Saturday, 18 January 2014

A Ramsgate ramble, arts and crafts fair, shops open and close, some thoughts about bookselling and anything else I think of.

Having received the press release from Nice Things pictured above http://thanetpress.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/a-saturday-in-ramsgate.html I wandered down to The Custom House in Ramsgate and took the pictures below of The Handmade Fair








Artist David Bailey was there and painting in watercolour, something that always interests me as I it’s something I do too..



The Daily Grind Café has opened where The Marmalade Café closed.



Tanning in King Street has closed.

I have to admit to being very conscious this week with In Shops Centres Ltd going bankrupt http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/community/community-news/heartache-at-closure-of-historic-market-hall-1-6372674 that the knock on affect of shops doing badly is now hitting the commercial property owners.

I would guess that if government don’t step in in some way then the damage to local communities will be significant. The key issue here is that shops that provide more in the way of service (the main service being that you can actually look at something before you buy it) can’t get sufficient profits to compete.

In the book world, what is happening with new books is that an increasing number of people are doing their browsing in the remaining bookshops – mostly Waterstones – and the buying online cheaper – mostly Amazon – because the online supplier has significantly less expenses.

In the secondhand book world things are slightly different mainly because the cost of the average secondhand book is much lower than the cost of the average new book. The key here though is it is the retailer who determines the price, it is for this reason that I am still trading as a secondhand bookseller.

With books, as a veracious reader I can always get personal, with my friends one of the first questions in the – hello how are you? I’m alive – conversations that take place on meeting is; “what are you reading?”

So “what are you reading, dear reader?” Well me I’m reading John Irving’s “In One Person” You know the bloke who wrote Cider House Rules, the one that was made into a film, you must have seen it, the one about the abortionist with an ether habit. This one “in one person” is about a bisexual and his crushes on the wrong people. Is it any good? Yes very, Irving seems to be at his best writing sexual comedy. 

So what would I sell it for? What would I pay you for a copy?

Good condition £2.50

Very good condition £2.99 and a very good condition one we would pay £1 in cash or offer a £1.50 exchange voucher for, assuming that we wanted to buy it, which we do at the moment.

What about Amazon, they are selling it new for £5.75 inc p&p, the next cheaper is their Kindle edition at £4.31, secondhand the cheapest they have is in good condition for £2.75, and in very good condition for £3.64 inc p&p. Amazon won’t pay cash for it when you have read it, but they will give you an exchange credit of £0.25.

What about Ebay, the cheapest available in good condition is £2.98 and the cheapest they have sold one recently for is £2.88 including p&p. if you go to sell it on Ebay 2nd class post would cost you £2.60, so you would be likely to make very little once you have paid listing and PayPal fees and of course paid for the packaging.

I know this is all a bit complicated, but I guess you can see why I am still trading. In simple terms the cheapest cost of reading it, assuming you sell it afterwards is going to be around £2.50 if you use Amazon or Ebay and around £1.50 if you use my bookshop. 



Small amounts I know, but if like me you are a veracious reader, I read about five books a week, it soon mounts up, £20 per week is £1,000 per year. 
On with the ramble, have you got any spam in your fridge? See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25780908 this made me laugh.


Sorry I got a bit diverted there, anyway back to the bookshop and bookselling thing. I don’t really understand the philosophy behind the big online secondhand sites like Amazon and Ebay, but I am making the assumption that they actively take measures to close down their opposition both online and on the street.

Frankly one of the major aspects of online trading that has made it difficult for these sites to compete with my bookshop is the cost of p&p and for a while I think that Amazon Prime has been deliberately running at a loss to damage competition.

Amazon Prime is stock stored in the Amazon warehouse, which is packed and posted by Amazon.

About two years ago, I think, Amazon extended this to secondhand books, big online secondhand booksellers could send Amazon their books, ordinary Amazon customers could sent their books to Amazon post free, for a credit and all of these books Amazon sent to customers post free.

Now for the most part secondhand book customers tend to be smarter than the average person, not only more conventionally literate but also more technologically literate, which means they take the best advantage of the available technology to get the best price.

For example had I discovered John Irving’s book in Waterstones its cover price is £7.99, they may or may not have been selling it a bit cheaper than that, but my first action having browsed it in Waterstones would have been to open the Amazon app on my smartphone and zapped the barcode with the camera. This would have given me the best Amazon price for a very good copy of around £3.50, less than half the price. So I would have pressed the “buy it now” button on my phone and the book would have been posted to me.

Now Amazon have changed their Amazon Prime bookselling regulations and from January this year you have to make £10 worth of purchases to get free postage and packing.  

Rightly or wrongly I see this as the first stage in what was a loss leader directed at putting my shop out of business. Now frankly I don’t think making up a £10 order is going to be too much trouble for the new book buyer, a couple of paperbacks would do the trick but with secondhand books, where the average paperback price is around the £2 mark and many readers weekly book budget is around £5 I think this will make a very big difference indeed.

Over the last few years where secondhand bookshop closures due to the internet making them redundant this is the first significant change in the opposite direction.         

81 comments:

  1. I take your point about shops closing but what do you want the government to do about it? Should it not be up the traders to rescue themselves? Rather as you appear to be doing. I do not relish the prospect of being taxed in order to keep a shop open just so they can sell me something at a higher price than I can get it elsewhere. I was always led to believe that trade was all about competition red in tooth and claw.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John I think there are several aspects to this one being discounting, I think the current competition rules would make it very difficult for a book publisher to give a book retailer more discount on the grounds that they are incurring the costs related to displaying the books in a way that customers can look at them before they buy them.

      I also think that the big online sellers are engaged in more creative accounting when it comes to tax avoidance. It would for instance be very difficult for me to say to the taxman that although my shop was in Ramsgate my business was registered in another country and that I wasn’t going to pay any income tax.

      In the world of bookselling physical bookshops are part of the creative arts, a theatre or an art gallery often gets various sorts of government funding, here The Turner Contemporary and The Theatre Royal are examples. Libraries also are often funded by the public purse, however I would say that bookshops add considerably to the artistic and cultural life of any community.

      I think though that the main problem for our culture is that a great many books may never get published, just on the grounds that not enough people would ever fid them unless they appeared on the shelves of a bookshop in the first place.

      Delete
  2. Michael

    I find it impossible to accept your premise that bookshops are a vital part of the art world to the extent that they should be indemnified against commercial failure with money from the public purse. I would not wish my taxes to be spent in that manner. The possibilty that a few books may as a result never be published will not diminish the world of literature by any measurable amount. However, I am happy to support libraries.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John I am not sure that I am asking for money from the public purse here, it’s a complex issue with a bit of a history which you can delve into in more detail should you wish.

    The main aspect being The Net Book Agreement, which fixed new book prices in the UK from 1900 until 1997, although it became unworkable due to the profiteering aspirations of large companies from about 1991.

    The terms of the thing was basically that publishers could chose to make a new book either non net, in which case it could be sold for any retail price, or net in which case it was illegal to sell it for a different price.

    Always difficult to justify a price fixing agreement, but in practise it lead to the UK having the lowest book prices in the world and a flowering of literature in the UK, with more major literary fiction writers than any other country in the world.

    The key factor from the 60s to the 90s being that a supermarket employing mostly minimum wage staff couldn’t sell a bestselling book for less than a bookshop employing an expert staff many of whom actually read the proof copies of new books prior to deciding which ones to order.

    Now we have serious problems in UK non food retail which I think is going to both devastate our towns and make it either impossible or very difficult to examine and compare many items before buying them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Seems like the police are taking the whole "John Hamilton" thing seriously, as I've just had a DCI here chatting to me about it. Apparently he's also spoken to three local cllrs (I wonder which ones?) amongst other people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Peter,

    This is interesting. Of what crime is John Hamilton suspected, did the DCI say? DCI is a high rank so I assume that the alleged crime is a serious one?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure... William Epps has publicly defended "John" many times, I wonder if he was one of the interviewees?

      Delete
    2. No, Peter, I was not interviewed and, frankly, have heard little or nothing of JH since before the Christmas break. As for me defending him, it is more a case of querying all these experts who place him in Arizona than defending what he does or says.

      As for a DCI handling the case, that is the rank of the officer in charge of Thanet Police so would have thought he would have rather more to do than deal with blogging insults.

      Delete
    3. If inquiries are being made, at DCI level, it may be to rule out "JH" being an internet persona of someone who may feature already on a suspected person index. In other words such an inquiry may not be into a "Serious allegation" but into what may be a suspected/anticipated pattern of escalating behaviour which is flagged for response on suspect index. IE To rule in or rule out that a suspect is manifesting a behaviour trait which could be dangerous.

      Hope you have time to read this before Michael strikes with his delete key

      Delete
    4. LTP the answer here is if you stop posting the spam comments relating to your personal agenda and stick to the subject matter of the rest of the discussion within the thread then your comments won’t get spammed without me reading most of them. My recommendation being write your own blog and I will put a link on the sidebar for those interested in the subjects you post about that don’t relate to current post here.

      Delete
    5. Getlemen. Haviing just talked to the police chap who called a guy up in Arizona and asked him to stop posting as Hamilton, I think we can hopefully say that we have seen the end of John Hamillton for a while. Long may this continue. However, to throw councillors names around the argument is simply insitefull. I am assured by the DI that - when some data comes back to them in the future - they will have proof of Hamiltons identity and if the data proves us right, John didnt even live in the UK.

      Delete
    6. Duncan, I suggest you tell "Smudger" at the Gazette. He / she was the one who suggested that it was a cllr.

      ... and too clarify, I have not suggested that William or any other cllr is "John Hamilton" myself.

      Delete
    7. How's the legal action against you coming along, or has that all been dropped now?

      Delete
    8. Duncan, all very interesting and, if your information is correct, and as a fellow Bradstowe resident why would I doubt you, it seems all that earlier garbage about Hamilton being a landlord in Gillingham, living near Biggin Hill, sacked by Tesco etc etc was precisely that, garbage. Indeed, the only thing that seems to have been right was that he lives in Arizona which poses the question, how did he know so much about people in Thanet?

      Delete
    9. William when able some of which you ridicule will become apparent, suffice to say that which you post as rumour is in fact true and provable.

      When the police give their permission more will be said.

      Delete
  6. I would guess the; Protection from Harassment Act (1997), Malicious Communications Act (1988), Communications Act (2003) and Computer Misuse Act (1990), all have some potential. Several people who comment here asked me to send them the comments he had posted here as they were considering legal action. I guess the lesson here is there is no such thing as anonymity where the internet is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The main reason he spoke to me was to try to trace his real identity, so I directed him to Geoff Barnes' blog and Barry James' comments in particular (none of which he'd seen before). Apparently I gave the impression that I knew him personally, something that can also be said of William. That's why I wouldn't be too surprised if the DCI has spoken to him too.

      Delete
    2. Strange one that, I would have assumed that the police would have been able to get his identity from Google and his isp, I am surprised that they would need to leg it around asking people. I guess if they can’t do this it raises some interesting questions.

      Delete
    3. According to Barry, "John" was interviewed by the police a couple of months back, and this is why he (John) stopped posting... I'm not going to call Barry a liar, but if this is true the DCI certainly knew nothing about it. All very strange indeed.

      Delete
    4. I am with, Michael, for this is something the police could do from the office so quite why our senior ranking local officer is doing leg work, beats me. Sounds like wires crossed or yet another storm in a teacup.

      Delete
    5. William there seems to be 2 issues here according to the email I got from Peter.

      Firstly he says 3 councillors have been interviewed so that would imply some sort of personal and local issues and nothing to do with internet trolling.

      Secondly if the police assume (rightly or wrongly) that the internet issues were caused by the above they may have assumed a local had instigated the blog and acted accordingly.

      I agree that that element could have been investigated by contacting FB and Google but as I'm not party to their methods.

      Finally it is great that whatever they said and did has scared off the bullsh**tter

      Delete
    6. Like many things that appear on blogs, Barry, I am inclined to take it with a pinch of salt. A DCI investigating something of this nature, including interviewing three nameless councillors, would need a bit more substance for me to swallow it. For now it remains just another of those Thanet rumours.

      Delete
    7. William,

      Seizing the advice of our local 'experts': one possibilty is that the police are chancing a winter trip to Arizona on HMG.

      Delete
    8. Yes William and John. DI Davidson confirmed that he had been in contact with someone in Arizona over the matter. But as this is an ongoing case, perhaps we could all use a little more discretion when discussing it.

      Delete
    9. Quite, Duncan, like stop suggesting councillors involvement in the matter for starters.

      Delete
    10. It was the DCI (and Smudger) who suggested it.

      Delete
    11. Funny how the DI seems to have told Duncan that JH is in Arizona whilst the DCI told Peter that they think he is a councillor. Also, to keep the record straight, Smudger actually said he thought he might be in local politics. So the plot thickens.

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

      Delete
    13. Two separate and distinct lines of inquiry, oh please, Barry, you are getting me close to wetting myself now. At least it is the best laugh I have had in ages. The DI who contacted Duncan was after the John Hamilton in Arizona, but the DCI who contacted Peter is after the other John Hamilton who is a councillor. Utterly priceless and you could not top it in a Monty Python script.

      Delete
  7. Peter,

    I remain puzzled as to why the police would send a Detective Chief Inspector to interview you. This is indicative of a serious and sensitive crime. Just a long shot, but I assume you had a good look at his warrant card?

    ReplyDelete
  8. John, I remain puzzled as to why this 'hot' topic has only appeared here, with no corroboration elsewhere, and, on the one hand, we have Peter saying according to Barry whilst Barry is saying, according to an email he had from Peter. Then we have three nameless councillors interviewed by Thanet's senior cop, whilst Peter throws in that I might be one of them, and the same top detective going round asking bloggers, instead of Goggle, who John Hamilton is. All smacks of mischief making rather than substance.

    Perhaps the name on the warrant card you mention was Barnaby!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Take it or leave it, but I can assure you it's true. Yes, I looked at his warrant card. One thing he did say is that he's usually based in Canterbury, but occasionally gets sent outside the area.

    Not sure why William doesn't believe the bit about the cllrs. Many people assumed that "John Hamilton" was / is a local cllr, even "Smudger" in the Gazette suggested so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter, when I suggested a while back that even Smudger had suggested JH was involved in Thanet politics, I was shouted down by the supporters of the Arizona theory who insisted they had evidence he was a US based troll long since departed from Thanet. Now, suddenly, because it suits the latest 'story,' he is a councillor. Surely you were one of the advocates of the gun club theory.

      I am not saying I believe or disbelieve anything, Peter, but I wonder at the rank of the officer involved in such an inquiry and at his apparent lack of professionalism in telling one interviewee who else he has been speaking to on the case. In my cop days we tended not to do things like that.

      Delete
    2. William despite your "I don't believe things until I personally see the evidence" I have an email from Peter which I will forward should you desire.
      Why Peter decided to email me I have no idea but I take it on face value as a genuine email as he felt I should be advised as Peter said to the officer "speak to Barry as he may have further information for you". As yet no one has been in contact.
      As to whether others have been interviewed and the reasons Peter knows because the officer told him would seem to be genuine otherwise how would Peter be aware they had been interviewed.
      Now separately during a chat with another FB contact I was told that the prime suspect in the internet Troll part of this had been "spoken to" by the police and had denied being "John Hamilton" now that is as far as I am involved.

      This prime suspect lives abroad so just how this interview took place is open to conjecture however I doubt the British police flew out there to interview him. It was either a telephone conversation or a request to another Police Jurisdiction to make the inquiry.

      Whether the person that spoke to me is mistaken or not is unknown but as I have no reason to doubt them I go along with believing them until I hear otherwise.

      Delete
    3. As you wish, Barry, but perhaps the element of me that remains attuned to my old training still wants to see hard evidence before I accept it as gospel. Furthermore, I do not go around suggesting that people have been 'spoken to' by the police, as Peter has done in my case, based on nothing other than conjecture or assumption. That, in itself, is not far from libel as there are those that will believe being spoken to somehow implies implication in the case.

      All your statement above constitutes is hearsay and even the email is not evidence. By the way, please do let us know when the 'officer' gets in touch. This is all too exciting to miss the next instalment.

      Delete
  10. I may subsequently be proved wrong, but the account of events that I have heard so far does not have the ring of truth. Could it be, could it be that the inquisitive DCI is none other than 'John Hamilton' bearing a dodgy 'warrant card'. Nah, that cannot be for who would leave the warm sunshine of a winter of Arizona in favour of Thanet.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Taking a wild guess at this one, I would think that Kent police now have some sort of cyber crime department, possibly based in Canterbury and that – as cyber crime is a fairly new area to pursue at a local level – they are still as it were learning the ropes.

    To actually solve cyber crime I guess you would need to a fairly nasty minded geek and spend your life in front of a row of powerful computers hacking into major servers to find out oo done wot, not the sort who would rise up the ranks as it were.

    My guess is that in practice to be leader of Kent Constabulary’s cyberee there would have been a big element of polishing up the handle of the big front door and not so much geekery.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Michael, I do not understand your Gilbert and Sullivan reference.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There is mischief making afoot in the John Hamilton hue and cry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are right, John, but I would not mind betting that the elusive cop is actually the sheriff of Apache Junction, a little place not far from Phoenix, on a jolly. Probably even a mate of JH from the same gun club!

      Delete
    2. William and John with your latest silly comments above I doubt any further updates on the investigation will be posted on here. If you genuinely wanted to know anything I wonder at your ridiculous way of achieving your goal.

      Poking fun at people is hardly conducive at getting what you desire.

      Delete
    3. Barry,

      At whom am I poking fun?

      I maybe poking fun at these unsubstantiated accusations. But this is for the reason that I am a believer in the presumption of innocence and the criminal test of beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you share a similar principle? If so the I cannot understand why you are piqued by remarks.

      The absence of future updates on this blog will not trouble me; I am content to wait for the trial.

      Perhaps you believe that I am making too much of all this lack of evidence business. I can only explain in my defence that I once spent several years in a job making decisions that affected the lives of individuals. Several of my decisions were challenged in court; and heaven help me if I could not produce hard evidence to support my decision.

      Barry you should know that suspicion is never enough.

      Delete
    4. Barry, why exactly are my comments any sillier than unsubstantiated rumours about police inquiries which nobody, apart from you and Peter on a private exchange of emails, seem to have heard about.

      Delete
    5. Firstly I have no personal knowledge of what Peter was discussing. He sent me an email explaining he was interviewed. Was he lying? I cannot see a reason for this but it was his choice to email me.
      As to a police investigation or otherwise I was told certain things I tend to believe them especially when said Troll stops trolling.
      John whether a police investigation turns into a trial depends on many factors but does not always mean lack of evidence for instance petty theft can be dealt with in many ways none of which means someone goes before a magistrate. Even for more serious issues especially in crimes involving the internet geography plays a part.
      And William you assume unsubstantiated for what reason, if the person was interviewed (and I wasn't there so cannot confirm) and that frightened them off then a good result methinks

      Delete
    6. Fine, Barry, as long as it all makes you happy in your little world, what else matters? I will stick with Midsommer Murders for entertainment. However, the point I raised about being named as one of the councillors interviewed remains. There were no grounds for that statement.

      Delete
    7. "little" world is a touch harsh coming from a councillor who should know better.

      It seems you cannot see the bigger picture but in the end it matters not a jot especially as the abuse has ceased and that at the end is all that matters

      Delete
    8. Barry,

      On the evidence of this report, which is thin in the extreme, you suspect that 'John Hamilton' is about to meet his nemesis at the hands of the police. Whereas I suspect that it is mischief making with Sally Bercow overtones. Let each look to his suspicions; while never forgetting that suspicion is not enough.

      Delete
    9. Interesting that you consider I should know better which poses a couple of questions like why and about what? Councillors are just people fulfilling a role voluntarily, they remain individuals with personal views and should be no more be expected to swallow unsubstantiated rumours than anyone else.

      Hence, I say again, if your suspicion that JH is the subject of a police inquiry makes you happy, then so be it. In the absence of any corroboration, let alone evidence, I will reserve judgement, but say again, I have not been interviewed and know nobody amongst council colleagues who says they have.

      Delete
    10. William do you deliberately confuse this issue. If I haven't been clear then I will repeat what I said so it does become clearer.
      Your remark "little world" is what demeans your argument. You used it deliberately to annoy and that is what is wrong with your above commentary.
      Whatever your views are concerning the trolling issue are completely irrelevant as they have now ceased and long may that last. Further other than the email Peter sent me we have had no other conversations concerning the matter and if he accuses you of being interviewed is between you and him and of no interest whatsoever to me.
      As to whether there is evidence or otherwise of who John Hamilton is or isn't matters little and whether you believe me or not also matters little to me either. It neither makes me happy or sad what does matter is the trolling has ceased and the personal abuse inflicted by the person has also ceased and that is cause for celebration.

      Delete
    11. Confused, Barry, surely it is you that is being selective. You quote Peter as the source for your comments about the police inquiry, but choose to ignore that part which I found slightly offensive. You either accept his comments, which you claim you have no reason to doubt, in their entirety or their validity comes into doubt if you choose to ignore part. You quoted he said the DCI had interviewed three councillors, but choose to ignore his suggestion that I was one of them. Since I was not, how much else becomes subject to doubt?

      For me, I find being labelled as part of a police inquiry as offensive as JH calling someone else a chancer. Anyway, I have no wish to continue a tit for tat exchange and suffice that you are happy that JH has stopped. Enjoy your celebration.

      Delete
    12. William,

      Peter's gratuitous suggestion that you were interviewed is pure mischief making that is worthy of Sally Bercow.

      Delete
    13. Which raises the question, John, how much more of it is mischief making. These blogs seem to be a haven for those that make unsubstantiated statements or allegations, invariably getting uptight when their comments are challenged.

      Generally the blogs have been very quiet since before Christmas with many regulars missing along with even TG. Wonder if they have all had their collars felt!

      Delete
    14. William the lack of comment is down to Michael not turning on anon comments. So many regular anons cannot post.

      Delete
    15. BTW I didn't ignore it I realised the remark was for your eyes only and left it to you to reply.

      You and Peter have always liked your gratuitous remarks used to provoke discussion however they only demean the argument not enhance it. Carry on being provocative if you wish however it doesn't improve anything on this blog.

      Delete
    16. Barry, the lack of comment is not just here but around the Thanet blogs generally. It is also not just anons that are missing, but several named regulars as well. Maybe they are all bored with the futility of it all.

      Maybe I am provocative or like to play the Devil's Advocate at times, but at least I don't make it up as I go.

      Delete
    17. William are you accusing anyone here of "making it up as I go". Sounds like a provocative statement.

      What I don't understand were the times the anon's were being accused of one person or another sounds like plenty on here accuse without substantive proof in fact that was Hammy's cry "proof James where is you proof" as if he deserved anything. Not producing proof (as if it were possible to post documents on a blog where you have no way of doing so) does not prove either guilt or innocence and further there have been plenty of statements made here in the past where no "proof" was ever offered and never challenged.

      Delete
  14. If nothing else, I've briefly breathed a bit of life into a near-dead local blogging scene...

    William, as you choose to not believe me, then why should I believe you when you say that the police haven't spoken to you? It works both ways you know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter, believe whatever you want, but I did not come on here suggesting you or anyone else had been spoken to. That is your story. On the brighter side, I do agree that you have, at least temporarily, breathed some life into a seemingly dormant blogging world.

      Elsewhere there is a bit of life over on The Daily Thanet with even Mike Harrison coming out of hiding for the first time in ages.

      Delete
  15. Peter,

    You bang on about John Hamilton but here you are tantamount to admitting that you created this piece of mischief in order to pump some life into the local blogs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a strange interpretation! I give up, I'm off back to twitter where more people talk sense.

      R.I.P. Thanet blogs.

      Delete
    2. Twitter the field where Sally Bercow met her Waterloo by way of mischievous inference.

      Delete
  16. William and John I have just received an email which I reproduce part of below.

    "The enquiries into the John Hamilton blog have so far included speaking to individuals who were identified as contributing posts to his blog; making direct contact with one individual living in the U.S. and liaising with my colleagues from our Communications Intelligence Unit to obtain relevant information regarding the John Hamilton blog. I am aware that this particular blog has not been prevalent since the end of last year and as such, it may be possible that the right individual may have been identified and has now ceased his activity because of police contact. Obviously, this still to be confirmed but hopefully our internet enquiries will clarify this once completed."

    So it seems (unless the email is an elaborate fake) that my informant is correct. The email also contains an apology for not dealing with the matter sooner and was in reference to a complaint to Ann Barnes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Barry. I guessed that Ann Barnes was behind it, despite certain people on here and elsewhere dismissing her influence as worthless when I mentioned her name a few months back...

      Delete
    2. Barry,

      Unless you can identify the source of the email I regard it as spurious. Also I find it curious that a police officer used to writing reports would not know the difference between 'enquiries' and 'inquiries'.

      Delete
    3. Having now spoken with the DI the email is genuine. He also confirms how he made contact with the ex pat in Arizona.

      Delete
  17. John, seems times have changed and the police now send emails to interested parties telling them what they are doing and who they are speaking to on their cases. Whatever happened to 'need to know' and confidentiality. Presumably our extradition agreement with the USA, which did not include IRA terrorists, now covers those calling people f***ing chancers on a blog site. We live and learn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you wanted to know what happened and this is how you respond. So nothing about how true it was what a strange way to respond.
      I suspect it is more to do with keeping the victims of abuse informed than anything else.

      Are you still skeptical?

      Delete
    2. Keeping the victims informed is a bit OTT, Barry. Seem to recall all JH ever said about you is that you are full of bull shit and make unsubstantiated claims, but if that makes you feel victimised then I suppose you are one. As for my comment above, that was directed at John who, like me, shares a certain barrack room humour on tall stories.

      To be brutally honest, Barry, I really do not care what happens for in my book it is all a storm in a teacup and an atrocious waste of police time and resources, especially if senior detectives are really investigating name calling on a blog site. Be much more appropriate if they were concentrating on the real evil people on the www who target school kids. You and I should be old enough to look after ourselves.

      Delete
    3. if you want the phone number I will pass it on as you seem to be assuming I am making it up as I go and at least you can talk to the gentleman yourself.

      assuming you refuse this I suggest you go back to your life untroubled by what Peter, Duncan and me have told you. Barrack room humour what a lot of garbage you come out with. Last comment from me unless you want to ring the DI yourself

      Delete
    4. Not a response to my comment at all and totally misses the point about wasting police time. Why would I want to add to the farce and ring some unfortunate copper who does not know me from Adam to ask if he is following a different line of inquiry to the other cop who spoke to Peter. This all gets more childish by the minute, but you seem to be enjoying it, as you did with all the rubbish about gun ranges in the Wild West.

      Finally, what would you know about barrack room humour. Have you ever lived in a barrack room or been anywhere near serving in the armed forces? If you haven't I would suggest that you are in no position to dismiss my comment on the subject as garbage.

      Delete
    5. All this serves to prove the point that the creation of Police Commissioners, mainly overpaid civilian busy bodies with little or no knowledge of policing, was one of Cameron's worst bright ideas. If the Kent Commissioner can divert the time of very senior detectives onto hunting down an on line name caller, then the plot has been very seriously lost. As for all the offended big girl's blouses who have been 'victimised' by Hamilton, what can one say other than for God's sake grow up and start acting like men. In fairness to Ian Driver, who has been the main butt of Hamilton's insults, he seems to be the one least offended by it all.

      Delete
    6. Barry,

      If you behaved in a barrack room the same way that you behave on here the response you got would make John Hamilton look like a pussy cat.

      Delete
  18. William, if the DCI contacts me again, I'll ask him to speak to you. After all, you seem to have all the answers, or at least the theories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter,

      Would you also ask him to speak to me, please.

      Delete
    2. I think he'll just dismiss you as a nutter John.

      Delete
    3. The expected vacuous one liner from Peter Checksfield.

      Delete
    4. Peter, since when did you decide who should speak to me and, since I am not exactly invisible, the DCI would have no trouble making contact should he wish to do so.. That said, I have no problem helping the police where I can, but I know nothing of John Hamilton other than has been written around these blogs and that is so varied as to be totally confusing.

      Delete
  19. OK Barry send me the phone number [my email is on my profile]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barry, Any news on the promised phone number? Here's your chance to prove that JH was wrong about you.

      Delete
  20. More than one line tends to confuse you John.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter, That's enough for now you're just getting silly. I'd like to leave you with one thought, but I'm not sure you'd have anywhere to put it.

      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.