Here is the story in The Gazette http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/Arlington-House-Tesco-gets-ahead/story-20315373-detail/story.html
The pictures are the only artist’s impressions I know of and
may not be exactly what will be built.
I have mixed feelings about this one as I had hoped that as
the most iconic piece of modern architecture apart from perhaps the Turner Contemporary
Arlington house would be protected and Tesco or any other developer would have
to build in the same Brutalist style as the rest of the structure.
There is a God!
ReplyDeleteNow that end of Margate can be rebuilt at last.
And even the campaigners will see proof of their lie ... the proposed Tesco is NOT and never was intended to be 'on the seafront.'
It is in All Saints Avenue !
about time too!!
DeleteCol its great news I am replying here on your comment because I see that there are already 170 comments and I am expecting them to be off comment and derogatory . I have backed Tesco since the word go plus TURNER CENTRE football club and anyone else who wants to put cash into Thanet. I am glad all these people are commenting on Michael s blog so I dont have to read them
DeleteSo Westwood Cross has decimated Margate town centre and the only chance of revival is another huge Tesco?
DeleteRubbish Peter. The Turner COntemporary was supposed to do that ans hsn't. and certainly not for the c.£50M spent on it.
DeleteDreamland is derelict and only now can be developed.
Margate station is a random view of your own.
WC reform and demolishing Arlington and without a Tesco is the start of regeneration.
Yippee, I think most people want that eyesore tidied up and this is the only way it was going to happen. Pity it's been delayed.
ReplyDeleteSplendid news and so good to see one of the Thanet whining killjoys defeated, though not until after she delayed things for months. It almost tempts me to move back except I love it here in the country and I am sure the whinge brigade will rise again in Thanet next time someone proposes progress or wants to invest in the old place.
ReplyDeleteWe agreed the other day, Peter, about the George & Dragon and escaping Thanet in the search of trees. We probably also agree over Sir Roger being a good constituency MP, so you see, we have lots in common.
DeleteI find it amazing that folks shout about NIMBYS stopping "progress" however does all investment have to be trumpeted as "good". Or in other words money = progress.
DeleteIn the 1960's money was spent on high rise apartments in many parts of England and trumpeted as "best thing since sliced bread" 40 years old they are being called "vertical slums", Many authorities are demolishing them as unfit for habitation. People get some realism here rampant building without checks and balances is plain anarchy.
Whether Louise had won or lost different people would have been celebrating so get real people having the investment or not getting it doesn't happen to the be all.
We live in a civilisation that that needs those checks and balances so please be grateful that we can oppose else we will live in a dictatorship that jails people for upholding hard won rights.
And maybe what was spent was her and her supporters money Peter, you could ask her. That wasn't the point I was making either Peter. Anyone who objects isn't a NIMBY the point of the systems are to provide checks and balances against uncontrolled development else we end up with anarchy.
DeleteIn all developments there are plusses and negatives look at Ramsgate seafront with a developer who has ridden roughshod over TDC and the people of Ramsgate are you telling me that is OK, Far from it.
Terrible news. Arlington should be demolished. And another out of touch judge pretending a Tesco is successful regeneration.
DeleteThe High St will be destroyed again and the seafront spoilt.
Peter and anon are you genuinely suggesting that some state agency should go around forcibly demolishing people’s homes because they don’t like their architectural style?
DeletePeter who should pay for the repairs of Arlington?
DeleteMichael, many similar blocks built elsewhere around the same time have been demolished. Obviously residents are rehoused, often into better accommodation ultimately. I would agree that this should not be done simply because a change in attitude towards architecture, but if the building is becoming dilapidated and there were concerns about its safety then that would be a different matter. Obviously that would not appear to be the case here so it is scheduled to be refurbished.
DeleteBarry, the repairs to Arlington House must surely be covered under the maintenance agreement between the freeholder and lease holders or tenants. If maintenance charges have been levied but the work not carried out, it should fall on the management company (sometimes also the freeholder). If, on the other hand, the residents run their own maintenance company then it would be down to them. Without looking at the leases or tenancy agreements I would not know for sure.
DeleteArlington should demolished as the worst kind of tatty 1960's tower block. But another Tesco is not the answer for regeneration. Pedestrianising the road to link it to the beach and a mix of park and shops with Dreamland is needed.
DeleteHow many people live in Arlington/the maximum flats?
Peter, it's just another troll.
DeleteSuch traffic would need to be rerouted or park and walk. The Margate seafront and beach in front of Dreamland/Arlington is too important to be left to a few cars driving past.
DeleteDemolish Arlington and pedestrianise the seafront as part of the Dreamland development would be far better regeneration than yet another Tesco.
And Tesco remember destroys all the local businesses and rehires a fraction of the workforce on minimum wage/flexible contracts - although to be fair much of Margate town centre is already destroyed.
Similarly Ramsgate seafront and Military Arches Road needs to be pedestrianised - the latter has almost no traffic anyway. Perhaps due to the town gradually dying off.
Incorrect Peter, demolishing Arlington is feasible.
Deletewell, that's the end of Margate's High Street, Richard Ash and the town team should now do the right thing and return the £100K Portas money as it is now throwing good money after bad.
ReplyDeleteMargate 1, Oldfield 0.
ReplyDeletePeter, the anon you're talking to is Barry, someone who knows a lot about NIMBYISM!
ReplyDeleteAnon 6:04 I don't think so I am here and many people use the word NIMBY although I find it difficult to understand how that applies to Louise as she doesn't live in Arlington Towers.
ReplyDeleteI certainly remember hammy doing just that Peter
DeleteI think Peter's point here is, Barry, that nobody on this thread had mentioned Nimbys. What has been said on other sites at other times is surely irrelevant, but, as you raised it, you would not have to live in Arlington House in this instance to be one. In my back yard could mean your town or, in the case of an airport, even outside it.
Deletehammy certainly called the objectors NIMBYS both on here and on his blog in fact he calls anyone who objects to development anywhere NIMBYS.
DeleteThe point the anon was making is that the whole process of development has its checks and balances otherwise it becomes anarchic. Is that what people want no objections to what anyone with money wants to build?
what a strange reply Peter I have never objected to any development anywhere. In the case of Ramsgate Seafront I object to the alleged "developer"
DeletePeter Checksfield one BIG shit stirrer. About time you went away.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteBut you will need to be quick Peter, it's up for sale.
DeleteOh dear Peter you having a bad day
DeleteI would hazard a guess, Barry, that this is the best day Peter has had in a while. He is probably already preparing his first shopping list for the new Tesco as, no doubt, are lots more happy Margate folk. It is all very well for a few to exercise their rights to object, but should it be done when the majority so obviously wanted this development after having lived with the eyesore for so long.
DeleteMy understanding the supporters had a fundraising which will pay the £2000 and although Louise front the action there is quite a group of supporters
DeletePeter I didn't think Tesco was building anything they will just be a tenant although I haven't even seen that confirmed they had just indicated an interest
ReplyDeleteNot by Tesco but by the Leaseholder perhaps Peter
DeleteTesco may well be the leaseholder, are almost certainly financing the project and choosing the developer.
DeleteWhere's Spamilton? This is his big day!
ReplyDeleteSurely according to you lot, he is out rounding up cattle or down the gun range in his Stetson. Yeeha!
DeleteSome priceless comedic comments on here:
ReplyDeletehttps://en-gb.facebook.com/NoTescoSuperstoreArlington
Some priceless comedic comments on here:
ReplyDeletehttps://en-gb.facebook.com/NoTescoSuperstoreArlington
Isn't Louise Oldfield the co-owner of an incredibly successful bed and breakfast in Margate, set up when Margate was at its lowest ebb? Doesn't that give her some claim to know what it takes to regenerate the town? And also to know what developments (such as a giant Tesco at Arlington) are likely to sabotage that regeneration?
ReplyDeleteWhat did bring Margate to its lowest ebb? Was it the lack of a Giant Tesco?
DeleteTesco at Westwood Cross didn't bring Margate to it's lowest ebb... cheap package holidays, the inability of hoteliers and Guest House operators to adapt to the changing nature of holidays and successive useless Councils did that, not a shop in the middle of Thanet!
DeleteRob the sanest thing I've heard for ages. become a councillor quick
DeletePeter my opinion is when the leasehold was granted to Mr Firestarter. He was the worst thing to happen to both Margate and Ramsgate in the last 25 years
DeletePeter if WX destroyed the shopping in margate (which it may have done) and of course the same thing happened to a lesser extent in Ramsgate, why hasn't Broadstairs suffered as much as either of those 2
DeletePeter who owns the little precinct next to mill road carpark and that looks like a ghost town. and do you know why people moved out of the precinct
DeleteBefore Tesco Extra at Westwood Cross Peter there was a very, very, very large CO-OP, don't recall people moaning back then! Out of town centres do play a part but they only have a part to play in the saga, poor central planning, high rates, rubbish parking schemes, "mates" in businesses, skeletons in cupboards... all of those can be laid at successive Councils who do little but blame the one before for ills that have befallen every seaside destination of yesteryear.
DeleteThanet Watch @ 1021,
DeleteYou claim is interesting. Please expand your earlier comment. Can you explain in what way is Ms Oldfield's bed and breakfast "incredibly" successful when compared to Tesco who will employ hundreds of local people, support local farmers, donate to local charities, collect millions in VAT and pay millions in tax? Whereas Ms Oldfield.......
[By the way the dictionary definition of the word 'incredibly' is:- so extraordinary as to seem impossible or not credible; hard to believe: unbelievable. In the light of this is Thanet Watch actually saying that it does not believe Ms Oldfield is truly successful; or maybe the writer is a bit lazy when it comes to adjectives which I find curious for a journalist.]
You are quite pathetic, Peter.
DeletePeter, socialists don't like that sort of thing. They think modelling work is demeaning to women or something like that.
DeleteSuggesting that readers of the Thanet Times want to see topless women is pathetic.
DeleteAnd I'm not a socialist, anon.
Page 3 is a relic of the past. It isn't coming back to the local media, and it will soon be gone from national media. You're living in the past, Peter.
DeleteDream on.
DeletePeter's right in his point on Margate losing more stores to WC. Although that's happened with the other towns eg Barclays in Broadstairs moving to WC.
DeleteThe WC effect needs to be reversed with higher rents and parking charges to compensate for the destruction of the towns in one of the most foolish planning decisions even for TDC. Plus the congestion and pollution and free parking and unsightly sprawl and big box store developments.
The foolish oversupply housing sprawl like Manston Green etc also need to be cancelled.
WC is shit and makes the area look shit.
Peter, planning permission was sought to build a hotel, as yet no one has said they are going to build one and nobody has said they would run it if it got built. There is a distinct reality that the corner will be torn down and lay derelict for some time before, if ever, it gets redeveloped. Tesco won't care, just look at the eyesore next to the little Tesco on Canterbury Road, which may see reduced trade given Tesco stating they expect trade at the Northdown Road store to drop by 10-14%.
ReplyDeleteIt may have been sold... doesn't mean anything will happen at the site, probably be landbanked. Who do you think would be interested in building a hotel next to a Tesco and who do you think would be interested in running one, and for what purpose?
DeleteDoes anyone know of an example of a town being regenerated by building a giant Tesco on its edge?
ReplyDeleteThanet Watch, Are you saying that Tesco will have no benefit at all for that part of Margate; or is your remark nothing more than knee jerk socialist anti big business propaganda?
DeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteAs you admirably point out the word 'democracy' is given quite a different meaning in the lexicon of the revolutionary socialist. For instance there is 'The Democratic Peoples Republic Of North Korea', popular I would imagine with the ludicrous red hall massive.
Why would she post here to be abused by you, Peter? C'mon man, get real.
ReplyDeletePeter @0820am
ReplyDeletePerhaps Ms Oldfield should be let alone to lick her wounds. It is wrong to kick someone when they are down.
You don't have to agree with her to appreciate the passion and commitment she has shown - and the totally unnecessary amount of personal abuse that some have thrown in her direction.
ReplyDeleteThe victors must be magnanimous.
ReplyDeleteThe anti-Tesco NIMBYs are on Radio Kent right now. Why can't they just admit defeat?
ReplyDeletePeter, you and the 'John Hamilton' character said some disgusting things to Louise on facebook. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. The chances of her ever communicating with you again are zero.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea how much passion and commitment you put into your campaign or how much abuse you got. Given you were joining the chorus of personal abuse with the bullies, I doubt it was very much of the latter even if you were putting in a lot of the former.
Now leave it alone and get back to your dirty pictures.
I am not a Louise spokesman. And I wouldn't dignify your website with my time, you pathetic excuse for a photographer.
ReplyDeletePeter, he's not old enough.
ReplyDeleteYou asked why Louise didn't come here and communicate with you - and I told you - because you were extremely nasty to her previously.
ReplyDeleteI haven't made any statement ever on the Arlington development, but I can tell you that you went well over the line on this one.
Anon, you appear to be channeling John Hamilton. If you'd like to make an appointment, you can meet me and see how old I am. If you're a coward like Hamilton, of course you won't.
ReplyDeleteWhich part of the 'I didn't support the No campaign' are you not understanding, Peter?
ReplyDeleteI didn't take any opinion on the Arlington House campaign. Funnily enough, there are some issues upon which I don't think it is my place to take a position.
ReplyDeleteI'll just go out now and warn her that you may be expecting her to expose her breasts for you in a public space.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't about anyone 'being beneath' her, it is about the fact that you bullied and personally attacked her for having an opinion you disliked and campaigning on an issue you disagreed with. And the tragedy is that you can't even accept that you were wrong to do this.
ReplyDeleteNot all men just see every woman as a sex object. When you grow up you'll perhaps realise that.
ReplyDeleteNot all men think it is acceptable to demean women and their bodies, anon. when you come to my office in Chapel Place, you can make these kinds of statement about my age to my face, can't you.
ReplyDeleteIf they made death threats, like John Hamilton did, then yes. As I recall, you stood on the sidelines and laughed about it.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you too would like to continue making statements about my age, I suggest you too make an appointment at my office and stay them to my face.
I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about you and your totally idiotic suggestion that Louise should come here and justfiy herself to you. You are delusional.
ReplyDeleteSometimes that is hard to do when you've invested so much time, energy, passion and money into a campaign.
ReplyDeleteI suspect the legal reality is that they may have to admit defeat.
Joe, I think this was two sides to a debate with Peter very much in the 'Yes' camp and Louise in the 'No' group. Both had the right to campaign, but the impression I get from talking to folk in Margate was that the 'Yes' was more popular. Arlington and its car park and arcade has long been a bone on contentment in Margate, much like the eyesore that is Pleasurama has been in Ramsgate.
ReplyDeleteNot in anyway disputing peoples right to campaign, but I do feel that some of the objectors in Thanet never know when to draw the line or when they are way out of step with public opinion. Much the same anger is mounting in Margate over the delays to get this project started as in Ramsgate over the decade of inactivity on the lower sea front. Difference in Margate is that it is a handful of objectors that have brought about the delay.
As I said, I have no opinion on the substantive issues, William. But certain people, who I think know who they are, need to know that they personally attacked a personality involved in this campaign in a particularly disgusting way.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, if it has been the other way around I would also have called them out on it.
Joe, word of advice. These constant offers of face to face confrontations are beneath you and rather childish. Bit like the old West, there is always a guy out there somewhere who is faster on the draw than you so don't push your luck on the basis no one will ever turn up at Chapel Place. Some nutter just might one day.
ReplyDeleteIt is entirely legitimate to state that Louise has unjustifiably delayed work at the site. In fact that appears to be the conclusion of the court case. It is not acceptable to make death threats and other disgusting personal jibes about her.
ReplyDeleteI'm tired of the same old people making the same old comments about my age, William. I'm not threatening anyone, I am simply stating that I am prepared to meet anyone at any time to prove my age. As if I should have to.
ReplyDeleteThe dismay of the arlington vanquished will be ameliorated by the knowledge that they will soon find something else about which to protest. For many of them it is all about the protest. It's all fodder for the Red Hall Massive.
ReplyDeleteI have no interest one way or the other whether a superstore will be built on a car park by Westminster Realisations (where Tesco have indicated an interest in being the tenant) which is the reality of the situation however to put matters straight there were campaigners (on both arguments, both for and against) but it is immoral to highlight one person and vilify her for being the public face of the no campaign.
ReplyDeleteAlso the system surrounding a Judicial Review requires that one individual asks for the review so please remember when attempting to smear her that she is the public face of the review but is just the lead person else if it where to happen to anyone of us in the same position and fronting a campaign you put yourself in line for abuse and vilification when all you are doing is lifting your head over the parapet.
Understood, Joe, having been regularly slagged off myself on this site for being a pensioner. Some seem to think that it then becomes fair game to talk about old duffers, senility and dementia. Not like one has always been old or that such critics will not themselves grow old, but insults seem part of Thanet blogging. The joke is that one of the main users of ageist insults is a flabby, overweight couch potato a lot less fit than most of us OAPs.
ReplyDeleteJohn having met Louise the once she doesn't strike me as a Red Hall anything. BTW at their last meeting Bob Bayford and martin Wise attended. Are they serial protesters or just concerned citizens?
ReplyDeleteBarry, unfortunately, Bob and Martin were then subjected to some ridicule around the blogs afterwards by the Red Hall faithful whilst Laura Sandys, who tendered her apologies for absence due to a vote in the Commons, was criticised for not turning up on the Thanet Watch site. Whilst Christine Tongue maintains the meetings are open to all, they do not then go out of their way to make us Tories welcome, quite the opposite. The TW's latest smear campaign against Laura Sandys in their latest edition is despicable.
DeleteHaving not read it William (and do not intend to as they seem to get simple things wrong) I haven't a view on it. All I was saying is not all who attend Red Hall are troublemakers nor do they support the aims and objectives of the faithful.
DeleteJohn as your comment below seems not to be an answer to this thread but seems to be randomly placed I am not sure it is in response to my statement.
I will assume it is and respond thus (part is in my reply to William) Are you saying that those that attend Red Hall meetings are serial protesters?
Barry,
DeleteMy apologies, my comments were in reply to you 1114.
No Barry I am not saying that all those who attend the Red Hall are necessarily serial protesters. What I am saying is that the Red Hall encourages and wallows in serial protest, and that any protester will find a comfortable home there.
William there is much about the previous Conservative led Council that has to be denounced as I understand it led by an obnoxious bully who went to jail for abusing his position however the legacy of that will take a long time to get over. IMHO what the Conservatives have done since Worrows defection (keeping their heads down) has done nothing to move the debate nor did it help to mend the issues with the electorate.
DeleteThe last couple of weeks has seen a seachange in their delivery but they must realise they have to face the anger from people before the reconciliation can take place
That's an odd comment, John Holyer. First the accusation appears to be that Louise has wasted everyone's time by taking the case to the High Court. Now you appear to be implying that she is not serious about the campaign.
ReplyDeleteSo which is it?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJoe Turner @1139,
DeleteYou ask, which is it? -- Which is what? There can be is no answer to your question for reason that you are conflating the argument
You are seeking to squabble with me about something that I have never said nor implied. Your purblind reading of my comments has led you astray; and not for the first time.
Is Louise not serious about this campaign (and will soon join another) or has she been wasting everyone's time with the court case. Simple question.
DeleteJoe, I take it that your simple question is addressed to me. In reply I have a question for you. Are you by nature obtuse, or do you work at it for effect?
DeleteJohn, I don't think anyone can seriously claim that Louise is not serious about her campaign.
DeletePeter, your campaign was disgusting.
Alright, Joe, alright let me answer your simple question.
DeleteI do not know whether or not Louise has wasted everyone's time. To find your answer you will need to ask everyone.
The freedom to protest is a tenet of Law that must be protected at all costs.
Whether or not a protest wastes people's time is subjective and I put it neither here nor there. He who opposes the protest will claim it a waste of time, whereas he who supports it will claim the opposite.
Jo, I am not saying that serial protesters are by definition not serious. In my experience they are deadly serious. To them serial protests are just a means to an undeclared end.
And yes, I do believe it was wrong to hurl abuse at Ms Oldfield. Having said that I'm sure that as a would be rough tough politician she is cauterised to personal abuse.
.
Oh I see, she is serious BUT is also a serial protester. Perhaps you can tell me the series of protests she has been involved in, or perhaps that castigation is an assumption you will make about her future conduct.
DeleteWhether or not she is a tough politician, she does not need to face personal abuse, John Holyer. People are entitled to disagree with her campaign, they're not entitled to abuse and bully her.
No Joe, [4:08] it is apparent that you do not see. I said quite clearly that serial protesters are not by definition not serious. You seem to have overlooked the second 'not'.
DeletePerhaps I should have better said 'un serious' or 'lacking in sincerity' then you would not have become confused confused by the two nots so close together'. My fault.
I appreciate that you might be at work and consequently do not have time to read and study posts thoroughly before you dash off your reply.
On the other hand I cannot in truth overlook the possibility that you are being deliberately obtuse in order to start an argument for your own amusement.
I leave it to you to be the self styled final arbiter on what people are and are not entitled to do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteJo Turner,
DeleteTo clear up a final point: nowhere have I said that Ms Oldfield is a serial protester. She might or might not be, I do not know, nor do I care. Whatever the case may be I am sure that she will appreciate your spirited defence of her, her actions and motives.
Barry,
ReplyDeleteI do not understand your comment. It seems I have not made my feelings clear about Ms Oldfield's campaign; for this I apologise. Simply, I am pleased that she lost, and I am advocating magnanimity on the part the victors. Make of that what you will.
Furthermore Ms Oldfield, and indeed anyone else for that matter, should be wary of stumbling into the clutches of the Thanet Watch and the risible red hall massive. (I hope I'm correct in assuming you get the Ali Gee reference).
I shall treat your questions as rhetorical and you will excuse me if I ignore them.
I was there and it was Jodie
ReplyDeleteThe massive property company Freshwater, who are behind the "build a giant Tesco in Margate scheme", haven't got the best of reputations in their own industry. Look at the highly respected www.allagents.co.uk site. As well as some horrendous reviews from their customers, you'll find Freshwater is ranked 11844 out of 11847 property companies in the UK. Do we really want them owning any properties in Thanet, let alone embarking on some huge new development here?
ReplyDeleteDid their share price jump on the back of the news yesterday I wonder? And did the directors take profits?
DeleteThere's still nothing on the Yes to Arlington Tesco fb page. Proof if needed that Spamilton is the only administrator (or they're all on holiday!).
ReplyDeleteIndeed 12.52, the leaseholder - Freshwater, is never mentioned in any discussion or news about the Arlington site and the public should know that they are the 'Margate Strongman' who haven't maintained any part of the site, who have closed off the arcade and car park following strategic price hikes in rent to drive out all the businesses and generally have allowed the whole complex to fall into a great state of disrepair or prevented access.
ReplyDeleteAs a leaseholder, they are legally and financially responsible for the up-keep, safety and general well-being of residents of their property but as mentioned above, proof of their failure in these responsibilities in all of their other properties can be easily found.
'The only option' is mentioned regularly by Tesco supporters but you all forget that this Freshwater, a developer and landlord with a lot of capital have failed to maintain or regenerate the whole site themselves, asking the residents to self fund the upgrade works to the tower. To allow this development to go ahead will further line Freshwater's pockets for failing Margate, the council and the residents of the property.
Tesco may build their store first but where's the proof / guarantee of further finance from them to regenerate the arcade and Arlington House itself, no planning applications or even proposals have been made for the seafront end.
Also of massive concern is also now often brushed over or not mentioned.... Grade II listed remains of Sanger's menagerie of international heritage and cultural importance in Dreamland are butted to the perimeter of the car park. Any development from Tesco must take these structures into careful consideration and strategic planning. The current proposal of the store will completely overpower these inappropriately let alone stand tall above Dreamland having no place for aesthetics with the menagerie or heritage park.
Hopefully as the freeholder, TDC in light of positive progress with Dreamland will have the final say.
Difficult choice, James. A new supermarket catering for thousands or a derelict menagerie which has been closed for 100 years.
ReplyDeleteThe choice would be minimum wage Tesco jobs or a range of shops and jobs and the amusement park and better housing than Arlington. There is a Tesco at WC why have another one?
DeleteOf course Peter but Tesco reduces contract hours, destroys the surrounding businesses and the profits of course are taken out of Thanet. You're hopelessly out of your depth in arguing for Tesco being the saviour of the High St.
DeleteSuch unkind comments about Louise! Just confirms everyone's view that if you raise your head above the parapet of Thanet opinion people queue up to throw bricks. So why should anyone be motivated to express a view when they get such appalling attacks. Why do it?
ReplyDeleteChristine
For the same reason that you do it, Christine, whatever that might be.
DeleteChristine, Peter has "raised his head above the parapet" many times over this too. It doesn't just work one way.
DeleteSome the comments from either named people or, mostly, anons are out of order and should be deleted by the administrator of the blog.
ReplyDeleteWhy oh why do people post derisory comments concerning peoples motives. Every one who makes a comment will have a reason for posting, so why make personal derogatory comments?
Barry, which ones? If you reply it is the comment date and time I need.
DeleteMichael it is only recently I decided to take action and say something. I think it is obvious who has been the worst offender and currently he seems to missing.
DeleteAs a general thing debate is about acknowledging points not about putting your opponent down or belittling them. It is all about fairness at the end of the day
Barry, surely it is up to the person who is mentioned in the posts to complain if they find them offensive?
DeleteBarry I do do my best to keep on top of the comment, but on a busy day I am not certain that I have even read it all today. There are 160 something comments on this post at the moment and I have zapped comment containing “0%” “IRA” “mercury” and so on i.e. the comment that looks like non-commercial spam.
DeleteThe same sad individuals that seem to say the same out of context things over and over, I also try to delete comment where an anonymous commentator, says something derogatory about a real person.
I am very reluctant to delete comments made by real people, where their identity is known and people who feel they have the victim of some sort of cyber nastiness know who and where the person is, as opposed to either those hiding behind a nom de blog like John Hamilton, or those who just post as anonymous.
Anon of course it is up to the person to complain however the point of a post overall is to enhance the debate and many people who used to post on the debate now refuse to do that because of the abuse they receive instead of complaining so the debate is decreased not enhanced.
DeleteToday, who on earth was talking about just today Peter?
DeleteDroll Peter.
DeleteSurely the point about people not commenting on here now because they are fed up with being attacked is pertinent?
Councillors that used to post no longer do so and the Blog is poorer for that
Well Peter on topic (lol) where is your mate Spamilton, Watching you two humiliating people on your "Yes to Tesco page" and on Spamiltons blog ( I do remember your famous line about pensioners smelling of wee and his hose them down) it seems currently the "Yes to Tesco is underwhelming in its gloating about the High Court result.
DeleteMaybe you should log back in and ginger them up on there.
BTW I agree with Barry the likes of Chris Wells that used to comment is sadly missing (not that I know why he stopped)
What tedious blog whining to little effect.
Delete'Fraid that's what happens to blogs when you allow few narrow-minded trolls to take it over. The trolls on this blog often whinge about the anonymous posters but, in my opinion, it is they who have ruined the blog with their inane stream of drivel. I'd suggest limiting each poster to one contribution per day.
Deleteanon 8:01 I suggest you take it up with Michael
DeleteRubbish 8:01 the likes of Epps and Holyer have ruined this blog. In fact you sound like Epps posting anon again. And you can't restrict any anon to a single post as they are anonymous aren't they so after the first anon post none would be allowed ie back to the refusal to allow anons which encourages Epps and Holyer.
DeleteWhen I referred to the trolls I was, in fact, referring to the likes of Epps and Checksfield. And I think my suggestion was that we restrict each poster to one post per day, not only the anonymous ones. I would particularly like to see William Epps and Peter Checksfield restricted because, in my opinion, they never post anything worth reading.
DeletePse see anon 2:39pm,
DeleteOur resident clown has left me out, which means that I now have his approval to post more than once a day. He has replaced me with Peter Checksfield so nah, nana nah, nah.
Bazza is talking rot. Few councillors posted here. And Chris Wells did occasionally, usually with party propaganda that was invariably laughed at and exposed as such. The disaster of the Broadstairs multi-million community centre ended his political career.
ReplyDeleteAt least Barry, Chris Wells, Simon Moores and the others posted as their real name unlike some wally that hasn't got the courage to post as themselves
ReplyDeleteAnd William Watkins is your real name?
ReplyDeleteAnd anon is your real name? must made getting a passport and driving licence difficult
ReplyDeleteI would suggest removing the comment concerning Simon Moores as it is slanderous Anon 8:42
ReplyDeleteIf you're referring to the pleasant young lady I often see outside Morrisons in College Square, I think she may be Czech or Slovakian. However, I'm not totally sure. Try saying 'ahoj' (pronounced a-hoy, meaning 'hi') and see what the reaction is.
ReplyDeleteThanks Barry zapped from spam central before I saw your comment
ReplyDeleteHi Barry. I post anonymously because I don't want you or anybody else to know who I am. I am allowed to do this. I think you're quite a clever bloke and so, I think you'll understand the point I'm making if I say that I wouldn't post anonymously if the person running the blog didn't allow anonymous comments. Then, I would just make up an imaginary name, like Joe Turner, John Hamilton or William Watkins. Would this make such a difference to you? Personally, I really don't see the difference between posting anonymously and posting using a pseudonym. As far as I'm concerned they're both comments from people I don't know. I know that Michael has said that he doesn't take much notice of anonymous comments, but I do. The people who post anonymously or using pseudonyms are still real people and they still have an opinion. You can't tell if they might have some vested opinion in posting it, but you can't tell this about the named posters either unless you know them, personally. I'm afraid that, for me, the most irritating thing about this blog is the named posters who don't seem to have anything to do all day other than to slag each other off and to post a constant stream of inane drivel.
ReplyDeleteanon when an anon posts slander or attacks another poster then they are posting with the fear that either they will be sued or the person they are aiming their nasty comments at might take matters into their own hands.
DeleteI suspect the regulars on here can tell the difference it doesnt take intelligence to tell the two types apart
Peter Joe Turner is his real name as is William Watkins the anon was just saying to him *as he hadn't met them) they are anonymous to him.
DeleteDear Mr. Checksfield. The posting at 9:42 was mine. It doesn't contain any rude, troll-like behaviour. Perhaps, in future, you could read things properly before launching in with a silly, pointless response.
DeletePeter, you have posted 72 times on this thread and all I have learned is that you think it wrong (and I agree with you) that a major project which might benefit the community can be obstructed by one person. The rest of the time you are involved in slanging matches, which are the curse of this site. I'm sure you get irritated when others post comments by the dozen - please don't become one of them!
DeletePeter,
DeleteI do not wish to interfere but I thought it only proper to warn you that you are being stalked by an anon that has the surprising ability to count up 72 ! This anon could prove an intellectual threat. Who is educating these anons - we should be told.
[anon @ 3:30 pm 14 Dec]
Peter, it was meant as friendly advice. I am certainly not your stalker, nor would I know how to start my own blog.
DeleteAt the risk of posing an intellectual threat to Mr Holyer (it should be "who has the surprising ability," by the way), one doesn't need to count contributions - simply search for a name and your computer will tell you.
Anon 5:26 pm,
DeleteAfter some thought while bearing in mind that you were an anon I deliberately chose the word 'that' in preference to the more grammatical 'who', this I considered preferable to 'it' which also crossed my mind. Anons with a condescending tone irritate me.
Just popped in to the discussion and I find nyself sharing the view of ECR.. In fact we seem to agree on rather more by email than we ever did in the past of late. Intelligent debate on local blogs is invariably hijacked by single topic obsessives. There is increasingly less reason to engage with the smug one liners of some and the abuse of others. Where once blogs like this may have laid claim to be representative of opinion of sorts, today its become a platform for insults and abuse. That's unfortunate and if Michael banned, as I have done, a handful of disruptive individuals, then there is still time to recover the intrinsic value this blog holds
ReplyDeleteThere is a problem when it seems that any anon can be pilloried just for posting as an anon, not helped by a couple of anons not adding to the debates and dismissing the views of posters and pushing their rather outdated views.
DeleteMaybe a way forward could be reading the posts and not assuming an anon poster is the same old muppets posting
Simon, Barry the problem I have is that I just don’t have the time to operate blog moderation so operate the blog by allowing all comment and then spamming what I consider to be spam, which is essentially either the commercial stuff or the repetitive obsessions like 0% and deleting the comment I think may be libellous or just plain rude.
DeleteThe time thing today meant that I didn’t actually get to looking at the blog until lunchtime when I remembered to turn anonymous comment back on.
Talking to people who read the blog they often seem to think I devote a lot of time to it, in practice I guess it averagely takes me about 5 mins to type out a post and then over the next day I skim through the comment a couple of times reading in detail what actually interests me.
Peter whilst I agree with some anons are a pain, not all anons are a pain. It seems to be a knee jerk reaction that all anons need to be criticised no matter what they post that is wrong.
DeleteSome people (for whatever their reasons) cannot use their name. It could be they could set up an anonymouse blogger account but they still are commenting anonymously.
I believe John Holyer made the comment that having a named account just made following the thread easier it doesn't stop any spam comments
what I was saying is turning off anons "throws the baby out with the bathwater" so all anons are stopped from posting will not change anything. The likes of garbled will get a blogger account which will be as anon as those marked anon.
DeleteAs you bought it up hammy is just as anon as the others and did not stop the posting of abuse did it?
I think Peter's going to milk this one for a very long time.
Deletemaybe he gets a blue plaque to put on the wall after it has been built
Deleteor gets to lay the cornerstone
DeleteOr gets to lay the manageress.
DeleteSo was I and you are right, Barry. She had look bored, switched off and the vote took her completely by surprise. One cannot help but feel that this is a young lady who has been pushed into something she really does not want to do.
ReplyDeleteThank you Simon.
ReplyDelete