
    16. What drives anyone is how there own personal construct comes together it is the old nature / nurture writ large.

      Same for you if you wouldn't break rules you would condemn others for doing it. Some rules need to be broken when they are patently unworkable.

      Its like the public perception argument because Councillors (or some) see it from the inside they believe they are right and then find a way to justify their position. Like people on blogs are not a representative sample of the people.

      Delete
    17. William having just caught up on Simons blog I think we are both right over the way Councillors interact with officers however saying my approach is too simplistic is missing the point. If it is more complicated than I think then you are right but what needs to happen is the system needs to be simplified. It is like the sitcom "Yes Minister" and it is complicated to favour the civil service who take advantage of its complications. For example why has it taken 3 years of negotiations to get Project Motorhouse to a proposal.

      Delete
    18. My point really was that councillors have to work within constraints mainly enacted from on high. They also have to balance financial priorities. Sometimes people looking in seem unaware of either those constraints of financial limitations.

      I will never agree with you about breaking rules you have signed up to. If you feel that strongly, resign and campaign for change from outside. Perhaps you will recall Lt. Col. Mike Mitchell of the Argyle & Sutherlands who, facing the disbandment of his regiment and realising that as a serving officer he could not buck the system, resigned his commission, stood for parliament, was elected and then, as an MP, fought for and saved his regiment. That's the way to do it.

      Delete
    19. So the tolpuddle martyrs were wrong as were the sufferagettes?

      Delete
    20. Did I say that? You are being rather disingenuous here Barry for I have made my point clearly several times. Campaign, protest and demonstrate all you like, but not from within something you belong to and have agreed to live by its rules. You are rather over protective of your hero.

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

      Delete
    22. Oh dear William if only you knew!!

      Your life's experiences tell you how to behave, you cannot change that. Please do not interpret what I say as hero worship. keep an open mind as closed minds do not hear everything that is said.

      Some work to change the status quo their way, some do it another. What is clear is it is the status quo that is in error and needs changing. In other words stop shooting the messenger and start to understand what they are saying.

      When the messenger becomes the message then the methods are wrong not the message.

      corrected typo

      Delete
    23. So driver constructing himself his latest media event is akin to the Tolpuddle martyrs, HAHAHAHAHAHA oh yea, right oh, I wonder what media the Tolpuddle martyrs were trying to feature in!

      James, when you say " All I can say is I do not conceal my feelings about what I consider wrong" why do you then admit that when you have a problem with driver, you phone him for a nice personal, off the record, non open, not transparent cozy lil chat? Do you actually understand the term hypocrisy? If you don't, I suggest you get someone to investigate it for you (don't you do it, that would be pointless) and if you do, why do you so openly practice it?

      Delete
    24. PS "What is clear is it is the status quo that is in error and needs changing" really, in whose opinion? Because you your hero and smithson think something should change, doesn't make it a fact. (ah fact, that word that remains a mystery to you!)

      Delete
    25. If anyone should be saying "Oh dear" it is me, Barry, for you still miss the point. I am all for changing that which is wrong or flawed, but if I sign up to rules I do not break them. If Driver wants to change the rules at TDC, resign, campaign and even fight an election over it if he feels that strongly.

      Let me give you another example, Chris Wells resigned as a Broadstairs councillor to avoid any conflict with the council or of interest in order to take on the chairmanship of the Broadstairs Community Centre Trust, an issue that has not been without its contentious elements. That is the right way to do things and if you cannot see it I guess we come of very different upbringings and life experiences.

      Delete
    26. Think you'll find that Driver knows his chances of re-election are about the same as mine of being an astronaut.

      Delete
    27. But surely Thanet is destined to go Green at the next election, John? Whoops, silly me, that's 2015 and by then Driver will have moved on several times no doubt. He might even be a Tory!

      Delete
    28. By then he could even be UKIP, not many parties left he hasn't allegedly represented!

      Delete
    29. William to take your comments to the extreme then at the standards committee meeting numerous councillors complained that the rules say that sanctions are unable to deal with Ian Driver i.e the rules do not let them punish him and their hands are tied.
      So using your method then they should all resign and campaign for a rule change. Simple really.

      Delete
    30. Perhaps they should ignore the rules and quite properly throw Driver out?

      Delete
    31. Not the same, Barry, they did not break the rules and kick him in the crutch anyway. That would be a fair comparison. Obviously you have a different view on loyalty, discipline and honour to me so we will just have to agree to differ.

      Delete
    32. Snide digs at Driver at 2:02, 2:30, 3:01 & 4:57 William!

      Delete
    33. There's your problem, Peter, for you cannot tell the difference between a snide innuendo, often off thread, and a direct criticism within the topic under discussion. This whole post is about Ian Driver recording a meeting against the rules he has signed up to and there are those that feel that is wrong, including me.

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

      Delete
    35. This whole post is about the behavior of TDC cllrs, and the public perception of them. Therefore, my mentioning of the standards complaint I made against Simon is perfectly valid. I know my standards complaint wasn't upheld - unlike Cllr Dr Jack Cohen's - but Simon has still noticeably curbed his rude, disrespectful and potentially libelous comments on the blogs. So if anyone else has grievences with cllrs I urge them to make official complaints too, it DOES make a difference.

      (Above post deleted because of typos!)

      Delete
    36. Of course it does, Peter, and I am sure you collected another merit badge for your cub scout shirt as a result. Bless!

      Delete
    37. Inn other words I was right and you were wrong.

      Delete
    38. See you got your drinking badge as well!

      Delete
    39. Interesting that cllr Epps keeps saying that Ian Driver should be punished for breaking council rules, yet if any member of the public complains about cllrs all he can do is make childish comments.

      Delete
  3. Maybe the council (and some commentator on this blog) should be reminded of this document published by the government in June of this year "Your council’s cabinet – going to its meetings, seeing how it works
    A guide for local people".
    Your council meetings
    The government expects councils to be open and for the public to film them, why do TDC continue in their secretive way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:54, read the book and waiting to see the film!

      Delete
    2. William ask Christine see if you can borrow her camera

      Delete
    3. Rather borrow, Peter's, for he might leave some interesting film on it!

      Delete
  4. Council rules are a nonsense and without legal basis. Parliament established both law and public policy. TDC rules are merely internal policy that seems to shift with the wind mainly for arse-covering. The wider concern is that TDC is simply doing nothing. The recycling is the beginning of an improvement to awful recycling levels of 20%. All the rest is a few old farts wittering in the council chamber and pretending they are not incompetent or corrupt while the 750 civil servants do as they please with our money (and yet more hired for the recycling?). Get the Police in: Sandy is just the first arrest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not go back to your twitter, Tim, for you are back in your boring groove. As James Maskell told you four years ago now, if you have evidence of crime, go to the police with it or otherwise shut up.

      Delete
    2. Sounds like Mallinson anon now but the same insults. Didn't he try to say that Tim wasn't even in Vietnam despite being interviewed by The Times newspaper?!!? Desperate stuff all because The Three Stooges want ye olde RAF Manston.

      Delete
    3. Tim, I think the problem with the Vietnam story was that some anon (who shall be nameless) reckoned he had seen you sat down by the beach doing a crossword when you were supposed to be in Hanoi. Where was the Times Newspaper interview recorded? Certainly not in the Times. For an anon you seem to know a lot more about what Tim is up to than the rest of us. NB - If you're not Tim then I am not Mallinson.

      Delete
    4. No. I recall Mallinson trumpeting up some weird schedule of his own making proving that such a meeting was impossible etc etc.

      Here's the Times article on Tim and the Lord Puttnam trade delegation you claim doesn't exist, Mallinson. It's on Tim's website and has been for weeks and Googleable.

      http://sincerityagency.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/we-were-featured-in-times-article.html

      Presumably you'll go to great lengths now to prove you're not full of shat.

      Delete
    5. Ha bloody ha, 1:21, that link is to an item put up by Tim himself and in no way proves Tim was anywhere other than messing about on his PC. Sure, Lord Puttnam led a trade delegation, but no proof Tim was with it. As for Sincerity Advertising, it has no contact address and is not even listed in the phone book despite supposedly opening offices in Vietnam. You, sunshine, are having a laugh, but the rest of us are not that gullible.

      Delete
    6. Why do any of you care whether or not Tim goes in or out of the UK? Are your lives that boring???

      Delete
    7. Agreed wholeheartedly, Peter, why would anyone concern themselves with a guy in la la land. See I got a mention above at 1:08 when I was still down the local enjoying some excellent stilton with a vintage claret. Just browsing around the blogs now and see it is till the same old rhubarb with TDC cast as the villains. Surely there has to be more to life.

      Delete
    8. Priceless: Mallinson found out for rather nasty and simply untrue smears.

      Delete
    9. 1:29 you're saying that Tim has not been featured in The Times? The articles are very clear - presumably you could order back copies from The Times itself. How desperately feeble your smear tactics are. At least Mallinson has popped up to explain himself. I agree with Peter, how utterly desperate, and now embarrassing, of them to fixate on Tim and that certainly won't prevent Manston closing down or the pollution being cleaned up....

      Delete
    10. Whoever you are 2:06, I agree that it's far more useful to discuss the "problem" than playing "guess the commentator" all the time.

      Delete
    11. Mallinson should be on humble pie not stilton. Fool.

      Delete
    12. Sunshine at 1:29 seems a complete moron as well as in denial. The Sincerity details are on the website: www.sincerityagency.co.uk it takes a minute to Google. Presumably he'll want to contact Lord Puttnam for attendees on the delegation. He'll be in the phone book too no doubt. Stupidity this deep is concerning - I hope Sunshine doesn't repair my car or even clean the public toilets. Just too stupid. Is there any way of finding out who it is as a guide to the public really?

      Delete
    13. How would you clean up the pollution problem Peter?

      Delete
    14. Listen you imbecilic clown, Garbutt has not been in the Times, Sincerity's web domain is up for sale and there is no contact address or phone number for the firm within it or the directories and I am sure Peter has far better things to do than clean up pollution. On top Surin charities has never built a school. If I am wrong, give us some real links to prove otherwise. Isn't there a peace pill you could take or something?

      Delete
    15. How rude 2:38 Sunshine. Go back and read the post at 2:22 if you can read. And the Times articles are at 1:21. How easy can it be for you to apologise for being an idiot now? Just too too stupid. Go on tell us your name so we know how stupid you are and can avoid you.

      Delete
    16. Garbutt not in The Times? The link is here again 2:38: http://sincerityagency.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/we-were-featured-in-times-article.html

      You're a strange and desperate character worthy of pity and presumably jealous of Tim or consumed by some strange hatred or unrequited love. And you are thick.

      Peter was asked how he would clean up the Manston pollution not you.

      Delete
    17. You really are a poor sad specimen, the Times article refers to Lord Puttnam's delegation but Tim Garbutt and Sincerity Agency are most definitely not mentioned. Just because Tim does a bit of grandiose posturing on his blog does not make it true. It is all make believe, laddie, and if anyone is desperate, it is you for believing it.

      Delete
    18. Try again Sunshine 3:11. Here's the weblink and The Times article is two pages and mentions Tim and Sincerity in detail beginning "One business...." and goes on for almost a full page.

      http://sincerityagency.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/we-were-featured-in-times-article.html

      You can't read can you? You're my favourite Thanet thicko now and you are very embarrassing. Go on tell us your name.

      Delete
    19. Seriously sad, anyway, how's the house sale going?

      Delete
    20. Tell you what, 3:59, why not get good old Tim to publish on his blog site, or Sincerity's, photographs of the schools he has built or his new offices, or maybe even his old ones, or perhaps he could publish the address of Sincerity Agency in Broadstairs because it does not seem to be paying business rates to anybody.

      Delete
    21. You asked me how I would clean up the pollution problem, and my reply is I don't know.

      Now, can all of the Tim obsessives (who I suspect is just one sad person without a life) please f*ck off elsewhere? And if Tim is really posting on here, can I suggest you use an ID so we know it's you? Thank you.

      Delete
  5. For the benefit of the terminally uninformed among your readers Michael, it never was "Moores' Blog Protocol" and I had no part in writing it: This was a Council led reaction to the havoc caused by Cllr Driver's blogging predecessor, Cllr Mark Nottingham, who, you may recall, enjoyed a similar contempt for the Council's rules of conduct. My own part was to concede that some kind of protocol was required to balance the code of public standards with loose canon councillors like Cllr Nottingham.

    See the earlier comment below

    "As was Moores' blog protocol attempt to censor blogs.Why councillors blog on political issues and then pretend it has nothing to do with their role is as ludicrous as Cllr Epps here."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon if I remember correctly the council copied their blog protocol from Harlow Council’s website and forgot to remove the Harlow Council encoding so the technologically adept like me and presumably you knew exactly who wrote the TDC blog protocol; Harlow council officers.

      Any thoughts on the Catch 22 aspect of the audio recording of the meeting here, like do you think Ian Driver is barking up the right tree here and do you think the locals ought to or ought not listen to it, with the obvious proviso that they wouldn’t be able to if it wasn’t provided outside the rules. I assume you like this sort of paradox.

      Delete
    2. Simon, how about answering me directly instead of making your usual snidy comments? Ian Driver even answers Hamilton directly, perhaps you can learn by his example!

      Delete
    3. Driver, answer me directly, that would be a first, he doesn't have the balls.

      Delete
    4. Steady on Peter I don’t think you have asked Simon a question in this thread so I can’s see how he could answer you directly, I am as you may have noticed trying to keep the personal animosity down here so that it doesn’t completely obliterate the issues.

      Delete
    5. If you say so Michael, though I suspect he's been advised not to answer me directly following my standards complaint against him.

      Delete
    6. You had to get that in, Peter, just another typical little dig despite Michael's request to cut out the animosity. Your obsession with Simon is far worse than any other persons with Tim.

      Delete
    7. Peter, before I shoot off to watch the Doctor, how come you are always kicking off about people who obsess about Tim Garbutt yet you never utter a word about the other bunch who make the same silly unproven type allegations about John Hamilton. There is far more evidence readily available to establish TB as a total Walter Mitty character than there is that JH lives in Arizona.

      Delete
    8. As well as Tim's publicity agent, you're obviously also Simon's spokesman! Why you want to watch Dr Moores is beyond me, but clearly you're the one obsessed.

      As for Tim / John, (1) We know for certain that John (or whoever is behind him) posts on here whereas "Tim" could just be a troll posting here because he / she knows how much it winds some people up, & (2) Most of the discussions on the true identity of Hamilton takes place on a blog dedicated to hunting him down. Perhaps the answer for all of us is for you to start a similar blog on Tim, then you & 1 or 2 other obsessives can discuss him without disturbing us.

      Right, I'm off to listen to Lene Lovich in the bath!

      Delete
    9. Peter, there are a number of people who seem to mention Tim, but you probably do as much as most and certainly more than I. As for defending Simon Moores, I am sure he does not need it, but I hate to see someone the victim of the constant snide remarks you come out with.

      If you are referring to the Geoffrey Barnes blog as the one hunting Hamilton down you evidently have a sense of humour. That consists of silly people called "hammy hunters" who get all excited because he once lived near Biggin Hill. They are sad and you must be if you put any credibility to the stuff written on there.

      Delete
    10. You make a lot more snide remarks about Driver than I do about Moores...

      Anyway, if you're so good at telling who writes anonymous comments then perhaps you'll tell us who the main person is who responds to "Tim" comments? It's obvious to everyone else.

      Delete
    11. As for Geoff's "Hammy Hunters" blog, I've only visited very occasionally, but when I have done I've seen quite a few comments from you. Perhaps you just like writing on "sad" blogs, or perhaps (as with Moores) you can't help coming to the defence of Hamilton.

      Delete
    12. Peter, I do not know who the main person is who responds to 'Tim' comments and I doubt everyone else does regardless of your suspicions. I have seen you accuse John Holyer of that, but John only ever comments in his own name and is not that frequent a visitor to the blog at present as otherwise busy. I have responded, but as myself, and Allan Mallinson seems to have done likewise. You, William Watkins and ECR have all mentioned him at times, but who the anonymous commentators are I do not know.

      Seems to me you are doing the very thing you accuse others of and are trying to double guess the identity of commentators.

      I wrote on one silly post on Barnes site, but quickly came to the conclusion that it was inhabited by the childish. I have not done so again. Hamilton is more than capable of fighting his own battles, but I do react to all these pathetic unsubstantiated gunfighter allegations. Not to defend, but to try to expose the ridiculousness of unfounded nonsense. Even you referred to the discussion on Hamilton's identity taking place on another blog - like wow! Been there, seen it and laughed it off for the nonse it is.

      You are a bit out of your league with me so I suggest we agree to differ and ignore each other.

      Delete
    13. How do you KNOW that John Holyer only posts under his name? How do you KNOW that Tim Garbutt posts anonymously? How do you KNOW that John Hamilton is a real person?

      Seems like you "know" alot!

      Delete
    14. William you are being perfectly ridiculous as in your commentary on Geoff Barnes blog. You were told on there that information wasn't going to be posted so as to enable other matters to come to fruition and that there was enough hints on there to enable anyone who knew how to use google to do their own research. You chose not to bother as you wanted the information handed to you on a plate. Because Geoff wouldn't grant you your request you have decided to start a smear campaign on behalf of your hero, so be it but remember this in life just because people do not do your bidding doesn't make them wrong nor does it make you right.
      Now what would you do if you wanted filming to occur in TDC as I said, which Hamilton failed to answer 60 million people didn't vote for filming in Parliament and I reckon the vast majority of them could not care less, but we have filming in Parliament and even in Committee so I ask again how would you conduct a campaign to force TDC to comply with the will of Parliament who clearly want filming to happen

      Delete
    15. Oh, Peter, Give it a rest. William has you on the ropes. I have told you before that you would be out of your depth in a puddle.

      Now, I'm back to work.

      Delete
    16. Oh dear, Peter, you do react too quickly. Read my comment again, did I say Tim comments anonymously? Did I say John Hamilton was a real person? John Holyer I know personally and I know what he is involved in at the moment, but that is all I know for sure. What is apparent is that a lot of anonymous comment, as identified by Michael and often treated as spam, about pollution and Manston is identical to similar comment on Tim's own site and, whoever John Hamilton's real identity may be, there is obviously a real person behind the pseudonym, if such it is.

      Seems to me, Peter, that you were happy enough to swallow all the allegations about JH being elsewhere, but you prefer to deny all the evidence of TG involvement round the blogs. Just tell me one thing though, read back through the mainly anonymous exchanges about Tim in one part of this post and advise who would know so much about Tim's alleged Vietnam trip other than himself? Then again, it could be an anon pretending to be Tim, but, think for a moment, who in their right mind would want to?

      Delete
    17. William, do you really think I care whether Geoff Barnes gives me his pathetic evidence or not or even that I am that concerned who John Hamilton is? Who is Eastcliff Richard? Who was Bertie Biggles? Who is 1 o'clock Rob? Thanet has long had bloggers who use pseudonyms, but they have usually attacked Tories so that is OK. Just because JH targets what he perceives as NIMBYs people get their knickers in an almighty twist and launch into MI5 mode. Well face it, MI5 you ain't and, at the end of the day, what exactly are you going to do when you find out who JH is? Visit him with feather dusters at the ready?

      Delete
    18. OK John Holyer, who do YOU think is making most of the "Tim" responses on here?

      Delete
    19. Bertie Biggles was "outed" a long time ago when he appeared on TV, not that it was much of a secret in the first place. I wish he'd start his blog again though, it was one of the very best.

      Delete
    20. ... and, why on earth would I care where Tim goes for his holidays, whether it's Vietnam, Spain or Margate??? This interests me about as much as your life.

      Delete
    21. Peter [your 10:48],

      The evidence suggests to me that the person making the most of the Tim thing is you.

      I have told you before, Peter, that whereas at times you can be diverting and occasionally germane in your comment you are fatally flawed by your lack of self awareness.

      Now my coffee break really is over.

      Delete
    22. Peter, you are completely incapable of following the thread of a debate or responding to points raised, often in themselves responses to your own points. You asked me how I knew certain things and I responded. As for the Bertie Biggles bit, I was merely pointing out that John Hamilton is not the first, and probably will not be the last, to blog using a name people do not recognise.

      Also I did not ask you if you are interested in Tim's life, but simply who, other than himself, would know so much about it. At least I tried to answer your questions where you simply evade those you don't like. By the way, and since you raise it, can't say I am exactly enthralled with your life either.

      Delete
    23. No, the evidence is you JH. You're proving yet again that you have absolutely no opinion on anything else.

      Delete
    24. William if you didn't care just why did you bother posting on Geoff's blog. Adding words like pathetic when you are not party to the evidence rather proves it annoyed you that Geoff didn't hand over what has been discovered so far. Further just because you haven't seen it doesn't prove it doesn't exist.
      You do however post on Hamilton's blog as Peter used to (Peter finally decided Hamilton was a troll and stopped) one day you will come to realise 2 things. firstly Hamilton is a troll and doesn't care about Thanet like you and you are being used, and secondly you secretly wish you could resort to the sort of language and tactics Hamilton uses but you know you cannot.
      Now lets get back to filming please

      Delete
    25. John Holyer & William Epps, I have long regarded you two as voices of reason around the blogs, so sad to see you engaging with the resident idiot. In my many years of living in Broadstairs and following the blogs, Peter Checksfield has been the clown prince of the facetious one liner. He never debates so do not waste your time with him, however annoying he can be. Let him wallow in his own simplicity. Now back to the pleasantries of my new country life with a stroll down to the riverside pub.

      Delete
    26. "John Holyer, the voice of reason"... excuse me for sounding like Hammy, but HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

      Delete
    27. William Watkins, I knew from the start that Hamilton was a troll, but I used him in the same way that he's using Cllr Epps to help with the pro-Arlington Tesco campaign (though in retrospect he's probably done more harm than good, which is why I've distanced myself from the whole thing now).

      Delete
    28. William, I visited Geoff's blog following it being mentioned on this one as the source of proof that JH was in Arizona. I engaged briefly on one post and decided that it was not a place I wanted to be, particularly after Geoff's own rather unpleasant responses. He, like you, seems to think he is capable of deciding what I think and my motivation.

      I have often said I do not, nor would under any circumstances, use the language JH does and the fact I sometimes post on his blog does not make me his lover anymore than I jump into the sack with Michael, Simon, Tony or Eastcliff. For the record also, nobody uses me for, if anything, I tend to be a bit of a maverick not always agreeing with even my own party.

      On the filming, I support the government and Conservative party stance on this and TDC need to change their rules accordingly. Nonetheless, I do not support councillors who have signed up to those rules then breaking them. Start down that road and where do you draw the line. On the other hand, I would not condemn a member of the public for secretly filming if they can get away with it. They are not party to the rules like Ian Driver.

      Allan, thanks for your kind comment and point taken.

      Delete
    29. Peter, far from sounding like Hammy, on you it is more like the resident idiot. Don't you just love it when someone hits the nail on the head.

      Delete
    30. Peter Checksfield,

      Peter, Can you really not see it. You raise the subject of the Tim thing then go on to accuse those who respond of being obsessed. The 'Tim' is not alone for you also behave like this with other topics. The explanation for such odd behaviour is that you are doing nothing more than scratching around for fodder to feed your snide one liners. Which are you stock in trade and with which you value yourself. Self regard you have a plenty; but not so self awareness in which you are sadly lacking.

      Delete
    31. What I love even more is when people start resorting to personal insults instead of rational debate, as that is proof that they have nothing intelligent to contribute. Now, off you go to the pub my boy!

      Delete
    32. Anyway, while you lot go and drown your sorrows (and John spends yet another week painting the bathroom ceiling) I'm off for a seafront run. Have a lovely sunday! : )

      Delete
    33. William your posting on Hamilton's blog gives a tacit approval to him just like Peter did until Peter saw it was wrong and then the true troll that Hamilton is came to the fore. You can see the results of that in his condemnation of Peter.

      All Hamilton is able to do is make personal attacks on anyone that does not toe his line. NIMBYS do not really exist in life they are just people. Their cause maybe just or it may not however they believe in their cause and it is up to others to agree or not as the case may be.
      It is extremely selfish of any one to believe their point is the only one that should be heard and it is also abhorrent to make personal attacks on any one's integrity or to call them pathetic. Make your argument but respect the other persons right to make theirs.

      Delete
    34. Priceless, Checkers talking about intelligence. 'Open door. Evening, Sir, evening, Madam, have a nice evening. Close the door.' Bet you have a degree in door duty, eh Pete?

      Delete
    35. It's called "working" 11:48, not that you've ever tried that.

      Delete
    36. William, I also post on Ian Driver's blog but I assure you that does not imply tacit or any other kind of approval. Once again you make your own conclusions about why I do things and then go on to lecture me about people being entitled to their own point of view. As for Hamilton condemning Peter, well most people seem to after a while so nothing unusual there.

      As a democratic I defend anyone's right to hold any opinion they like. I also defend my right not to have to agree with it.

      Delete
    37. How would you know, 11:53?

      Delete
    38. 11:48, I did it temporary while getting my own photographic business off the ground, something I'm now successfully doing - not that I'm ashamed of the doorman job as I enjoyed it. Now feel free to tell us what you do for a living (and don't say councillor, as that's not a real job!). Now I'm REALLY off for that run before it p*sses down!

      Delete
    39. Of course, a proper job, Pete. "Stand over there, get your kit off, click, click, kit back on, photos ready later, open door, bye sweetie, hope to see more of you."

      Delete
    40. A job that I suspect every warm-blooded male in Thanet would love.

      Delete
    41. Err, without wishing to be rude to some of the ladies, I don't think so, chum!

      Delete
  6. It might help to know that 11 out of the 13 Kent Councils allow filming of meetings by the public in one way or another. The Government has introduced an amendment to the Local Audit Act which when it become law will force councils to allow the public to film. The national leaders of the 3 main political parties support the public being allowed to film meetings. Transparency International an anti-corruption charity and the Tax Payers Alliance support filming. 100s of Councils across the country are already allowing the public to film. Last but least Laura Sandys and the Thanet Tories support filming. Although when I presented my credentials (which comply with TDCs rules) to Tory Scrutiny Chairman Jo Gideon she refused to let me film!

    We are living in the 21Century. Audio visual and communications technology is more readily accessible than before. Organisations like Thanet Council cannot hold back the tide. Instead of being forced to accept change by the law they should embrace it now. If not many more people are going to film and record Council meetings as a protest against TDC being stupid. I will actively support such a protest.

    The bottom line is that local people have a democratic right to know what their councillors are saying and doing. There is a democratic right to protest against and break the rules which hold back democracy. Look at the suffragettes, the civil rights movement in America. The fight against Apartheid in South Africa. Fliming council meetings might not be on par but the principles remain the same.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which publication do you write for that is affiliated to the press complaints commission driver? I wonder how many people in Thanet actually care about this issue, and I wonder whether those poor people that elected you as a Labour cllr, that now have no representation would rather have that representation that a new bandwagon that they couldn;t care less about, simply so you can some exposure in the media.

      To compare yourself to fighting Apartheid is abhorrent, and hopefully that will be the last nail in the coffin of your dying political career.

      Delete
    2. John outside of moaning about the individuals you don’t like which is becoming so repetitive as to pretty much qualify as spam, do you have any views whatsoever on the issues that this post is actually about, or any reasons why you think you comments in this post merit some other treatment than my just spamming them.

      Delete
    3. I think that I have made my perfectly reasonable views plain, thanks for your concern Michael.

      Delete
    4. Hopefully sooner rather than later hammy will learn that you can try peoples patience only so far. Your reasonable attitude Michael is IMHO being abused much like the personal abuse I have taken for so long.

      Filming public meeting is important and Bob Bayford's press release recently shows that the Conservatives are in favour, It is ridiculous that Labour are so against it.

      Delete
    5. Personal abuse James? Never yet.

      I don't believe that Labour has said they are against it, merely that they are against driver making a media opportunity of flouting rules which at this time still stand, no matter how much you seek to defend your hero's indefensible actions.

      Delete
    6. I do however thank you for the removal of one of his posts which I think you agreed (by its removal) constituted personal abuse.

      Delete
    7. Pointing out your shortcomings is not abuse James, it is merely correctly demonstrating your shortcomings :)

      Delete
    8. Hamilton you are nothing but a hypocrite, your two faced attitude towards Michael is patently stupid. You post one thing on here and much worse on your blog which is where your posting should be confined

      Delete
    9. 2 faced, not at all, merely tailored for the censorship prevailing on the forums concerned.

      Delete
    10. Censorship I certainly agree hence the failure to allow "Arlington Resident" 3 times to post on your blog. Michael does allow you to post which shows that he allows free speech within certain boundaries of decency. You on the other hand are a Troll

      Delete
    11. When/if Arlington resident says something intelligent, it will appear, I fear that means he will not be making an appearance any time soon..

      Delete
    12. Censorship confirmed!! Your behaviour would make Chairman Mao proud

      Delete
    13. Hamilton why are you so obsessed over Barry you even have an email address barryjames_cock@hotmail.com

      Delete
    14. I would love to explore this subject, but alas michael prefers it if I keep to the subject of the thread, and I am not one of the posters that enjoys his protection ;)

      Delete
    15. Are you now saying that you are going to behave politely wow you ego must be going into meltdown. Still I'm sure you can make a video on the subject it's called a selfie in case you didn't know

      Delete
    16. I am sure you are more than familiar with carrying out personal task for yourself watkins :) I'll leave you with that.

      Delete
    17. You were right William his ego cannot resist. As he says he lives here then maybe we can persuade him to visit the Council Chamber and video. Michael says concealed cameras are quite cheap on Ebay

      Delete
    18. OK personal abuse aside for a mo the problem for me as a blog administrator is spam, easy to deal with when the commentator is trying to sell. What? Search engine optimisation, well put Michael Child into Google and you can see I don’t really need it. Suppose though we take the comment along the lines of Peter doesn’t like Simon or John doesn’t like Ian, although I am not certain that there is anyone that John actually likes apart from possibly John, but after. How many? Comments along these lines in a year. What? One, two, three it gets; oh so boring. And then what? At some point this becomes spam and as blog administrator. If I want a reasonably good blog – and I think I do – I have to deal with this issue, otherwise no one would much read the blog. And then. There would be no point in. What? Writing it, removing the spam – bit like gardening really – although I can’t walk on water. I can spam the comments.

      Delete
    19. Sadly michael in your pursuit of protecting the usual suspects, you wrongly catagorise rightly critising their appalling lack of evidence on pretty much every every subject. Debate involves evidence and proof, aswell as 1000's of words of bs and bluster, I am happy to provide facts, and expose the bs and bluster.

      I note that the perfectly fair question I posed driver has yet to be addressed, I wonder why you would ignore his avoidance of such a relevant question, while you incorrectly attack me for challenging one of your protected posters.

      "Which publication do you write for that is affiliated to the press complaints commission driver?"

      I could level the same question you pose above to you Michael, but i chose to simply address your comments.

      Delete
    20. Ahhh, I stand corrected about Ian replying directly to you "John". This does explain your jealousy over Barry having phone conversations with him though.

      Delete
    21. Sorry John must have missed your answer, here is the question again: John outside of moaning about the individuals you don’t like which is becoming so repetitive as to pretty much qualify as spam, do you have any views whatsoever on the issues that this post is actually about?

      Delete
    22. Oh yes, I would look forward to speaking to Driver or James about as much as I would an appointment for colonic irrigation on a cold Thursday afternoon, followed by a lecture in Investigatory Methods by James, just before going to watch a TDC meeting.

      Delete
    23. Sorry if you missed my reply Michael, it is above, but here it is again for you;

      Sadly michael in your pursuit of protecting the usual suspects, you wrongly catagorise rightly critising their appalling lack of evidence on pretty much every every subject. Debate involves evidence and proof, aswell as 1000's of words of bs and bluster, I am happy to provide facts, and expose the bs and bluster.

      I note that the perfectly fair question I posed driver has yet to be addressed, I wonder why you would ignore his avoidance of such a relevant question, while you incorrectly attack me for challenging one of your protected posters.

      "Which publication do you write for that is affiliated to the press complaints commission driver?"

      I could level the same question you pose above to you Michael, but i chose to simply address your comments.
      Delete

      Delete
    24. Don't forget hamilton's obsession with Barry's name imagine having an email address as well. Pretty sad and it is said Garbled is disturbed. Personally I think Hamilton is worse

      Delete
    25. Exactly William. In comparison Tim is just a harmless eccentric.

      Delete
    26. Perhaps someone would like to quantify this overwhelming urge that Thanetians apparantly have to watch TDC meetings, or (as I suspect is the case) is it all highly questionable "I spoke to the public who told me that..", and if that demand doesn't exist, as I would suggest it doesn't, why is such a big issue being made about something nobody cares about..

      Delete
    27. I want to watch them, as well as have a visual record of them.

      Delete
    28. so that's a total of around 6, including cheggers and the usual suspects, what is that, something like 6 for 139,994 couldn't care less. Hmmm, isn't democracy about what the majority want...

      Delete
    29. I can just imagine hamilton and a clipboard asking everyone what their preference is.

      I doubt the Council Chamber can accommodate every one of them either

      And neither do all 60 million ask to see Parliament and that is broadcast

      Delete
    30. "Isn't democracy about what the majority want? "

      In my kind of democracy it isn't a simple black and white vote. I like to think that we take account of minority views. However, accepting your assertion that it's all about the majority viewpoint, I am obliged to point out that not one councillor on TDC has been elected by a majority of the people eligible to vote in their ward. In some cases the number of people voting for them is between 10 and 15% and as few as a couple of hundred votes. With this in mind, I think that any petition with 100 signatures on it is pretty significant and ought to be properly considered by those who purport to represent us (democratically). Obviously, this won't include Hamilton because he's just a hopeless old dinosaur who believes that his party knows best and that the people are there to serve his interests. His percentage wasn't that good either.

      Delete
    31. Anon you have a point about majorities but the only time Hamilton has indicated he supported any party it was UKIP he espoused on Facebook

      Delete
    32. Actually I thought 168 in 24 hours which is what the YouTube counter says suggests a substantial interest based on the first day viewing figures for the stuff I have put on YouTube.

      However what I am trying to work out here is if John Hamilton’s comments should be treated as spam, apart from posting personal insults does he in fact even understand the nature of dialogue and the content of the posts?

      Q “do you have any views whatsoever on the issues that this post is actually about?”

      A “someone else hasn’t answered a question I asked them”

      Suggests a cognitive problem.

      Perhaps I could get an answer by using the Twins Paradox. You know one always lies and the other always tells the truth, one guards the gate to eternal damnation and the other the gate to heaven. With John certain that Ian always lies perhaps I am phrasing my questions to John, who thinks that Ian always lies, in the wrong way.

      Something along the lines of: John if I ask Ian if this is the gate to heaven what will his answer be? May do the trick. Perhaps the spam option is the easiest one.

      Delete
    33. That is the way of democracy 9:17. Those who don't vote can be pretty much dismissed as they clearly don;t have a strong view either way, the majority of those that remain form dictate the representative. To try to extrapolate that a petition with 100 signatures from an electorate of 140,000 voters is simply laughable.

      Sadly we know that you no longer vote, as you object to signing your name in the box provided on the ballot paper.

      Delete
    34. So if you are correct then every voter must vote only then can you determine the correct answer. plainly stupid

      William has it right 60 million in the country most (in fact the majority) didnt express an opinion over filming Parliament yet we have filming

      Delete
    35. Bearing in mind it's posted all over everywhere, and the counter doesn;t actually indicate anyone has actually listened to the turgid audio, not to mention that the counter isn't a counter of unique visits, I would say that a mere 164 over 24 hours proves my point very nicely.

      The rest of your post appears to desend into somekind of hallucinatory dream world. Let me try to help you yet again Michael ;)

      "Perhaps someone would like to quantify this overwhelming urge that Thanetians apparantly have to watch TDC meetings, or (as I suspect is the case) is it all highly questionable "I spoke to the public who told me that..", and if that demand doesn't exist, as I would suggest it doesn't, why is such a big issue being made about something nobody cares about.."

      Perhaps making the unanswered question for driver more obvious for you;

      "Which publication do you write for that is affiliated to the press complaints commission driver?"

      Filming is a total non issue that nobody without an agenda gives a crap about.

      Delete
    36. Let me take this VERY slowly for you 9:43, where is the evidence or proof that anyone other than the usual suspects gives a crap about filming TDC...

      Delete
    37. typical spamilton expect his questions to be answered and fails to answer any one elses

      Delete
  7. Michael, I'm sure you must have a copy of Douglas Hofstadter's work on paradoxes somewhere on your shelves!

    If I can ask for your patience a little longer then I think my position and that of my colleagues will become a little clearer on such matters.

    "Any thoughts on the Catch 22 aspect of the audio recording of the meeting here, like do you think Ian Driver is barking up the right tree here and do you think the locals ought to or ought not listen to it, with the obvious proviso that they wouldn’t be able to if it wasn’t provided outside the rules. I assume you like this sort of paradox. "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I presume this will be along the lines of Bob's last press release I hope

      Delete
    2. Ah that one Simon, I remember having read the thing I fett that I didn’t understand it but that I had failed to understand it on a higher level than most people, the high country of incomprehension is a lonely place. I guess I identify with the fool in M C Esher’s Belvedere, you know the one sitting on the bench with the impossible cube, at least I hope he is a fool and not an idiot.

      Delete
  8. Dear Mr Moores.

    I don't think any of us is interested in your views and the views of your colleagues. The simple fact is that you have missed the boat. You had the opportunity to be open and transparent and you resisted. Now it's happening, with or without your permission. So, your opinion doesn't really matter. As for your "rules" nobody really cares about them. You lot invented them to allow you to control the flow of information and to prevent people from knowing what you were up to. There is no point in you pretending otherwise. Now, we have reached the point where the vast majority of people think you're all corrupt and that you are all hell bent on covering up the monumental cock-ups that have taken place. On what planet do you think that your opinion would matter to people who hold you and your mates in such low esteem? My advice - grovelling apologies, truth and reconciliation, mass sackings, and tear up the rule book. For example, reveal who is behind Pleasurama and then cancel the project, Publish who is responsible for Transeuropa and fire them, publish who is responsible for the Haine Road access road fiasco and fire them, Tell us how many millions short you are on the Dreamland pipedream and then, fire the person responsible (unless you've done it already). Otherwise, forget it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "the vast majority of people think you're all corrupt and that you are all hell bent on covering up the monumental cock-ups that have taken place"

      Really? On what evidence do you base that stunning condemnation?

      The only thing I agree with you on is Dreamland, Pleaurama should go ahead without delay to compliment the weatherspoons that will be a HUGE success, and TEF, I have still yet to see anyone post an alternative approach that would have meant TDC would have £3.4 million in the bank that it doesn't today.

      Delete
    2. So just when did TDC stop Shaun Keegan and Cardy from building at Royal Sands, Hamilton. It seems you are unable to grasp the obvious they do not have the money to build. Are you offering them a brown envelope full of crisp ones

      Delete
  9. "I don't think any of us is interested in your views and the views of your colleagues." In that case 9:31 perhaps I shouldn't make the effort to share my thoughts with the public and as you suggest, keep them to myself. It would certainly give me more time to pursue other hobbies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes c'mon 9:31, let's have a bit of respect here. I welcome cllrs views, as long as they remember to act respectful to the people they're paid to serve.

      Delete
    2. 9:31 you do not speak for anyone but yourself. Simon posted on his blog his annoyance after the Council debate on filming was hijacked by Ian Driver saying he had a point of view but was unable to express it due to the hijacking. I for one would like to hear Simon's views as I detect a change in stance by the Conservatives and would like to see filming

      Delete
  10. Hi Paul - How's Grace and C2 Tactical

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like a nice girl, does Grace. Not sure what she sees in a dirty old man like that

      Delete
  11. Anon 23 nov 9.31, You appear to be right about the New Haine Road, TDC have just paid their £2.7 millions share of the costs out of reserves!. Clearly TDC have been caught on the hop over this EKO initiate and have had to raid the reserves. When will TDC show us the EKO accounts? As for your claim that Dreamland is a pipe dream, has the economic case been published? what will the CPO actually cost TTDC including the legal fees, how much will dreamland cost per year to run and what are the forcast visitor numbers and income? Or is this another case of secrecy/

    ReplyDelete
  12. OK, back to discussing TDC standards again.

    Does anyone know who was responsible for "accidentally" signing in the cllr who was in Panama? There's people who would rather sweep that under the carpet and claim that it's in the past, but if the person(s) responsible are still at TDC then it is still very much relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I should've mentioned earlier, excellent video by Ian Driver again. Maybe other cllrs can also do some video blogging, how about it??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter, still trundling out the silly one liners and historic misdemeanours. How exactly would you find out who signed in the councillor in Panama? Sounds like a job for Geoff Barnes! As for video blogging, I happen to know how photogenic I am not whereas Ian obviously doesn't. I think I would rather watch the TV, so things must be bad.

      Anyway, though you were off cycling or was that just further up the thread?

      Delete
    2. I knew you'd come out with the predictable "historical" comment, but perhaps you can at least tell me who decided it was "an accident"? Was it by any chance a council leader later jailed for corruption? As for who did it, obviously it was the person who admitted to "the accident"!

      Video blogging isn't a matter of being photogenic (I'm sure neither you or Ian were voted in because of your looks), it's more about how genuine you come across. Of course, video blogging can work against you if you don't do it right. John Worrow is a good example: not bad looking (for a TDC cllr!), but he always come across too angry and perhaps slightly demented.

      No cycling today, I went for a 3 mile run instead as I'm too busy editing photos to go out for long.

      Delete
    3. Peter, the story of the member for Panama has been told so often. He went there on business, decided to remain and, when it was apparent he could no longer act as a councillor, he resigned and there was a by-election. At one meeting during his absence he was apparently signed in though this was stated to be a mistake. Not being TDC, or even BTC back then, I have no idea who made that statement so perhaps you should sende in an FOI request if it is so important to you. In reality, I suspect you just like throwing it into the cauldron every once in a while.

      Not just the photogenic aspect, but to listen to an Ian video I would need an interpreter, being the product of a good southern family and school. Agree with you about Worrow though as he always manages to look sweaty and stressed. On the 'how do councillors come over' bit, well I campaigned pre-election, went round knocking on doors and chatting to folk, I am reasonably well known in my ward and council meetings are open to the public. Do I need videos, I think not, but then I am not on a perpetual publicity kick like some.

      Delete
    4. Michael I have been asked to consider what the people of Ramsgate would like to see on the old Marina Swimming Pool site which currently is a carpark and is deemed to be surplus to requirements. We have been asked to ensure what is proposed is sustainable considering its location and susceptibility to vandalism

      Delete
    5. Barry I saw a suggestion for a skate park mentioned elsewhere

      William did you really think before you pressed enter "I would need an interpreter, being the product of a good southern family" did you really mean to make yourself seem "Holier than thou" to paraphrase Harry Enfield. Did you want to reignite a class war by that silly remark.

      Delete
    6. Neither, it was tongue in cheek, but clearly you have no sense of humour and why assume the North/South divide is a class thing. I was twice stationed at Catterick in Yorkshire, enjoyed the pubs around the dales, learnt the lingo and even played cricket in the North Yorks league. I have nothing against them and even William Hague is one. You, my friend, are looking for things that are not there.

      Barry, think a skate park, preferably ice, would be an excellent idea having, in the past, had to drag all the way to Gillingham to take daughters ice skating. Daughters, who I might add, also have southern accents just to keep William happy.

      Delete
    7. I don't mind Ian's voice when he's speaking gently like this, but I can't stand it when he's shouting. Must say I rather like Louise's Yorkshire accent though.

      Delete
    8. William if you meant it in an ironic way I apologise however looking at your other commentary it didn't come across that way to me.
      Without seeming to lecture you yourself say you sometimes say things to "stimulate" the debate however people not knowing you do not see it like you do. My wife for instance was annoyed when she read it.

      Delete
    9. Barry - Former Marina Site

      Whatever goes there would need new landscaping around it. I can visualize new steps being carved into the cliff leading up to Victoria Parade, with new planting continuing along the top there to attract visitors to both the top and bottom of the cliff.

      Delete
    10. Please, William, send me a list of the things that annoy your wife and I will try to avoid them in future. Meantime, I suggest you stop trying to psycho analyse everybody else and stick to the thread of the debate.

      On my other commentary, although you do not specify what, I would admit that I am no fan of Ian Driver or his way of conducting himself in the council, but he cannot help where he comes from or his resultant accent. My wife still has a twang of Rhodesian, but that does not make her a bad person. There is a huge difference between having a colloquial accent and bad or illiterate speech.

      Delete
    11. Droll Mr. Epps
      Wife says she doesn't want to get writers cramp

      Delete
    12. If that many things annoy her, I can see your problem. Anyway, enjoy what is left of the weekend.

      Delete
    13. Doesn't bother me I'm not on the list a few that post on here figure tho

      Delete
  14. William, I seem to recall this unfortunate "accident" happening at least twice (or was it three times?), which would make anyone suspicious.

    I understand Ian's accent perfectly, it's certainly clearer than mine! I have the looks, but my camp and fast South London accent (sort of a cross between Boy George and Danny Baker) is difficult for some people to understand.

    Barry, my answer would be a New Marina Swimming Pool!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter, so glad to hear you at least understand something even if it is Ian's accent. Do you mean you yourself have a sort of woofy Penge drawl?

      On the signing in, I only know what I have read around the blogs, but you seem to be the expert.

      Delete
    2. You already did as camp so why make an issue of it. Anyway, mine was a question.

      Delete
  15. Just seen this on In Touch With Thanet FB page
    "The Conservative Group at Thanet District Council wish formally to record their thanks to the departing independent members of the Standards Committee for all their hard work on the Council’s behalf. Cllr Bob Bayford said: “Theirs was never likely to be an easy task, but has in recent times been a truly testing experience.” The Group would also like to thank the independent members for their timely attempt to make councillors aware of the fragility of their reputation with the public. Cllr Bayford added: “We accepted the report’s main conclusions on Thursday and we repudiate the torrent of criticism directed at the report and its authors during Thursday’s Standards Committee meeting"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for posting that, Barry, but whether it will make any difference to the way Thanet is currently governed remains to be seen. I know at times I can be a bit cynical, even provocative, but I would admit to serious concerns for the future. We desperately need honest and intelligent people in the council who are prepared to work together for the good of the community and who explain their decisions, even the ones they will sometimes get wrong.

      Sadly, governance in Thanet has not been brilliant for some time and has degenerated rapidly in the last two years. In the 2011 election the Conservatives polled a considerably higher percentage of the vote than any other party, but only finished up with a one seat majority over Labour and a hung council overall. Since then it has been a farce with some councillors jumping ship to gain appointments and allowances in return for their votes and a complete reversal of the democratic vote. We have seen Labour clinging to power on the backs of renegade votes, people who even they would dearly love to dump.

      Then there are the orchestrated scenes in the council chamber, the media attention seeking and the constant, mainly unfounded, allegations of corruption and snouts in troughs. Meantime, important issues are side lined.

      Is there light on the horizon. Who knows, but Labour have just taken a Conservative seat in Sandwich where UKIP pushed the Tories into third place. We all know what happened in Thanet in the county council elections, but how basically ineffective our county councillors have been for Thanet since. If Thanet is destined to go purple at the next election, with a few mavericks clinging on in split wards, what are our prospects?

      People need to seriously think about what they really want. The politics of the soap box is all very fine in opposition, but is that what we want to see at council meetings. Personally I would prefer quiet, efficient governance and a two way dialogue between the elected representatives and the residents.

      Delete
    2. Lack of clear and decisive leadership is what is required along with some humility over past expensive mistakes.

      Delete
    3. Probably a mistake on your part, Barry, but I assume you mean decisive leadership is required. Could not agree more, but the humility bit depends on who is elected. I have got rather tired of politicians in recent years apologising for things done in a different age and for which none of us today are responsible. Let's try to move forward rather than forever looking back at yesterdays mistakes. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but at the point you give the order to charge you don't actually have it.

      Delete
    4. True about leadership but ignoring and then moving on is not any part of being rehabilitated in the eyes of the electorate.

      I know its not entirely relevant but the criminal justice system is about shorter sentences for those that confess their guilt added to that is now the fact that victim statements are going to be more prevalent.

      Delete
    5. Barry, I am also part of the electorate as are my circle of family and friends and we just want good governance. Whether someone apologises over past mistakes is not going to make any difference now.

      As for suggesting that there is some relationship between a council making a mistaken decision and the criminal justice system I find bizarre.

      Delete
    6. "Reconciliation is a long-lasting process that goes through several stages. It does not erase the past, but paves the way for a new future relationship based on risk taking, trust-building and the reclamation of identity." Kraybill

      https://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/01-0

      Ensure that institutions of the Government of Canada are visible, accessible and accountable to the public they serve. To be accessible and accountable, the government and its institutions must be visible and recognizable wherever they are present. Clear identification allows the public to see the government at work, to access its programs and services, and to assess its activities. Communicating through many channels – from service centres, the telephone and mail to print and broadcast media, the Internet and World Wide Web – the government must identify itself in a distinct, consistent way the public can recognize in all circumstances.

      and there is plenty more out there about restoring trust

      Delete
    7. For heaven's sake, Barry, this is Thanet, not South Africa at the end of apartheid, FORS have not murdered councillors in their homestead and TDC have not tortured members of the public or locked you up for years in Ramsgate caves. We are dealing with a local council that is not even responsible for the maintenance of the roads through its district.

      Sometimes I wonder what planet you live on.

      Delete
    8. William am I glad you are nearing retirement.

      Why are you such a dinosaur don't you want things to improve duh!!

      Delete
  16. A thought.

    Cllr Moores: "the impact of what I regarded as an ill considered and badly researched report spread much further than the borders of Thanet and as I said in the Chamber last night: "Publish in haste, repent at leisure.""
    Cllr Bayford: "We accepted the report's main conclusions on Thursday and we repudiate the torrent of criticism directed at the report and its authors during Thursday's Standards Committee meeting"

    The local Conservative Janus-effect?

    ReplyDelete
  17. A thought.

    Cllr Moores: "the impact of what I regarded as an ill considered and badly researched report spread much further than the borders of Thanet and as I said in the Chamber last night: "Publish in haste, repent at leisure.""
    Cllr Bayford: "We accepted the report's main conclusions on Thursday and we repudiate the torrent of criticism directed at the report and its authors during Thursday's Standards Committee meeting"

    The local Conservative Janus-effect?

    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.