Friday, 21 December 2012

Royal Sands Development, on the Pleasurama Site Ramsgate another update.

Detail from initial plans for The Royal Sands, when the building was too high 


As some of you may remember the developer was supposed to meet with the council this week to show they had the funding in place and the hotel operator for the development.

There is a rumour going around Ramsgate that there was no money on the table at the meeting and that to all intents and purposes we are going nowhere.  
 


 
 Detail from the same place on the plans after the building had been lowered, note the lorry embedded the ceiling.


Anyway I emailed Alan Poole the cabinet member in charge of the negotiations:

On 21 Dec 2012, at 11:13, michaelchild@aol.com wrote:

Hi Alan, there is a rumour going around Ramsgate that you met with SFP this week and they were unable to come up with anything much in terms of supporting the due diligence, essentially that there was no money on the table.



I guess with such an important project I have to put something about this on the blog, I would however prefer to get the facts straight, so can you please give me an update on the situation.



My understanding is that the council will take this as reverting to the original position and begin the process of determining the development agreement and cancelling the leases.



I would say this leaves the council with just about time to get the site cleared so we can see some use of it next season for leisure and parking.      



Best regards Michael

And he has replied thus:


Hi Michael,



TDC are soon going to issue a statement........



Regards,



Alan



 This is the same place on a later set of plans where the problem has been resolved by using a shorter lorry

I phoned up Cardy Construction and asked them if they were still involved in the site, the person I spoke to said they weren’t prepared to comment.  
 
I hope to be able to add something to this later, although I would guess any solution will be something like the details from the plans illustrating this post.

Update, I have just got the "statement" from the council, here it is:

NEWS RELEASE

Update on Ramsgate Royal Sands Development
Negotiations between Thanet District Council and the developer of Ramsgate Royal Sands are still underway.

That’s the latest news following a meeting held this week (Tuesday 18 December) at Thanet District Council.

The council will only sign a new agreement with the developer once it has absolute assurances that adequate finances and a hotel operator are in place. Negotiations are set to continue.

In the mean-time an existing agreement, signed in 2009, is in place should negotiations fail to reach a conclusion.

ENDS 



As I said in the rest of the post, it would probably be like the details of the plans above.

Translating the council speak it seems to suggest that we are heading back to the 2009 agreement, which I think means a deserted building site until 2017.

Here is the agreement http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/pda/id17.htm and if anyone else has a different translation of the council speak it would be appreciated.

In the meantime I will ask Alan for clarification.  


I have added another picture detail from the latest 2009 plans to help with a reply to a comment, most of the planning sheets are on the uk planning site http://www.ukplanning.com/thanet the planning reference is F/TH/03/1200 should you wish to check for yourself.

This is the same place on the plans and as you can see in the latest amendment even the shorter lorry won’t fit under the building, so the architect has moved it to beside the building. I think this relates to when they discovered that part of the cliff wall has no proper foundations and doesn’t extend down to the baseline of the building, so they resolved this problem by raising the ground level at the back of the building.






118 comments:

  1. You could always ring the local optimistic SFP Venture's spokesperson/estate agent who has just seen £400k commission go down the pan, for his take on it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a very good suggestion of yours. Have you rung him? What did he say?

      Delete
  2. what soul destroying drawings

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps, 1.59, he could form a group "Lost profits".

    ReplyDelete
  4. ice skating arena here we come?????

    ReplyDelete
  5. So when are we going to see the transparency that Clive and Co are always bragging about? And why did Iris rush back from Dublin this week?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have published the council’s “statement” in the form of an update to the post.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Will no one rid us of this debacle.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It is apparent from the evidence that SFP will never have the finace. Why is it then that TDC is so set on retaining SFP as the developer? Anyway who the hell are SFP; are they owned by people resident in Thanet? If so what if anything does this signify?

    ReplyDelete
  9. The get rich quick local boys have really come unglued.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I dare any Councillor ( and I reckon a lot of you read this blog) to answer my question or John's question above. Clive probably isn't brave enough so maybe he could get Iris to answer - after all everyone knows that she's the only one with any b**ls in this Labour-run fiasco. At the moment we are leaving the whole of this in the hands of a failed Chief Engineer from the ferries.
    Ian Driver reads this - any comments Ian?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was that the ferry that fell over by any chance?

      Delete
  11. I feel a fundamental point is being missed here in that the current financial conditions throughout the country that have so badly affected the construction industry were created by the previous government ably assisted by the banking brotherhood.

    The conditions created will continue to impact this country for many years to come and while many of the correspondents take great delight in pointing fingers at local councillors the real issue lies with Brown’s incompetent government!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 7:02PM,

      You do not understand, or effect not understand, that this mysterious SFP cabal has not been able to raise the funds from the outset. This was long before the banking disasters and subsequent recession.

      The evidence suggests to me that SFP are not now, nor ever have been, nor ever will be up to the task.

      And I inquire again who the hell are SFP; are they owned by people resident in Thanet? If so what if anything does this signify?

      Delete
    2. So SFP is secret and had no funds but gained the freehold to Kent's largest seafront development? And 15 years later has no funds? And TDC are holding approval meetings in secret?

      Are you sure?

      Which councillor and civil servant are in charge of this now and in the previous administration?

      Delete
    3. 8.11 you seem to totally confused about this, SFP haven’t acquired the freehold, it is their attempt to do so that has caused the recent publicity and posts here. SFP first tendered for the development 10 years ago not 15.

      Delete
  12. Oh dear Anon, do keep up. This is a local issue, going back to the original fire if you want. You're right that the background issues are there but read Michael's blogs from the past and you'll see that this has been an issue even in the times of plenty

    ReplyDelete
  13. FOR SALE.
    Pre-loved foreshore suitable for outdoor pursuits such as paddling or rock climbing, one previous local owner. Many uses, subject to planning permission, freely available and long lasting. Viewing at any time except exceptionally high tides. Situated behind local art gallery. Must be viewed to believe. Bargain at £5,000,000 ono.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think that without the keen eye of cllr Driver never in a million years would TDC have issued an update so promptly. But what have TDC to negotiate?, their position is very clear and SFP Ventures either have the cash and hotel developer in place or they haven't. Unless of course TDC are now asking for a more realistic higher price and require that the site cannot be sold on.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have looked at this another way. Perhaps TDC are struggling to get rid of SFP and are playing them along, giving them enough rope to hang themselves, whereby TDC can evade penalty payments.

    Maybe TDC are that clever - maybe. But I would still like to know whether SFP is owned by people resident in Thanet? If so what if anything does this signify?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John,
      Ask the "Retired" Engineer. He has been quiet of late.

      Delete
    2. Readit,

      Our 'Retired Engineer' could well be sunning himself in BVI.

      Delete
    3. More likely under an umbrella in Birchington.

      Delete
  16. I guess the real problem here is that there really isn’t a developer involved, by this I mean that the company behind it doesn’t appear to have any track record of having developed anything.

    I think with a less demanding site, not one between the devil of the cliff and the deep blue sea, SFP may have got away with developing something by just using different contractors.

    As they have had the site for about ten years through good and bad economic times and frankly nothing much has happened, there would seem little chance of anything happening now.

    I can’t see anyone, banker or hotelier, financing a new build on a high risk flood zone without a flood risk assessment.

    In the first instance I am hoping that the council can extricate themselves from the situation without incurring much in the way of costs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they get sixteen more contractors to do £1.5 million of work each, they can get it finished.

      Delete

    2. Judging from my personal experience, most construction companies these days are management companies employing sub contractors. But they do understand the construction industry and have highly skilled personnel as managers to oversee the subies. I get the impression that SFP does not fit into this category. SFP appear to be a cabal of unschooled get rich quick merchants, probably living in Thanet.

      Delete
  17. What is very funny here is that the answer is staring everyone in the face yet the anti brigade cannot see it

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, don't keep us in suspense. What is the answer and why is it funny?

      Delete
  18. I have just noticed the staircase that appeared on the later two pictures from the plans for the development. The maximum angle of ascent/descent for a public stair is 38 degrees. These staircases are showing about 50 degrees. Which means,to build them in accordance with Building Regulations they would take up about one and a half times more space than shown. How many other things on this development wouldn't work properly?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Read it - Yet again a comment posted on this blog that attempts to find fault without fact, your calculation of the angle of the staircase is based on a sectional drawing where you assume the staircase to be parallel to the sectional plane, clearly this is not the case and your comment regarding the angle of the staircase is therefore incorrect.

    I understand Michael is a master of engineering, construction, structural engineering, etc and will no doubt explain your error.

    Happy Christmas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey welcome back 'Poop Scoop' AKA 'Retired Engineer'

      Delete
    2. Hi PooP Scoop, Yes I have to concede I did not look at the plan of the stairs , but Hey good news, it brought you out of retirement.

      Delete
  20. Can you spot the dog that doesn't bark even for you PooP Scoop ? To put a perspective on it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Readit Poop Scoop, I have added to the post and included the planning reference and link to the uk planning site so you can look at the various planning sheets.

    Poop Scoop is quite right the angle of the stairs looks wrong because the staircase doesn’t go at right angles to the picture, looking down from above it is turned to the left by more than 45 degrees, which makes it look steeper.

    I also added a detail picture from the most up to date set of plans that are published on the uk planning site, showing the final resolution of the lorry problem, it may well be worth considering that gap the lorry appears in there is said to be a two way road.

    I have considerable reservations about such a narrow road, so close to the cliff for various reasons, not the least of which is the problem of a lorry catching a cliff façade or building support pillar.

    I think the fundamental problem here is the developer’s lack of communication with local people and the developer’s failure to provide mock up photos that reflect all the various changes to the plans.

    I would say that the developer has developed a situation where local people are now very much concerned that the don’t either know what the new development would look like and have a series of unanswered questions, many of which probably have reasonable answers, but not answering them has made people very sceptical of all aspects of the development.

    ReplyDelete
  22. As far as I can see there is only one reason why everything is as it is. Whoever is really behind all this wants the freehold at a bargain price so that they can hang on to the land until prices start to rise and then sell it off for a handsome profit. I think a hotel and flats probably was the original intention but I suspect that idea went out of the window once the EA flood risk assessment was mooted. Even the dopiest or most optimistic developer knows that no insurance company in the world will offer cover for such a risk. Hence spats about which way the stairs go or whether lorries will fit or not are likely to be irrelevant. So the only real question is, who really stands to gain? Presumably selling off the land when prices are low fits in with mainstream Labour policy of selling off assets at the lowest price possible - just think of Gold Reserves if you're struggling here Clive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim,

      I agree. The prize as SFP sees it is the freehold. Which they will sell on.

      Cui bono? They are local, I'm sure of that. As I am equally sure that it is not the Thanet Tax payer.

      Where is our whistle blower!

      Delete
  23. Tom, I wonder how many other properties on the same level and adjacent to the proposed development are also uninsured? Surely TDC would have made sure the pavillian was insured and then there's the Belgium Bar and many others including no doubt those with cellars. Does your concern extend to include these premisis?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you have an existing property within a recently designated flood plain you have to put up with whatever the insurance company demands. This does not make it right to build new ones with the advance knowledge that no flood risk assessment has been carried out.

      Delete
    2. Since I suspect most of the properties are mortgaged I think the answer to your first question is "none". Ken has summed things up quite nicely below, but if you think about it you will realise that a major negative for future buyers is going to be the cost of insurance.
      I live 150 feet above sea level so my concerns regarding sea front properties are esoteric.

      Delete
    3. Poop Scoop,

      I do not know the answer to your question. I give up. Do tell me how many other properties on the same level are uninsured?

      Also, would you buy a flat there if you were unable to insure it against the sea?

      Another important point: will you tell us who owns SFP, are they local to Thanet and are you one of them? Which I suggest that you are.

      Delete
  24. Anyone have any idea which councillor is masquerading as Retired Engineer aka PoopScoop?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tim, I've no idea. But judging from the names he chooses for himself I would look for one that is on the crude side.

      Delete
    2. Somehow Newington keeps springing to mind, and "bints" for some reason

      Delete
    3. Tim, No it is not Newington but sounds similar.

      Delete
    4. Ken. Presumably you're referring to the "ton" bit at the end, not the "Newing" bit at the beginning. Possibly sounds like a settlement with trees commonly found in the Chilterns

      Delete
    5. Tim, Readit,

      I wish I knew who you two were talking about. I'm intrigued.

      Delete
    6. John

      I thought it might have been a rather rude councillor from a Ramsgate ward - recently censured fpr inappropriate language - but Ken thinks not.

      Delete
    7. Newington is not posh enough for a notable retired engineer

      Delete
    8. Come no chaps, your all good at making wild unfounded assumptions... a few clues to help you... I'm never crude and would never call a young lady a bint, nor use any kind of inapproriate language. Also I`m not retired engineer either....although I agree with the content of his previous posts regarding royal Sands

      Delete
    9. Two offshore directors talking to us now, WOW we are making progress

      Delete
    10. Poop Scoop,

      Of course you agree with the comments of retired engineer bearing in mind that you wrote them.

      Are you part of SFP?

      Delete
    11. Wild incorrect assumptions yet again and this is your idea of progress Readit?

      Delete
    12. Poop Scoop,

      Your 3:00PM

      Then take charge an lead the progress. Starting with:

      are you connected in anyway with TDC; are you part of SFP; and will you benefit financially from the Royal Sands Development?

      Delete
    13. Poop Scoop, you are either involved with SFP, or daft enough to defend them so we can have a debate on the matter. That to me is progress of some kind. Your admission of involvement would be better.

      Delete
    14. Readit,

      There is a third option which is that Poop Scoop is nothing more than an internet troll.

      Delete
    15. Yes you are right John, either an internet troll or a SFP troll

      Delete
    16. He's a new name in this area - my guess is a nonentity of some description. I doubt if he's SFP - they are hardly likely to be concerned about what people on here think given that they seem to be able to convince Clive and his mates that they still have development plans. If Rebecca Smith was even a bit of a decent journalist she would be nipping away at this story but of course she isn't.

      Delete
    17. Tim I'd be pleased if you could ellaborate on how you judge someone to be a nonentity based on a couple of posts to this blog?

      You assume I'm new to the area, is this new to this blog site or new to Thanet? Another clue...Thanet born and bred..




      Delete
    18. Poop Scoop,

      Another clue, you say. A clue to what? Your persistent posturing as a man of mystery is risible in the extreme.

      Delete
  25. See the Coiffed One has just published "ROYAL SANDS - THE FACTS" (his capitals) on Twitter. It's yesterday's press release so no need to rush off and look but it shows how rattled they are. As John has said, we need a whistleblower.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And now the Diversity Champion and his Cllr Doctor sidekick have threatened Cllr Driver with the sack. Given his political background I would guess that has him quivering in his boots!

      Delete
  26. Pleasurama tax havens. TDC FOI of salaries and expenses. Manston monitors and fines. Shtum payments for the Gang of Four. O% salaries. Chinagateway bungs and EKO invoices.Censored webcams for public meetings. Pollution reports.

    So much silence from our councillors.

    When will they release documents, public debate etc? Perhaps corruption and incompetence is the best we can expect from TDC and Kent Police.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you have evidence of illegal going ons then why don't you report it?

      Delete
    2. Who to? Sandy? McGonigal? The councillors that signed off the shtum payments?

      You're not saying the above is acceptable are you? Or in doubt?

      Delete
    3. There's other ways, as you know full well... the police, the press, private eye, wikileaks, you could even upload the info onto a blog of your own.

      Delete
    4. OK - what about the 0% salaries then. That's minuted as within the same TDC meeting as a salary increase for Samuel and White then no increase by Sandy and Moores. Who would you report that to? Or is that in doubt? Or not fraud?

      Ask for FOI of the minutes and detail them here. Also the shtum payoffs.

      Delete
    5. No, I'm asking YOU for the proof. I'm not going to look for it myself.

      Delete
    6. Then you're just lazy. Or wanting to play devil's advocate.

      I'm not going to spoonfeed you, or feel any need to justify the issues to you.

      The points on Thor and 0% etc are summarised above.

      If you want the detailed FOI documents then go get them.

      Delete
    7. In other words you're making accusations but don't have the proof. Thanks for the clarification.


      Delete
    8. Not at all Peter, the facts are very clear (they're not allegations) and supported by FOI documents and in the public domain certainly with 0% salaries, Manston monitors, MOD Fire etc.

      I'm just not prepared to go to the bother of sending them to you as some sort of justification for you or circular debate.

      Like I said, get any documents or other proof you feel you need yourself, if you want detailed support to the above points.

      You've often spoken on how TDC is a useless council etc, well do something about it rather than blog whining.

      Or, assume that all the above is incorrect, and actually Manston, Thor etc are not polluting, the 0% salary didn't happen or if it did is perfectly fine etc etc etc.

      Delete
    9. I thought this discussion was about the Pleasurama site, not Manston, Thor, etc???

      Maybe the problems there ARE down to corruption, but until I see evidence (rather than just reading anonymous and possibly libelous comments) I suspect it's more down to sheer incompentence.

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

      Delete
    11. Michael, are you happy with people posting potentially libelous anonymous comments???

      Delete
    12. As Peter confirms potentially libellous comment deleted and peter if you spot any more please let me know, I am working through the 100 comments on this thread at the moment, not something I relish doing on Christmas day.

      6.12 will you consider this as a final warning before I delete your comments as they occur without reference. I can only assume that you are trying to get this bog closed down for reasons of your own.

      Delete
    13. Thank you Michael, and will do. Enjoy the rest of your Christmas.

      Delete
    14. Let's agree some clarity on the blog policy here for potentially libellous comments then.

      That's very broad: anything is potentially libellous. I don't think a minor Thanet blog -usually about TDC - is Wikileaks (although some of the corruption features nationally) or will somehow be sued or closed down? Who's scaring you with that?

      And certainly not for comments you haven't even made. You usually delete rude or nasty comments anyway.

      But let's clarify discussing TDC is OK? Public policy and use of funds etc? So we can discuss the 0% salaries here? Pleasurama? Can we say the word corruption?

      Anything we can't discuss?

      Happy Xmas by the way!

      Delete
    15. You can say whatever you want (and risk the potential consequences) on your OWN blog... but as Michael pointed out, perhaps you have some sort of hidden agenda and want to get this blog closed down?

      Delete
    16. Anonymous 5:06 AM,

      I suggest that you look up the law of libel.

      I think you will discover among other things that you cannot libel a class of people. For example it is not libellous to say that all lawyers are thieving scoundrels; however, it would be libellous to say this about a named lawyer. Additionally, you cannot libel someone if you do not know who they are. For example, you post as 'anonymous', I do know know who you are, so I could say whatever I wish about you with impunity.

      Delete
    17. Agreed Peter and John, and as my post comments such as "Fred Bloggs is a youknowwhat" are removed fairly promptly. You can libel a class of people but it's termed racism. And if you know a thieving scoundrel is a lawyer then it's fine to say so - again within certain bounds. Free speech protects your right to free speech against libel etc.

      Much of this blog though is discussing TDC and public funds which is especially a part of free speech. Even more so with FOI.

      If Michael posted libellous/random/nasty comments then he'd rightly be sued and the blog removed. Frankly a few of the councillors and civil servants should be sacked and sued for their behaviour.

      However if other people ie you and me and anyone else are making fair comment then action against Michael and the blog is extremely unlikely. Especially as Michael tends to have a fairly even-handed approach with comments and editing/removing them. And it's not Wikileaks is it.

      What are you afraid of?

      By not discussing Pleasurama etc you've effectively closed the blog down yourselves or it degenerates into the Poopscoop drivel.

      You'd be right to mention TDC trying the blog protocol idiocy a while ago but that was largely to limit free speech by councillors - and it was overturned.

      The Gazette etc should be more proactive on investigative journalism and interviewing TDC officials and Infratil too: free speech and a free press and all that.

      We have a notoriously incompetent and corrupt council with TDC. Let's discuss it.

      Let's openly discuss Pleasurama and the 0% salaries and MOD Fire pollution - they're public policies and funds not a private business or person.

      What do you think about them?

      Peter's right to raise issues of proof - but what would be required? Burglars don't leave signed confessions before they burgle your house. Nor afterwards.

      I think Pleasurama is blatant corruption, as is 0% salary with the Gang of Four etc. I think MOD Fire is utter incompetence but deliberately polluting the public now.

      I'm sure we can quibble on minor details, but what's your view on Pleasurama, 0% salary and MOD Fire?

      Polluting the public is a far worse crime than libel.

      What do you think?



      Delete
    18. I think you're "Retarded" (or is it "Retired"?), that's what.

      Delete
    19. anonymous 3.34PM

      You have conflated the words class and race.

      Delete
  27. Nice one Peter, at last a voice of reason...

    ReplyDelete
  28. What do you think is going on then Peter? First of all a mysterious fire then endless years of inactivity that puts even the delay for the TC into the shade. Innumerable numbers of councillors try to bamboozle everyone with figures and legalese, because either they don't understand things themselves or they don't want us to understand.
    Oh,I know. You're going to say it's Ramsgate and nothing to do with you aren't you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Oh I realise now, it's the same people who was (alledgedly) behind the Deal Brrracks thing that Retarded still harps on about...

      Delete
    3. Were there any views on Pleasurama and 0% salaries from the above? I think it's blatant and deliberate corruption by TDC civil servants and councillors. The loss to the taxpayer is huge.

      The sooner Pleasurama is cancelled and the Police called in to prosecute both it and 0% salaries the better. Obviously the civil servants and councillors are reluctant to do that - but it is election year so the public can insist as a condition of re-election.

      What does Peter or anyone else think?

      Delete
  29. I live 500 yards from the Royal Sands site and I had no problem getting home insurance......They are now going to build an international airport on the Goodwin Sands so why on earth is everyone getting so excited about the Roayl Sands site...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RDS I don’t see insurance as an important problem, I assume the whole development will be insured on a block policy, the individual leaseholders paying the freeholders to insure.

      What I do see as a problem is getting a development loan and financial commitment from a hotelier for a new build on a high risk flood zone without a fra, going against EA advice at this level makes no sense. Even more nonsensical is that any costal defence works would almost certainly be financed out of the national costal protection budget.

      From the developers point of view, the worst case scenario would be having to change the level of the baseline and only if an expert in costal flooding had calculated that this was necessary, the alternative being investing over £20m without assessing the problem and risking some sort of disaster.

      It’s one thing me saying the Titanic needs more lifeboats, but ignoring the board of trade saying the number of lifeboats needs assessing by an expert is a different matter completely.

      As to building on The Goodwins, have you ever been out there? I have a few times and it aint a place I would chose for anything apart from avoiding.

      Delete
    2. Word on the grapevine is that no hoteliers are interested

      Delete
    3. scatology at 9:40,

      No one is building an airport on the Goodwins. This is nothing more than a back of an envelope proposal.

      Neither do I believe that you live 500 yards from Royal Sands.

      Delete
    4. I have it on good authority that Richard Branson is behind the Goodwin Sands Airport....dont scoff....who would have ever thought 35 yrs ago that you would cross the channel through a tunnel......Progress

      Delete
    5. Retired Dog Turd you are really winding me up.......

      Delete
    6. Well as construction began on the tunnel 38 years ago I'd say quite a few people!

      Delete
    7. To the scatological one @ 11:41

      Your attempting to use my name is pointless. That it is not in truth me will be clear to anyone with half a brain..... well enough said, I suppose.

      Delete
    8. Here is another clue. I do not know much about anything. But I like winding people up. It makes me feel important. I am an internet troll.

      Delete
    9. Wind up? Surely not? Everything on here's based on factual evidence otherwise this blog becomes pointless speculation!

      Delete
    10. Poop Scoop 8:26 AM

      You are the product of pointless... something or other.

      Delete
  30. Replies
    1. I really am Dog Turd

      Delete
    2. Retired Engineer aka by numerous scatological names,

      Do you not have the wit to see that you cannot disguise your posts as coming from me - you clown.

      We have had some weirdos on here: but in your case the scum has really risen to the top.

      Delete
    3. Dont Bite the MessengerDecember 24, 2012 10:49 pm

      Who let the dogs out...woof woof

      Delete
    4. I cannot take myself seriously.....

      Delete
    5. The cretin who wrote the above in my name is a well know internet troll.

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

      Delete
  31. Opps sounds like someone's put thier foot in it!

    Happy Christmas Alan

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous @6:02PM.

    You say. "Don't worry John we can tell the difference between your elaborate pseudo-intellectual posts..".

    I assuming that you actually understand the meaning of the words you have just used. As such, between the two of you, I prefer Poop Scoop. At least he knows he is a twit.

    To be called a pseudo intellectual by someone like you I take as a compliment.

    But Hold on of course you are 'Poop Scoop' 'Dog Turd' etc, etc etc.

    And now I'm going back to continue enjoying my party.

    ReplyDelete
  33. No John. Wrong on almost all counts as so often. But elaborate guff as always which I find amusing. DogPoop seems to think you're a twit too so you're in good company. Moving the conversation on what are your thoughts - no pseudointellectual guff please - about the missing Manston fines and jailing McGonigal?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous 7:16,

    Can you please explain what you mean by 'pseudo intellectual'. I infer your frequent usage is nothing more than a rather infantile attempt at insult. It is clearly a favourite phrase of yours. I expect you use it all the time, especially when someone has the temerity to disagree with you. Even more so when they include words of more than one syllable.

    In your world I imagine that you and your ilk walk about in threes. One to read, one to write and one to keep an eye on the two intellectuals.

    I will endeavour - oops sorry- try to keep my words to just one syllable or two in order to facilitate you comprehension. So I have failed. Never mind. I expect you have a friend? who can lend you a dictionary.

    You have been gratuitously rude and insulting. In these circumstances why would you imagine that I would want to discuss Manston or anything else with with you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I fell asleep reading this John. What's the gist of it?

      You mentioned Manston at the end though - what about it? I think the overflights are illegal and very polluting. What do you think?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 9:40PM,

      If you think the overflights are illegal then do something about it. Why do you need my opinion.

      Delete
    3. I was asking your opinion on the overflights John. As a pensioner with nothing to do but write your pseudo-intellectual guff and elderly lung capacity you might come up with something interesting.

      Where did your views on (possible-alleged-maybe) corruption at Pleasuramam end up? Call for a whisleblower was it?

      Delete
    4. anonymous 2:22PM

      You post as anonymous, but I know who you are. I have seen you on the clifftop tossing breadcrumbs to helicopters.

      Delete
  35. Of late this blog has been infested by trolls. Or to be more accurate, one troll masquerading as others.

    It's my own fault; I should just ignore him.

    ReplyDelete
  36. The man with no nameDecember 26, 2012 12:22 pm

    Don't believe everything you read, herer endeth the first lesson

    ReplyDelete
  37. Excellent post in the IOTG letters column today.......Bayford the Driver of Hypocrosy

    ReplyDelete
  38. Such a waste of land.Can't TDC use it for seafront parking? I used to pound the beat in Ramsgate between 1977-1997 got some great memories of the town and front! Let's hope one day the land is used by someone please!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it might encourage people to come and shop in Ramsgate.

      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.