Here are yesterdays pictures from my mobile
phone https://plus.google.com/photos/103118335852639233427/albums/5916769625544012657
and here are Sunday’s pictures of Wingham
Wildlife Park
My youngest children start secondary school
next week, so the weekend revolved around shopping and going to the zoo. In terms
of local attractions Wingham
Wildlife Park
With these attraction we generally take a picnic
lunch so I haven’t tried the café there.
I was fascinated by the capybara, which is
the worlds larges rodent.
Personally I am not a zoo person, or for
that matter a shopping person, with the exception of bookshops, caged animal
and clothes and shoes and stuff isn’t my bag.The Oxfam Bookshop in Canterbury was closed because the floor had collapsed when we went last Thursday.
Back in Ramsgate the artist's impression of the latest plans for a development on the harbour slipways has appeared.
My apologies here I still haven't got around to looking at this one properly, as ever my main reservation being the unanswered question. Does the harbour need the slipways in roughly its existing size and form in order to continue to function properly as a harbour?
There is another key question here that relates to cafe, bar and residential development on Ramsgate's waterfront, which is something like, will it all continue to work without something else to do there? I guess I haven't got this one framed properly yet, the area used to function, firstly around the picturesque operation of fishing and commerce in the days of sail, later we had a funfair, swimming pool and plenty of one armed bandits, now there is a real sense of where do we go from here?
Just down the road in Margate we already have The Turner Contemporary and will soon have Dreamland, I guess I would be happier if senior councilor were buying up real estate in the Ramsgate waterfront area.
I am going to turn on anonymous for a bit and see what i get in the way of spam, it would be nice to think the massage had got through.
What are the anons saying on other blogs ?
ReplyDeleteNot really at issue anon, what is, is people taking over comment threads with their own rather tired old and much repeated agendas and boring us all to death.
DeleteMuch better if the start their own blogs, where they can pursue their own issues with anyone interested.
How do we stop Holyer and Hamilton ruining this blog? I for one rarely visit here anymore and most of the comments are by those two, just look at the threads. They seem to comment on everything, even with their own blogs, but mainly as insults here.
DeletePerhaps if those posting laughable BS didn't post laughable BS, it wouldn't have to be challenged. Why do you post as anon anon, perhaps you simply post that which you know is suspect, hence chose to remain in the shadows.
DeleteThe thread thus far:
DeleteAnon 1 raises a smile with a cuttingly accurate jab or jibe.
Michael reveals that there are issues he wants to avoid. Whilst he actually holds the record for the longest single agenda narrative in Thanet blogging. Pleasurama the history of which he has never significantly effected anyway.
A different Anon argued that Holyer and Hammie shoulod wind their necks in.
Hammie responds with his usual brand of hostile but otherwise empty rhetoric.
Barry picks up the spelling error in Michael's piece and mitigates his pedantry with a "LOL".
Have to say, apart from the inaccurate reference to myself, 9:44 is one of a rare breed, an anon who have posted something factual.
DeleteWell done.
did u mean massage Michael. maybe thats what some of them need lol
ReplyDeleteAllo Allo Barry, it was an Ipo to begin with, but I hadn’t the heart to change it.
DeleteOfftopic but does anybody remember The Perseverance fish restaurant/pub in Ramsgate, have photos?
DeleteDo you mean The Perseverance Dining Room in York Street anon?
DeleteThat's the one: Hovelling pub now? Any photos exist of it in its heyday?
DeleteMichael,
ReplyDeleteI suggest that your message has not got through. You have turned on the 'anonymous' and he's back!
As far as I am concerned the majority of people that post under a "name" rather than "anon" are still anonymous. There's nothing to stop anybody setting up an account to hide their identity, all the "name" does is to make it easier to follow threads.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of comments on this blog (Holyer and Hammie aside who seem only to exist to denigrate contributions/contributors - is one post a day viable if they have their own blogs?) when anons aren't allowed shows how feeble the debates are and the popularity of not having google accounts.
ReplyDeleteThat aside, the slipway plan is dreadful and what happened to the old pool/firestation issue? £5M is a lot for a garage/office. I'd prefer a refurbed 2nd pool.
What's happening with the ferry/£3M issue and TDC accounts?
Who knows, 11.20, on your last question, do you? Personally, as an anon, I would prefer to see the likes of us banned as 'manokent' is right in what he says. Anyone can open an account, under a pseudonym name if they so wish, but at least that way one can follow the thread. With using Anon it is too easy to deny responsibility for earlier comments when it suits.
DeleteI only occasionally leave comments on blogs, usually a spur of the moment decision. It's nice to have the option to comment anonymously purely for convenience: I can't be bothered with the rigmarole of signing up, signing in etc to leave the odd comment.
DeleteBeing swept under the carpet ?
DeleteI don't know on the ferry/firestation/pool etc 111:29 that's why I was asking. Do you? And on your point of following threads it seems fairly easy by citing the time as I've just done.
DeleteIt is ridiculous to try to claim that someone using a pseudonym is somehow better than someone posting anonymously. Does John Hamilton actually exist? In order to address this issue I think that all posters should be required to provide their address, telephone number and two category 1 pieces of documentation to confirm their identities (e.g. passport, birth certificate).
ReplyDeletelooks like another blogger isn't happy with hammy http://thanetstar.com/article/stricter-comments-thanks-to-hamster-boy?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ThanetStar+%28The+Thanet+Star%29
ReplyDeleteMany who are scared of me choose to try to silence me James, you did it when you where mercilessly shown up on your hopelessly discredited whiners page, and Matt does the same when he attempted to challenge the demonstrable truths that I posted on his blog, and was unceremoniously humiliated.
DeleteSadly, those who only have more BS to back up their innuendo and guesswork have to resort silencing those like myself who show them up for what they are by posting facts and truths.
Have to agree with every word Peter has posted on this subject! One day maybe Peter, when my family life, work and hobbies allow the time, and I am in the mood for a coffee. Cafe G sometime maybe.
"Many who are scared of me choose to try to silence me."
DeleteWhy on Earth would you suppose that anybody is scared of you? You are an anonymous contributor on a blog. Your opinions are peripheral and your tone is abusive. You say that you expose people by posting facts and truths. Yet, I have never come across a fact which you have posted and I can't see much truth either. Anybody who disagrees with you is subjected to a campaign of vile abuse. Most people would like to silence you, that much is true. But it isn't because they're scared of you; it's because they're fed up with your irrational postings and your sheer nastiness.
My name appears on every one of my posts anon 7:42, I don;t hide behind anonymity, unlike you my cowardly lil lad.
DeleteI have little to no respect for bullshitters and liars, and that they then hide from me is little surprise. That you have yet to understand the facts I post, and the truths I reveal says more about your lack of ability to understand simple situations, than my willingness to reveal the truth those who post SO much bullshit seek to hide.
Who are you anon 7:42, what's your name, try to find a little courage my boy.
Well said 7:42 completely agree, JH is simply nasty as well as idiotic. Can we restrict him and Holyer to a post a day? They contribute nothing much of merit. Rather like Eppsy they've been proved wrong on too many issues too often.
Deleteinteresting response hammy. matt responded to the rhetoric posted by "way better" guessing that it was hammy. Yet "john Hamilton" responds confirming that "way better" is hammy "Many who are scared of me choose to try to silence me". hammy says his name appears on all his posts on thanetonline trying to convince all and sundry that his real name is "john Hamilton" yet he resorts to many alias's such as "pete trough", "trevor hopkin", "sakiro mcpall", "way better", and no doubt many others. If hammy was honest why does he need to post under so many alias's?
DeleteNow why would that be 10:05, so the likes of James can continue to post BS, but unopposed so that some less well informed readers may be taken in, and mistake his innuendo filled fairy tales as factual, god forbid...
Delete"Way better" is me James, well done, that is patently obvious, as I have been ensuring that my perfectly correct points are reposted when they are fascistically removed by those who cannot defend their postiton, and never has been a secret, it is the price of free speech on occasion that when small minded people seek to squash that free speech, measures have to be taken to ensure that free speech is upheld.
If that is the extent of your investigative "skills" it's no wonder that what you post and claim as fact is so laughably incorrect that you have been made to take a substantial portion of it down.
No idea who "pete trough", "trevor hopkin" or "sakiro mcpall" are James my boy, that i fear is yet another of your laughably inaccurate flights of fancy, and equally as inaccurate as the rest have been. But I assume you have evidence to prove your accusations James, you know, evidence like you had when making accusations against a well known Kent building firm..
Come on James, have a new experience, and post something factual that you have evidence to support....
oh hammy you don't get it do you. Your comment above was this "My name appears on every one of my posts anon" and you have just admitted the statement is untrue ""Way better" is me" So you asked for proof and you prove it yourself. So why didn't you post from your blogger account then hammy? which is the real hammy? who can tell anymore!!!
Delete10:05
DeleteYour use of titles for people like 'Eppsey'and previously 'Clarkey' does really highlight your lower deck origins. How about upping yourself a bit and using 'Eppers' or 'Clarkers' for a change?
Oh dear James, once again your utter lack of investigative "skills" rears it's ugly head.
DeleteNow, as poor ole Matt is attempting to restrict my freedom as other plain cowards such as you have done, measures had to be taken to ensure that my freedom of speech was preserved, hence the use of nicknames. However, I have never attempted to pass myself as anyone else, other than me using a nickname, unlike the foolish and vacuous cowards who hide behind anon profiles on blog sites.
Much like yourself James, they post bullshit which they simply cannot backup or prove, much like the allegations you made against a well known Kent building company, which you were forced to remove when it was made clear to you that once again, you were posting inaccurate bullshit.
Where did I claim not to be "way better" James, and where did I ask anyone to "prove it"? Seems your bullshit catches you out yet AGAIN!
so now you equate nicknames with anons. If you were honest you would have posted as JH yet you didn't your choice and all can see you are just full of BS.
DeleteOh James, you really are (as usual) trying to makes something from nothing with 0 evidence much as you did when making accusations about the financial standing of a well known Kent company, want to repeat those allegations James...... Thought not.
DeleteAnon's seek to hide their identity, i do not my boy, i don't need to, dealing with your unending BS doesn't require anonimity, merely the ability to spot bullshit and expose it, which clearly i do very well, hence why you hide from me so ay, boy;-)
Hide in what way Hammy?
Deleteso JH is a nickname like way better who can tell!!
so hammy why does geoff barnes report you have had a run in with Facebook. Will you be denying in on his blog coz I cant see a denial yet. oh and hammy where is your proof that anyone forced me to remove posts or are you just speculating again.
I suppose the answer is not to post racist comments in the 1st place. I presume Peter you had valid reson to complain especially as FB removed the accounts. This happened to hammy after people complained to FB about his vile comments on FORS. hammy had 5, yes 5, FB profiles he was using and when the last check was made there were 2 left. Why on earth does one person has 5 profiles?
Deletesorry if I confused you peter this happened on FB and a post was removed as it was deemed to be "out of order" according to FB protocols. I had heard it was accusing someone of Racism but as I didnt see the original post I had to accept what I was told. I have seen a lot of hammy's posts and the majority of which are extremely intolerant of a lot of people nothing would have surprised me. If you say he isnt then I will accept that until I read differently
DeleteI know peter and I wasn't accusing you either. This removal was a post hammy had made whether it was accusing someone of racism or was racist inself I don't know but much of what hammy posts is full of hate nothing surprises me
DeleteOh James, once again your non existant investigative "skills" resurface to be roundly ridiculed once again. Did I ever deny being "way better" (in EVERY sense) on that blog? Have I not confirmed on numerous occasions my name is as stated here and on FB? It seems that once again, all you have is baseless allegations, with 0 proof, much the same as when you made allegation you were forced to remove about a prominent Kent building firm. Why did you remove them if, as you claim, you weren't forced to James?
DeleteAs for FB, they remove most any comment made that's complained about. Geoff Barnes is reallky just a joke I toyed with for a time, His blog is as inane and pointless, not to mention as inaccurate and lacking in evidence as yours James.
Come on James, have a new experience, and post something that is accurate, that is supported by facts AND evidence, there's a good boy ;)
Anonymous 6:54 pm,
ReplyDeleteA good idea, let's start with you.
Just your name and email will do, for a start. Should you ever be able to pluck up the courage, which I doubt.
This whole anonymous thing really bothers you doesn't it John? Yet you happily ignore the posters who are using made up names. Inconsistent is a word that springs to mind. Has it ever occurred to you that the sole reason for making anonymous postings is just to p*ss you off?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 7:21AM,
ReplyDeleteThe word inconsistent has sprung into your mind. That's a pity for it is the wrong word.
It has always been my suggestion that posters should have sufficient conviction and the backbone to use their real name which can be verified, or that they should acquire a unique Blogger ID as many others have done. I also suggest they should leave an unpublished email address.
Posting as anonymous for no other reason than to annoy me, as you claim is the purpose, surprises me. Should I be flattered? More importantly anonymous posting lowers the quality of debate. In fact it invariably stifles it.
There is regular troll who has infested this blog and others. It may well you. For he always posts as 'anonymous' and lives in fear of being unmasked. He is a nutter. Normally I do not mind nutters for they are generally harmless and often amusing. Not so this one. He displays a vicious streak in his personality. He is not out to annoy but to harm. He should be stopped before he does some real damage.
I can have no respect for your opinion all the while you hide behind the skirts of anonymity. Email me if you wish.
PS Don't cite whistleblowers; I have an argument prepared for that.
Dull, slightly paranoid, rambling John.
DeleteAnon 10:30 am,
DeleteClearly you do not understand the meaning of the word paranoid. But I gather there is much that you do not understand. Such a pity.
"I can have no respect for your opinion all the while you hide behind the skirts of anonymity."
DeleteI think we are getting to the crux of the problem here. I really don't care what you think about my opinions and I don't care whether you respect them or not. I have no interest in debating that matter with you and I have no interest in E-mailing you. Whilst Michael permits me to post my views anonymously, I will do so. You have a simple choice. You can engage with what I say or you can ignore it. You are not the internet police and you have no remit or authority to control what is or is not posted on the internet. For my part, I don't care whether you are anonymous or not. I may read what you have posted and, if the mood takes me and I have something useful to say, I will respond.
I appreciate that you are getting on in years and that this new fangled internet thing is all a bit new to you. But, you have to understand, it is built around the unfettered sharing of information views and opinions. You can contribute or you can behave like a troll, but controlling it is way beyond your means or comprehension. I would suggest that you devote your efforts to presenting some credible views rather than constantly abusing other posters and haranguing Michael about what he does and doesn't allow. It's his blog and it's entirely up to him what he does with it.
Anonymous 1:48 pm
DeleteSo it's you, the resident nutter - Manston, 0% salaries, etc - what exposes you is your untrammelled bitterness whenever you feel thwarted. You live in fear of being discovered.
Your infantile attempt to talk down to me is risible in the extreme; coming as it does from a lonely curmudgeon.
Now that I know who you are I can ignore you.
John, I'm the 0% salaries fraud person and none of the above. you're looking increasingly foolish. And are you really saying that declaring 0% pay rises that were 15% is not corruption by TDC?
DeleteYou seem to be simply other bloggers and nonbloggers randomly now.
I have to laugh at the one trick pony 0%/thor chemical/aquifer man/FRA/pleaurama/Dremanland/Tesco nutters, they do brighten the day when one needs a good belly laugh.
DeleteI'm anonymous 1:48 but I'm not the Manston 0% salaries etc. I'm afraid that Holyer's obsession with identifying posters (with the curious exception of his mate "John Hamilton") has led him to make a fool of himself.
ReplyDeleteI don't think he has made a fool of himself whereas old 0% does every time he tries to post something. There are only two nutters around these blogs, 0% and Rick Card.
DeleteWhy are they nutters or make fools of themselves in your opinion 7:26? What do you think of the Thor pollution Richard details for example?
Delete8:44
DeleteThat is a bit like asking why some people have red hair. It is the way things are, redheads are redheads and nutters are nutters.
And wat r u 8:44?
DeleteI watched Erin Brokovitch the other night. An unscrupulous company tries to cover up a leak of toxic chemicals which have found their way into the water table and caused serious health effects for the population surrounding the plant. It's a shame they didn't have a few nutters living there to warn them of the dangers.
DeleteIf the nutters shouted 'wolf' or, to be more precise, 'pollution' as often as you two fruit cakes, nobody would take any notice anyway.
DeleteAfter last nights Task & Finish committee meeting where each Councillor lined up to condemn as laughable the "due diligence" process it becomes apparent that the whole investigation of Shaun Keegan and the Pleasurama saga is vindicated. what was produced by the Council legal adviser "there is no evidence of "due diligence" being conducted prior to 2009" and what was then submitted as proof of funding as "bordering on laughable" vindicates both Michael and myself for posting that evidence. So to those that say we are NIMBYS and full of BS I suggest you go talk to any of the Councillors who were there last night and took the time to read the files and see the evidence.
ReplyDeleteGreat news! When I was at school there was talk about the 'wind tunnels', which were surrounded with mystique due to our overactive 14 year old imaginations. It'll be good to be able to have a look around them finally
ReplyDeleteI agree, Peter. It should turn out to be a hugely popular attraction and the people behind the project have done an amazing job.
ReplyDeleteThere's more good news (if you believe the Turner folk). After their "millionth visitor" they say "The £21m invested in the economy represents £6 return on every £1 invested". Which presumably means it cost only £3.5m to build - rather than the £20m we believed - or else it has brought in more than £120m to the Margate economy. Neither sounds very likely!
Well said Peter! Be nice to go down there, withoit having to crawl under fences or over walls etc lol ;-)
ReplyDelete