Friday, 15 March 2013

Ramble about blogs, spam, libel and stuff.


A landmark case today about suing the council, videoing council meetings and being careful about what appears on the blogs about the council, here is the news item http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-21798153 and here is case http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/515.html

I guess with ECR going to ground over spam http://eastcliffrichard.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/spam-makes-me-sick.html and all of the other hostile comment I realise that I am either going to have throw in the blogging towel or take up some different approach.

To be honest the spam isn’t the worst of it, the most time consuming is the potentially hostile comment, that may contain something libellous, of course it may not but often it’s hard to tell.

The law on this is bouncing about all over the place, in layman’s terms at the moment I take it that roughly having a blog means that it is the blog owners responsibility to remove anonymous libellous comment, this is comment that has anonymous and comment that has a name by it, but this doesn’t form a link to a profile page.

There are also those profiles that lead to a page saying this person hasn’t shared their profile and it isn’t really possible to tell who that person really is, bit of a grey area this.

My take here is that this blog isn’t particularly popular among councillors of both main political parties at TDC nor is it popular among some of the senior officers.  And quite a few of them would like to see it go. 

There are very few popular Thanet blogs this a list of the top few according to my referral statistics.

birchington.blogspot.co.uk
eastcliffrichard.blogspot.co.uk
nakedinthanet.blogspot.co.uk
bignewsmargate.blogspot.co.uk
thanetpress.blogspot.co.uk
margatearchitecture.blogspot.co.uk
thanetcoastlife.blogspot.co.uk        

Most popular at the top, as thanetpress.blogspot.co.uk is one I run I can say that this one is at about the point where spam and hostile comment becomes a minor irritant, it gets about a hundredth of the problem that this blog does. Although it gets about a third of the readership, I guess there is a point below which people don’t bother much as it isn’t really worth the effort.

One way of dealing with the hostile and spam comment is to operate comment moderation, to be honest I don’t really have the time. another is to regulate who can comment, which is what I do when I go to sleep or am too busy to keep an eye on the comment.
On to today’s Gazette where I get the impression the repercussion of the Ezekiel trial are going to rumble on for some time, the same with Pleasurama, I think the key here is the council are going to have to consider becoming much more transparent in their dealings with the public.  




67 comments:

  1. Michael it is important to be able to post blogs that keep TDC on the straight and narrow. my take on the BBC news and the courtcase was the blogger couldnt prove (to the courts at least) that what she was saying was true. posting libellous comments doesnt prove she was wrong but that she had no proof she was right

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hmmm posting alarmist BS, without basis in fact, and attempting to draw conclusions from that BS that are then claimed as fact, now, I wonder who would be very adept at such practices..

    Perhaps the old adage "never trust someone whose name consists of 2 christian" names really did have some merit.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Can someone clarify what Barry James (who?) has done exactly? John's crypic post on his own blog (something about a puddle) doesn't exactly explain things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's an alarmist BS'er Peter, happy to attack people's families with what he thinks is evidence, but is merely easily found public information. He is your typical fool with a little knowledge, and thinks he's a detective, he must have a badge, because nothing else supports that view.

      Delete
    2. Oh and feel free to post on my blog James, unlike the bottleless Driver, i don't censor comments on my blog.

      Got the courage my boy?

      Delete
    3. Michael I thought defamatory comments werent supposed to be used on your blog. Nobody was attacked so this above is libellous

      Delete
  4. I dont think (without being defamatory) JH can. when he dont like someone, for whatever wierd reason, he launches into attack dog mode. On his own blog, so people tell me, he writes whatever he wants without posting any proof but then "why let the truth spoil a good story". I am quite happy to debate any point out in the real world face to face however I doubt he would want to do that.
    He seems to think that its ok to be vitriolic as he/she believes there will be no come back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would I ever want to waste my valuable freetime engaging in humiliating a fool such as you James by showing up your alarmist bullshit up for what it is. Tell me James, how many houses were washed away, and people killed during the latest appalling flood you assert has hit Ramsgate sands?

      If you have no answer, at least be honest, that would make a nice change for you ;-) Be as vitriolic as you think you can James, I do it better, I do it with facts, and most importantly, I don't make claims and accusations I can;t back up my boy ;-)

      Delete
    2. odd language most people use other peoples christian names. The only 2 types od people who tend to do this is Army and Toffs.

      Delete
    3. Or people who are clearly superior to those they are addressing James. Still no evidence to back up your flooding BS James, perhaps you would like to try to prove the dire threat you claim exists..

      Delete
  5. Thanks for the "clarification"... : /

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What clarification exactly was that then, Peter? You asked "Can someone clarify what Barry James has done exactly?" The reply you got attacks John Hamilton, goes into some meaningless rubbish about face to face debates, but, most pertinently, tells you nothing about Barry James. I accept that such is his privilege to preserve his privacy, but, clarification you most certainly did nmot get.

      Delete
    2. Which exactly why I used double inverted commas (or quotation marks)... to clarify, I agree with you!

      Delete
    3. That was very unobservant of me. Humble apologies and, like you, I remain mystified about the puddle.

      Delete
  6. Michael,

    The spam and the libelous annonymice are a pain in the neck. They are also rather silly and certainly boring. Some are obscene and clearly emanate from a disturbed mind. You actions to curtail and cleanse these posts is reasonable. In these circumstances I would argue that you could not be held responsible for the odd one that crawls through while you are not looking. As I say, you are behaving in a reasonable manner, which in my experience counts for much in law.

    You are clearly a thorn in the side for some in TDC - good. I suggest that these few are against you because they have something to hide. So they are unlikely to turn to the law. Instead they might well choose to become anonymice in the hope of scaring you off. Surely, any subsequent court case would include tracking down these anonymice, who may well be connected to TDC and would not want to be exposed.

    It is my understanding that you cannot libel a class of people. One can therefore say that TDC are a bunch of ........ with impunity.

    Don't give up, Michael.


    ReplyDelete
  7. why is asking to meet face to face "meaningless"?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have chosen to ignore the Hamilton troll. He is clearly deranged and indicates that it's not only the left who have the screwed up faced career haters.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have chosen to ignore the Hamilton troll. He is clearly deranged and indicates that it's not only the left who have the screwed up faced career haters.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am more than happy to meet with any of you, however I really have difficulty in understanding just why people hiding behind a blog or Facebook account don’t want to meet face to face and just why Tom thinks it is "meaningless rubbish" I really don’t have a problem with meeting face to face in the real world. Strange that the word attack was used though by Tom. Should you be an reader of JH's blog (as others have told me) I think that "attack dog" mode is very appropriate. And I assume that JH would take the opportunity to defend his reputation but whether he/she will do it on Michael's blog remains to be seen. As to clarification it is JH’s prerogative to explain why he posted the “puddle” blog, only he/she will be able to explain the reasoning behind it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Barry,

      I'll meet you face to face, providing you are buying the drinks.

      Delete
    2. Barry, time and again around these blogs I have heard people offering to meet others in face to face siutaions, be that debate or pistols at dawn, but it simply does not happen. That is why I said it is meaningless. If we want face to face we will attend a public debate not try to call out unknown people on a blogsite.

      Delete
    3. tried to send you an email from your contct page and it bounced John

      Delete
    4. Barry,

      I asuume you mean the link on my website. I've just tested it and it works ok. Don't know why your email bounced.

      Delete
    5. Once again James, I have no compunction to waste my valuable time ridiculing you in person, I have no need to "hide" both this, and my FB profile are clearly real and genuine.

      Perhaps you would like to explain why you are whining about a non existant flood risk at pleasurama, making yourself look a prat, and costing the FORS group credibility? And that is only 1 example of your bullshit.

      Tell me, I wonder what motive someone who deals in social housing would have attacking private housing that will add to Ramsgate's housing stock...

      Delete
  11. I wouldn't want to meet any of you face to face! ; )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about if we took our clothese off, Peter.

      Delete
    2. That's what I'm worried about!

      Delete
  12. not a problem so long as you buy me one in return. sometimes reading these posts I wonder if some posters cannot meet as they only believe they exist.

    ReplyDelete
  13. https://www.facebook.com/groups/141114082690049/#!/groups/516220578418850/ join FORS on Facebook and we can exchange personal messages

    ReplyDelete
  14. The main things to remember are that it isn't libel if it's true, and they can't get any money out of you if you don't have any. Interestingly, few libel actions are ever mounted against people of limited means. It comes as no surprise to me that some of the individuals in Thanet who happily publish allegations under their own names have never been sued for libel. Of course, those who want to hide their wrongdoing will always resort to threatening legal action claiming they have been libelled. I don't have any magic answers because I can't tell what is true and what is not. I'm just grateful for investigative journalists who are prepared to take on "the great and the good" and defy the threats and intimidation. Perhaps, the suggestion here is that those who have information pertaining to wrongdoing should set up their own blog to publish it, rather than hijacking somebody else's space. After all it is really easy to set up a blog of your own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so long as you have the proof and not the belief

      Delete
  15. Has anyone actually met this Hamilton fellow or know who he is?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I've come to the conclusion that
    1. John Hamilton is a nom de plume
    2. John Hamilton is closely connected with either SFP or the Council
    3. There is history between Barry James (whoever he may be) and John Hamilton
    4. John Hamilton doesn't have much of a grasp of English, nor much of a handle on the history of the Pleasurama/Royal Sands site. If he did he would know that no-one is claiming that the site is about to be flooded but a competent body - the Environment Agency - thinks that the site meets the criteria for the developers to carry out a flood risk assessment.

    Back to ignoring the unpleasant little man.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting observations, Tim, but has anyone in the Thanet blogging world actually met you or I and does it much matter. In this format we voice opinions and others respond. All these attempts to put faces to names, or in Worrow's case, names he wants us to be to names is all a little childish as well as being futile.

      On the flood risk, whilst you well sum up the actual situation, there have been those, BJ included, who have made so much of this issue that one is left to wonder why there was ever a railway station or a fun fair on the site without massive loss of life.

      Delete
    2. I have to say Tom that I had never come across Barry James until he started to cross swords with Hamilton over Royal Sands. It would appear that they know each other - I can't think of any other explanation for the curious puddle posting.

      One last thought on the flood risk. I was on the Main Sands years ago with the kids when one of the catamarans came in to the port. About 10 minutes later a huge wave washed right up the beach, causing everyone there to beat a very hasty retreat to the road. Even there we got our feet wet. This phenomenon is well known in the marine community and wave cats usually have all sorts of risk assessments and designated routes to try and prevent this. However, the point I am making is that, on a lovely summers day, with no wind to speak of, the sea road was flooded by a seacat. A flood risk assessment seems a necessary thing to me and I'm sure many insurers will be interested as well.

      Delete
    3. I cannot say from a technical point of view whether or not a flood risk assessment is required. But I do know that the sea has a history of killing people. Especially when they least expect it.

      Delete
    4. Tim until I joined FORS I had never heard of JH we certainly dont have a history and I dont understand what he means by my "dealing in social housing". I also believe the point about a Flood Risk Assessment was made by Michael several times in his blogs and on FORS FB site

      Delete
    5. Tim, I must admit that until recently I had not heard of either Barry James or John Hamilton, though agree it does look like they have some previous together. Interesting though that they have appeared very actively just before the KCC elections and, in the case of JH, given Ian Driver an awful lot of his beloved notoriety. Even more interesting is that one of the few links on Driver's Red Thanet is to the John Hamilton site. Maybe I am being ultra cynical, but you never know.

      Delete
    6. Oh dear Tim, you're not having a good day are you;

      1. wrong
      2. wrong
      3. only in as far as I have been challenging his attacks on the families of people he doesn't like, and his BS for a few weeks.
      4. As Pleasurama managed to stand for 160years, I think that deals with the "flood risk" very nicely.

      Sadly Tim, your comments have as little value as the concern I have that you have returned to the playground to ignore the better man :-)

      A wave from a sea cat = requiring a flood risk assesment, hang on, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA yea right oh! The wake from the larger Sally ferries was a LOT bigger, and guess what, Pleasurama never washed away! As a kid, I would rush into the sea to play in the wake, and the boarders used to come down to surf the wake according to the sailing schedule! Let's see, I wonder in the already extant houses along marine terrace manage to get mortgages and insurance. Seems you've fallen for James's bullshit Tim, why am I not surprised!

      Sadly not Tom, there is no other link between me and the fat lad except the fact I really have an issue with loud mouthed bullshitters such as him and James.

      Delete
    7. PS I have been around the FB world for sometime, as the occutards whose arses I kick on a regular basis will atest. But blogging is very new to me. I started my page a couple of weeks ago.

      Delete
    8. John you seem to have got into a bit of a tangle with this flood risk business, before I try to untangle it a couple of questions.

      1 Marine Terrace, are you aware that there is no such place in Ramsgate? Although there is a Marine Terrace in Margate.

      2 Are you aware that it isn’t the local bloggers that have called for this flood risk assessment but the environment agency?

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

      Delete
    10. If geography is not JH's strong point History is also problematic as Pleasurama is or was a fairly recent iteration. Up to 1926 it was a railway station. it was also the site of HMS Fervent amongst other uses. So JH's use of bullshit must of been him talking to himself

      Delete
    11. Apologies Michael, Marina Esplande/Granville Marina, I apologise if that caused confusion.

      I think you'll find Michael that EA stated that they wouldn;t be able to put forward an opinion without a risk assesment, and that if planning consent was sought todat, one would be required, and that (unsurprisingly given that if they said one wasn't needed they would be sued senseless in the event of a flood that has NEVER occured on the site) they would recommend one (having been asked). But to say they have called for one over states the case somewhat.

      You will probably also remember that the letter stated that the development was being built at a level higher than they would recommend.

      I have respect for your opinion Michael, it is honestly held, if (in my opinion) incorrect. James however aires this mythical flood risk as a risk of death and destruction the like of which has never occured in Thanet's history, posting pictures of mere puddles and waves breaking over a sea wall as some kind of proof. Clearly James is no more than an amatuer protester, with a vested interest in the Thanet property market.

      Oh James, you poor tragic boy, you know pleasureama was the old converted station building, that stood since the mid 18's, and STUNNINGLY has never washed away, despite it never having had a risk assesment before it was built! Bullshit is a language you are clearly highly conversant in James, it's the only language you ever post in.

      So will we now be treated to your evidence of deveastating floods at the pleasurama site, that have clearly taken so many lives, that give rise to your concern..

      Delete
    12. John you have to appreciate with this type of thing you need to compare like with like and Granville Marina although it looks impressive during a storm sits behind a modern EA maintained concrete sea defence, the recent and current building work there being screwed to the bedrock below with bored concrete piles.

      In Thanet, in fact in the whole of Kent it would be very difficult to find a foreshore residential development that wasn’t behind an EA maintained sea defence.

      The only exceptions I know of have some means of escape either to the cliff top or directly behind, because there is no cliff. The exception here being the Pleasurama site where the sea defence dates from 1860 and has no maintenance record and because of the cliff no real means of escape.

      Back when the the EA produced their recommendations there was some comment like the one you have made here, suggesting that this was a matter of form from the EA, so I got Roger Gale and Laura Sandys to get written confirmation for me, from the chief EA officers for the southeast that these were genuine concerns. I have this written confirmation.

      I think the key with The Royal Sands is the absence of an experienced developer and a point of contact with any understanding of the issues. Obviously no proper explanation from the developer causes a lack of confidence over the whole issue.

      Historically there have actually had two serious incidents, one during the 1897 storm where most of the buildings there were demolished by the sea and one during the 1953 storm when the sea threw a 12 ton crane over the sea defence and into the site about where the developer intends to put an indoor children’s play area, these incidents are documented in the local paper archives.

      Another key issue is the surrounding infrastructure, cliff wall, sea wall and to a lesser extent foul sewage, this all dates from between 1860 and 1937 and much of it will need either to last for the life of the development or will need to be repaired and replaced during the life of the development.

      Ideally one would start with new infrastructure, but at the very least the infrastructure should be properly assessed before starting the development, a flood risk assessment, survey of the sea defence and of course a proper cliff wall assessment taking one beyond the “short serviceable life” expressed in the main survey.

      Obviously I have the documentary evidence to support what I am saying here, cliff surveys, EA letters, FRAs for surrounding developments, historic newspaper articles detailing cliff collapses there and storm damage incidents there, the removal of the sand that protected the sea defence in 1953 and so on.

      Even the TDC Conservative group have issued a press release saying they are now supportive of a FRA, the developer has produced no explanation, counter argument or documentation, the Labour cabinet member in charge of the issue seems to be keen on going ahead without explanation, the council officers seem to be mostly concerned about future litigation and covering their backs, you seem to be supporting development without normal precautions from a position from anonymity and I am curios as to why.

      Do you have any documentation supporting your stance?

      Delete
    13. Concise and precise, Michael

      Delete
    14. Doubt if you'll get a reaction to that fairly conclusive put down Michael. And all without having to resort to personal abuse. Keep it up.

      Delete
    15. Thank you Michael I couldnt have put it better myself. and JH I have never stated it would flood and cause massive loss of life at the Pleasurama site, doing an FRA should be done to see if the plans need changing. Even posting about the waves reaching the Beach Retreat end of the road proves one thing the water can reach the buildings even behind proper flood defences during a storm

      Delete
    16. Oh Tim, the only thing you seem to excell in is making in accurate posts, still, it's good to see you have a talent in some area, no matter how lame and without value. I would invite you to read my disection of the scaremongering, but I fear it will simply be beyond your understanding :-)

      Michael,
      I do indeed agree that like must be compared with like, that's why I laugh so heartily when poor ole James comments pictures of waves breaking over the harbour wall, and tries to dishonestly extrapolate that as a result, people will be at dire risk in any development at pleasurama.

      Michael, did you really expect to get a letter from the cheif of the EA stating, "no, we aren;t really concerned, we are just covering our arse"? That i would suggest is more than a little naive.

      During your 2 "serious incidents", was the station/pleasurama washed away? The solution to the "serious incident" in 53 would seem to be, don't park construction equipment on the beach, and seeing as i have yet to see that practice being common place, I think we can discount any further instances of seabourne plant be launched landward. Indeed, it's good to see that the sea defences were strudy enough to withstand the assault of waterbourne heavy plant.

      It seems that the instances you detail prove quite nicely that there is little if any significant rosk on the pleasurama site. There has never been a need for "alternative means of escape" in over 150 years of the development of the site.

      Apart from alarmist fear mongering there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of anything other than a theorhetical risk. As we know experience trumps theory every time, and 160 years of experience tells us that the sea defences are more than adequate, and indeed, in the EA reply, even they state that the building would be above the level they recommend.

      Normal precautions do not include making pointless reports ad infinitum, then scaremongering about theorhetical risks that 100's of years experience prove are no more than that, theorhetical.

      The rest of Granville Marina only go to prove that properties along the seafront there are clearly both insurable and mortgageable, which seeing as they are in fact lower than the residencies at pleasurama would be, would seem to blow James continuing bullshit nicely out of the floodwater.

      Simply put Michael, there has NEVER been any appreciable damage to any structure, nor loss of live to anyone anywhere near the pleasurama site, in over 160 years of it being used as an amenity to the public. As we know, proving a negative is impossible, and you have presented no evidence to the contrary.

      Anonimity Michael? My name is at the begining of this post, I have indeed met you a few times in your bookshop. I spent sometime talking to you about classic cars, my Stag, and indeed looking over that one you used to keep out the back of your store, though I can't remember whether it was a Triumph or an MG.

      Well that's good then James, as it's clear there is no risk of a Noah like event any time soon, perhaps you will move on to bullshit about another issue, and try to allow FORS to regain the credibility your continuing irrelevant daubings have cost it.

      Yep, water reached the road James and formed that DIRE risk to life and limb, called a puddle, sadly, you managed to safely negotiate said puddle, well done, it must have been a long, difficuly and dangerous encounter with life threatening conditions!

      Delete
    17. John Hamilton,

      The thrust of your argument is that there has not been a flood disaster in the past 160 years and, therefore, not strengthening the flood defences is an acceptable risk to life. This is akin to saying that I always overtake on the brow of a hill because there has never been a car coming the other way.

      If I were to be held personally responsible then I would strengthen the flood defences. This bearing in mind that the sea has a history of killing people, and that our weather is turning more severe.

      As an aside: you may wish to use a spelll chiker; it would make your posts that nuch easier to reed.

      Delete
    18. Sorry John, it's more like saying that I have never been hit on the head by a parachutist, whilst walking to Tesco's, so best I by a crash helmet just in case I am. There has NEVER been loss of life, nor has a building EVER been flattened by the action of the sea on the pleasurama site.

      Osama Bin Laden has a record of killing people, but it's unlikely I will be his next victim, as there is no history of him attempting to do so, no evidence that that situation will change any time soon. Let's also keep in mind that the building, by the EA's own definition, would be at a higher level that the EA would require.

      Thanks for the helpful tip re spelling, when I remember I shall, my typing is as appalling as James grip of relevant information.

      Delete
    19. John Hamilton,

      You are saying nothing more than you would personally accept the risk to life. Which in your opinion is negligible.

      If we are to pursue the analogies, especially those connected with the sea, there was once a learned gentleman who considered the Titanic to be unsinkable, and that he did not have to worry about the adequacy of the lifeboats. But the icebergs came too far south that year. Which was most inconvenient.

      In common with others, I sometimes find it easy to tell people what to do. But what, what if the decision and responsibility were mine and mine alone. Would I take the risk, especially when there is no need to do so?

      In these circumstances I would order the strengthening of the sea defences in the knowledge that the sea has a history of killing people, and that our weather is growing more severe.

      Delete
    20. John,

      Please see my earlier post. Where I say, "You are saying nothing more than you would personally accept the risk to life. Which in your opinion is negligible." This is in the context of flood defences alone. I apologise if this was not clear at the time.

      Delete
    21. John I guess one of the main reasons why the serious incidents didn’t cause fatalities is because when they happened the site was pretty much exclusively used by the public in the summer and these incidents, flood and cliff collapse are weather related so occurred in the winter months when the site was deserted.

      Part of the issue here is changing a summer leisure site to a residential site, with people living there all the year round. However the key here is to do with the age of man made infrastructure that was built in 1860, there were some teething troubles with the structures relating to this, which was all part of the railway extension from Herne Bay to Ramsgate. Several structures were condemned at the time and delayed the opening of the new line until 1863. After that the infrastructure lasted well for 90 years. The first major failure being the north Wansum sea defence, part of the same expansion, this failed in 1953, loss of about 10 sq miles of land in one night. The next big failure was the 1937 cliff collapse that lead to the construction of the arched part of the façade behind the site, in winter so no fatalities. The next big failure was in 1967 when part of the cliff structure at the Pleasurama site collapsed, this was also part of the 1860 infrastructure for the railway expansion. No fatalities from this one was due to luck, the fire service were about a day digging through thousands of tons of rubble looking for bodies, photo of them digging if you want.

      But no I am not saying that the infrastructure is dangerous, nor am I saying it’s safe, only that it should be properly assessed and any problems resolved prior to having people living there.

      The don’t park plant on the beach isn’t a solution, as it could just have easily been a 12 ton vessel that had become detached from its anchorage.

      The station not washed away in 1953 doesn’t work as the 1860 sea defence in front to the site was protected by the large build up of sand on the concrete and wire defences for the two world wars. This was removed and used for infill in the construction of Port Ramsgate.

      We could argue the chances of this and that amount of damaged, the possibility of one 50 or a thousand people being maimed or killed, but without an expert assessment of what falls in to the reasonable precautions and a reasonable level of safety, the development will likely remain where it has been for the ten years. Organisations appear with the finance, discover the most basic and normal of precautionary investigation just hasn’t been made and pull out.

      On the point of anonymity, a name without connection to something else doesn’t really mean that much, my name here connects to my employment, address and so on, your anonymity only really evaporates if it connects to something, at the moment it gives you the credibility of say John Smith or Paul Jones.

      Perhaps if you relaxed your anonymity to the point where we could see why you are promoting such a large project without the normal and basic safety measures, enough lifeboats, altimeter, anchor and so on, it would be easier to understand your motives.

      Delete
    22. I don't think the station was there in 1953 for then it was Merrie England and I went there as a kid. There seems to be a lot of inaccuracy around this debate depending whether one is pro or anti flood.

      To summarise, there has never been a life threatening flood at the site, but getting a FRA would not do any harm and seems a sensible precaution, if only to help future residents, should there ever be any, get insurance.

      The big question really is, will anything ever be built there? Between an inadequate council, a mythical developer and the Thanet whinge consortium it would seem highly unlikely so why are we having this argument.

      Delete
    23. Same building Alice, built as a station in 1860 converted to amusements and bars when the station closed in the 1920s.

      But the key here is about trying to get the horse in front of the cart, and the key problem that an inexperienced developer produces plans to proceed with a development here without assessing the site first.

      As always the thing boils down to money, in this case private and public, given enough of both you could develop a lot more of the desirable sites between the cliff and the sea. The big but the snag is that public money is needed to pay for an infrastructure above the normal, “don’t go there in a big storm and don’t sit under the cliff” and private money is needed to pay for the development, which is unlikely to be forthcoming without a proper and realistic site assessment first.

      I think pretty much everyone would like to see the site put to some use, but a wild guess that it may be safe to develop, without a proper flood risk assessment just isn’t a viable way forward.

      Going down the Titanic route of me saying there don’t seem to be enough lifeboats and John saying that some of the passengers are strong swimmers won’t get the finance for the development. Nor will it get the site back into public ownership and at least used as car park and fairground, which is what should have happened during the last ten years of prevarication.

      Delete
    24. Clearly Michael, Pleasurama bears no resemblance to Titanic, or any other shipping the has oerished, as the greatest damage by the sea has been a wet lobby, and some damaged doors. But don't let that fact get in the way of some good ole scaemongering. Back with cfuller comment late.

      Delete
    25. Michael, I don't intend to address each and every point of your post, as I have done so in the past.

      Your entire position relies on if's, but's and maybe's, whereas the evidence and experience of 160+ years proves your position to be no more than a theorhetical risk, no more no less.

      You claim that the fact that a crane parked on the beach was washed over the sea defences equates to a risk of the sea defences failing is utterly spurious. You claim it's relevant as a vessel may slip it's anchorage and replace the crane, being washed over the defences (inspite of that never having happened at the pleasurama site), well why not plan for it being a supertanker, there is just as much evidence to suggest that a 100,000 ton tanker would be washed over the sea wall, as a 50ft sailing vessel, none!

      The references to Titantic are simly an extention of your unsupported alarmism, and to be fair, are utterly valueless.

      There has never been loss of life, and precious little damage in 160years. You put that down to it being winter, then good luck, clearly it is simply that the "danger" if indeed any exists at all, is negligible in the extreme.

      Can you evidence this wild claim Michael? "Organisations appear with the finance, discover the most basic and normal of precautionary investigation just hasn’t been made and pull out" I'm guessing not.

      A wild guess that it's safe Michael, no, 160+ years experience trumps unsupported scare mongering everytime.

      You claim I seek anonymity, not at all. I don't see a need to justify myself to anyone beyond making clearly correct and cogent points here and in other Thanet matters, as it's where I choose to make my home. If the best anyone can do to counter my entirely correct points is to try to make some irrelevant point as to who I am (inspite of my name appearing at the begining of every post, unlike those whose courage doesn't extend beyond "anonomous") then I think the lack of relevance or quality to thier posts becomes the relevant issue.

      Delete
  17. John Hamilton = Roger Latchford? discuss

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 10:03 = John Worrow? Don't bother to discuss, obvious.

      Delete
    2. I have no way of knowing for a fact, but if in truth some Councillors hide their identity when posting - why? In these circumstances they could not claim to be conviction politicians, just pusillanimous. And as such we do not need them.

      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.