Monday, 5 May 2014

Latest Manston Airport offer rejected, part of a Broadstairs sketch and a possible ramble.

Update 1.40 06.05.2014 the airport closure date has now been set for 15.05.2014 this information comes from Save Manston Airport facebook group https://www.facebook.com/groups/616428761764523/640109086063157/?notif_t=group_activity

I understand that the consultation has moved from a group consultation to consulting with individual employees and that no more offers will be considered, although some news sources are salying that further offers will be considered up to 15.5.2014

further update

Joint Statement By Sir Roger Gale MP and Laura Sandys MP 
“The statement released by the current owners of Manston Airport today is very saddening indeed.
“We know that there is ongoing and serious interest in the acquisition of Manston as a working airport and we hope that even at this late stage the current owners may be persuaded to reconsider and negotiate.
“Our first thought has always been for the employees of Manston, many of whom have families to support. Their wellbeing is of the upmost concern, and we will be making ourselves available for anyone who would like to meet us and discuss their concerns and options.
“Our second priority has been to establish the viability of Manston as an operating airport in the local and national interest. We are convinced that, given more time, real progress could have been made and it is thus hugely disappointing that the decision has been taken to close it. The both of us have always said that had we known about the owners’ intentions months ago, a plan could have been put in place well in advance and this continuing uncertainty could have been avoided.
“We wish to pay tribute to the local community who have been so vital in keeping the momentum around the airport going, and urge local people to keep faith that a positive solution for Manston will be found. We will absolutely not accept second best and will fight together in the coming weeks to make sure the interests of the people of Thanet are protected.”

Various reports about the airport offer are starting to appear in the media so this one is just an example http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent-business/county-news/manston-airport-offer-rejected-16777/  

I have been a bit short of time this bank holiday and this sketch today is an example of a hurried start with no time to finish.

With Manston airport I think a problem has been that although the closure of the airport, or for that matter it remaining open has a considerable impact on local people in both positive and negative ways, public information about the closure is very limited. 

I would say that the airport being sold for £1 can easily be misleading, as it isn’t clear just what existing liabilities the new owner took over as part of the deal. 

  

205 comments:

  1. I think that Gloag and co are getting a little pi**ed off with all the interference from Gale and Save Manston lot, cant they let them build houses in peace
    If you think about it the land is worth over £100 million just in plots and if they were to build on it they might be looking at £300 million profit Seeing as they own it and would not be breaking any planning law and its not like we have enough houses to go around then no matter what KCC or TDC say it will be up to the planning officer and their guidelines
    I think that instead of fighting it we should encourage them to build large houses with big plots and get 700 well paid people to buy them say we dont need low cost houses to be built because we have so many in thanet all ready.
    that would bring in much needed council tax.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Complete nonsense 7:21 as planning permission for housed is neither provided nor certain and Thanet has plenty of empty houses.

    Manston will be a cleared field.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or more likely just crumbling concrete with weeds growing out of it, the same as the harbour, the hoverport, the lido, dreamland, etc...

      Delete
    2. Sorry 7.33
      But its a brown field site and that is that
      They can build what ever they want as long as they stick to the rules and no one can stop them.

      Delete
    3. With the Duffers you could be right do we need a clearout. The idiots even now think manston is viable.

      Delete
    4. 7:39 planning permission is required and as with pleasurama witheld

      Delete
    5. With £100s of millions at stake I think not

      Delete
    6. Your figures are your own ridiculous sums. $1 is the reality for a derelict airport

      Delete
    7. Im not saying they wont have to get planning but if they tick all the boxes there is not much the planning office can do all you need to do is look at her track record

      Delete
    8. 7.48 do your homework
      A brown field site is worth about £150,000 an acre give or take £50,000

      Delete
    9. Haine Road is a brownfield site yet EKO got turned down for planning. Revising plans and going to appeal is an expensive business with no guarantee of success. Does highland Annie really want to dole out even more money.

      Delete
    10. Haine road was farm land thats why (green)

      Delete
    11. 7.53 Thats her game,You dont think she wanted to buy an airport did you

      Delete
    12. Part of the Haine Road site was sports field, thus brown.

      Delete
  3. Keep calm and close Manston!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its so much better closed its been lovely here
      Long may it continue.

      Delete
    2. The noise and pollution is noticeably better - the start of a New Thanet without Duffers

      Delete
    3. Have you measured the pollution? What equipment did you use?

      Delete
    4. Just used my nose and ears

      Delete
    5. You can't use the Manston monitors that's for sure!

      Delete
    6. It seems as though the idiots running things around here will (at any cost) do what ever it takes to keep manston
      But i cant see why there is no good reason other than 150 jobs and on a site that size you could fit 3 car makers

      Delete
    7. Or the UK's only aircraft recycling facility according to the libdems hopefuls. Not counting all the other sites of course. So why not an Austin allegro factory...

      Delete
    8. After what's been said by all involved I cant understand why there still in power?

      Delete
    9. Agree we need a clearout. Who should resign?

      Delete
  4. Looks like someone is getting a bit excited (hope he changes his underwear afterwards!).

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. She'll be glad to have it CPO and walk away from the mess and idiots like Gale

    ReplyDelete
  7. Looks like Michael is censoring comments on Clive snd Gibson track record. Seems a labour bias as before.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Even the most ardent supporters have to question what kind of offer Gale has been fronting. From Gloag's response it is obvious that they don't consider the offer to be a substantive one and the comment that this is not the first time they have made an approach with nothing of substance is pretty damning. I think this is (or should be) the end of it. The employees deserve some kind of certainty about their position and the notion that it can be saved needs to be knocked on the head unless it's based on some semblance of reality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many of us remain optimistic, unfortunately there's always a few losers like you ready to bring Thanet down!

      Delete
    2. 9.48 how many times are you going to say things about other people and not get the message anybody that blogs locally knows who you are even if you use an anon
      Do us all a favour crawl back into the hole you call home look around you and think could have i done better with my life? To sit on a computer all day insulting people!
      Even the people that run the blogs are getting fed up with you
      Give it up there's a good chap.

      Delete
    3. It's very easy to work out who 9:48 is. He's even signed his name to the posting. Perhaps you are too stupid or blind to have read it? Glad to see the closure confirmed tonight. At least we all know where we stand. Shame to see so much in the way of sour grapes from those who have been proven wrong and have lost the argument.

      Delete
  9. I believe that the noise generated by the lorries leaving Manston with runway rubble will be far more intolerable than the occasional aircraft landing. It would take about 36 weeks of non-stop lorries, one every five minutes 24/7, to remove the runway. I expect explosives will be required in places, and for what? Houses that will be full of wasters and dregs of UK society. And where will the ancillary services be, schools, hospitals and the like? There is more room in Scotland for this kind of project, so let Ms. Gloag arrange something north of the border and leave the crowded south east alone.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks Mr Farage but who says either 36 weeks to remove rubbke or create another town like EKO.

    You're a promanstoner refusing to accept the huge amounts of pollution and punlic funds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simple maths anon at 10:25 pm, based on volume of runway, into a standard lorry, assuming one was loaded every five minutes 24/7. In practice it will probably take years of transporting redundant runway rubble away, and to where? Perhaps a Ramsgate version of Samphire Hoe in lieu of anything else happening at the Royal Sands. The Channel Tunnel is 20 years old today but nobody complains about PUNLIC (sic) funds there yet it probably causes more pollution.

      Delete
    2. Well apart from Peter bravely holding the fort, and taking the flak, it looks as though the Anonymous commentators (mainly just one) have taken over the world. Is that what you wanted Michael?

      Delete
    3. This is exactly why the once impressive Thanet blogging scene is as good as finished.

      Delete
    4. Anon 10:30 am

      This is precisley what Michael wants for it racks up his numbers and, he hopes, his shop profits. It is a case of never mind the quality feel the width. Micheal is a captilist at heart.

      Delete
    5. Do you see me as more of a Manny Cohen or a Patrick Kelly?

      Delete
    6. More of a Fagin I would have thought.

      Delete
    7. Chaps, who says the runway has to be taken away? I'm sure the rubble can be used as hardcore for the dozens of little cul-de- sacs that will be built.

      Scaremongering like the person on Facebook saying it's all to be dumped in pegwell bay.

      Anyway, haven't any budding pro manston entrepreneurs thought of digging up in palm sized chunks and selling to all those people who cant live without manston?

      Leave your address and I'll gladly rev my motorbike at 3am a few times a week for the full experience!

      Delete
    8. You don't need to remove the runway rubble. It will make ideal hardcore for the housing estate.

      Delete
  11. http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/Fresh-Manston-airport-bid-American-consortium/story-21062674-detail/story.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. So have Stagecoach and Gloag done deals with messrs Hart and Poole?

    ReplyDelete
  13. River oak offered £5m...but are a property company. Gale has led us a dance

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please read this statement from RiverOak, more than just a property company.

      Manston Airport, Kent

      RiverOak Investment Corp LLC of Stamford Connecticut announced on May 4, 2014 that it had submitted a formal offer to acquire 100% of the shares in the company owning Manston Airport.The offer was conditional only on an expedited process of due diligence with closing anticipated by the end of May 2014.

      The consideration offered is significantly higher than the entire capital investment expended by the current owner since Manston was purchased in November of last year.

      RiverOak’s executives visited Manston on April 29th and travelled to Scotland to meet Mrs Gloag and her advisor on May 2nd. RiverOak currently has $350 million of assets under management with a number of operating partners and has a successful track record of turning around troubled operating and real estate assets.

      In this particular project, RiverOak is the capital partner of a number of aviation operating entities specializing in aircraft maintenance and cargo operations, and principal partners at RiverOak have extensive US experience with the capital markets and debt restructuring of a number of major airport assets, one of which is a singular maintenance and cargo hub in Texas.

      RiverOak has developed a long term plan to own and manage Manston as an airport in line with its investment philosophy of diversified investing in asset backed businesses. RiverOak remains committed to investing in and developing Manston as a successful diversified aviation services, cargo and potential future passenger airport facility, and values Manston as an important piece of aviation infrastructure that is very important to both Kent specifically and the United Kingdom in general.

      RiverOak is distressed to learn of the announced closure of Manston today and remains willing to engage with all parties to achieve a solution which allows the airport to continue operating and preserves the jobs of its staff.

      For further information or press inquiries contact Tony Freudmann at 07785 306715

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  15. Good to see both Will Scobie and Ian Driver openly praising the pro-Manston efforts of Sir Roger Gale and Laura Sandys on Twitter... unlike Clive Hart and John Worrow who prefer political point scoring instead!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Peter your 9:04 am,

      Well said. I'm with you on this.

      Delete
    2. Why are they praising failure?

      Delete
  16. Listening to radio Kent and watching the coverage of the Manston fiasco I think there has been a totally biased view put out not a single
    mention of the adverse views of residents in Ramsgate who are the ones that have had to put up with the threat of cargo flights depriving
    them of their quality of life and the right to a nights sleep I would say that 20,000 Ramsgate residents will clap their hands when it closes but feel for the few that will have to seek jobs elsewhere.
    Stargazer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why is it then that not ONE person out of those supposed 20,000 has started an anti-Manston petition / campaign / group? The last one who did (Steve Higgins) it closed down his blog and refuses to talk about it now.

      Delete
    2. Peter I think you have got confused here between the no night flights petition / campaign / group, which did exist and an anti-Manston petition / campaign / group which as far as I know didn’t ever exist.

      The situation over night flights became polarised into two groups because there were only two options on the table, one was allowing Manston the same night flights quota as the major London airports get and the other was allowing no night flights whosoever.

      The option I would have preferred, night flights related to day flights and therefore related to local economic benefits was never on the table.

      Delete
    3. Thank you, I stand corrected: No-one of the "20,000" has EVER formed an anti-Manston group. As for complaining about the supposed "biased" coverage by Radio Kent, what's stopping people from phoning in? They can even still hide behind their computer keyboards with the curtains closed while doing it.

      Delete
    4. Why is everyone other than you confused, Michael, and where exactly does it state what the night flight options were? Infratil wanted the capability to receive the odd delayed flight and there was never any mention of comparable quotas with Heathrow or Gatwick. The relationship between day and night flights was entirely of your making. If I am wrong, show us anywhere that Infratil requested that.

      Delete
    5. Anon here is the link to the main document on night flights http://www.thanet.gov.uk/pdf/Manston%20International%20%20Airport%20Validation%20Report%20230112.pdf  prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, there were masses of documents about the issue but I think you will find this the most helpful.

      Delete
    6. This is a document prepared by Thanet District Council, already biased on the issue, Labour having won seats in the local election on night flight scaremongering, and even in this there is no suggestion the night flight levels should be on a par with Heathrow.. There may be masses of documents, but find one that says Infratil were requesting the same quota as the major London hubs.

      Delete
    7. Interesting going back to this report, which makes it quite clear on page 3 that the number of night movements requested has a real relationship with daytime movements, and have both a nightly and annual cap. The hysteria came from the anti campaign groups; and your fence sitting re number relationships is there for all to see. It was not the reports that that smashed Manston's hopes, it was the cancellation of independent broad consultation planned under the conservative administration with the 'fixed and weighted' consultation under the labour administration where the readers who judged the balance were invited to use their own subjective interpretation of weighting the views expressed. The reason given for cancellation? The cost at £50,000 plus; followed by the labour administrations flushing away of millions of income on Transeuropa; at least another million on live animal exports; untold hundreds of thousands on interim officers for their secret reorganisation; and the hidden £200,000 to pay for the upkeep of the Theatre Royal. Or the tens of thousands to the maritime museum, who can't even do basic maintenance on MV Sundowner (see Gay in Thanet blog). I am sure Michael will reassure us these are prudent decisions, from his position of neutrality on local politics. Or more accurately the pork barrel politics practised by local labour.

      Delete
    8. If only the monitors hadn't been removed to ensure the cap could be verified eh...

      Delete
    9. Thank you for the clarification Chris (and come and join Twitter, you'll like it on there!).

      Delete
    10. A strange comment from Nicolas reed of why not manston that the closure is good newd as it allows the staff to be sacked anfd fewer rehired

      Delete
    11. They'll be cheering him at the next meeting if there is one

      Delete
    12. What a short memory Chris Wells has: the Transeuropa loss was started on his watch, the combining of the Chief exec role and Finance director role which led to an overworked position with poor decision making that has cost plenty was another of his cabinets decision, thousands of pound pay off to the outgoing chief exec who was about to reach his retirement, I could go on about the ex leader of his cabinet being jailed for being on the make.

      Delete
    13. Chris the problem with Manston has never been its operation as an airport but the uncertainties around its future, which have been detrimental to the local economy.

      A thriving local airport would have brought with it benefits to the local economy, which would probably outweighed the pollution issues.

      A side issue here is that environmental issues are changing and the recent particulate air pollution figures for Thanet suggest that the operation of a freight hub may tip the north and eastern parts of the island over the air pollution level where life expectancy is seriously reduced.

      My contention here is that the number of freight flights needed to make such a hub viable and the number of freight flights that would tip the air pollution over the safe level should be calculated before promoting this course of action.

      With the night flights issue it is the uncertainties that are the economic issue, Labour offered the certainty of no night flights, the Conservatives failed to provide any figure the electorate could understand and still haven’t. Do you have a figure for the number of night flights you would allow per night?

      So now investigating the hysteria, are you suggesting that people should vote for an unknown amount noise pollution? To me that seems hysterical.

      Now we come to your gripes about what Labour should or should not have done.

      My questions, which relate to my voting Conservative in the district elections are.

      Would the Conservatives close the Theatre Royal?

      Would the Conservatives close the Maritime Museum?

      On the subject of the Sundowner the vessel is out of the water being prepared to lead the Dunkirk Little Ships, what is your objection to this?

      Delete
    14. You mean the airport could reduce life expectancy in Thanet but the councils have ignored that?

      Delete
    15. You're much more likely to reduce life expectancy by sitting indoors in front of your computer all day.

      Delete
    16. Michael, I was merely commenting on the report you recommended to your readers, which I had not read for some time. The bit you, and Labour, seem not to understand is the damage was done long before Ann Gloag came along. Few interested in running an airport will invest where the background is a Labour led local authority with an antipathy to the very existence of the airport. There are other places where the atmosphere was more pro business. Similarly, you jump to immediate conclusion about my personal opinion; I

      Delete
    17. I was merely quoting from another blog, and would have expected your engineering interest would have been interested. One thing is certain, when this administration leaves office, the incoming one will have real challenges facing it. A prime example is the maritime museum contract, written to give maximum advantage to the museum, and maximum responsibility to the council. Most of the officers who could carry out these resposibilities

      Delete
    18. have been abolished by the secret reorganisation so a crisis is assured. Similarly, when the theatre royal hit crisis my advice was to let it go under then move in and resort. The council funded the last months of the trust, fearing asset stripping in the aftermath of collapse, and having funded the last months found an asset stripped theatre anyway. Meanwhile, the annual budget leaks damages, inflated interim officer costs, and similar budget balancing acts. Have not realised the coincidence in timing between the pressure to pay for the spine road near Haines Road, and the pressure to agree to EKO housing requests? Are we now to have thousands of houses on Manston to pay for your demanded largesse for Ramsgate? We all know Labour's sums don't add up without one or more major housing projects to fill the gaps that are hidden from view, and that is before we factor in the true costs of Dreamland and Pleasurama buy outs and costs.; nor the costs of the live animal saga, all of which reflect poor understanding of issues and consequences.

      Delete
    19. So tell us Chris tell us how many new jobs were created by EKO being set up at Manston by your administration?
      Then tell us how many millions TDC pumped into this venture not forgetting the recent repayment to KCC of £2.5 millions as TDC's share of building the new road?

      Its not surprising that KCC/TDC want to try to get their money back by building 550 house at the EKO site despite it being against TDC own planning policy/

      Delete
    20. Press Release - 6th May 2014

      Wednesday, 7 May, 2014
      Thanet Labour – No Regrets (Part 1)

      Manston Airport

      Despite continued efforts to ensure Manston Airport’s survival and the public demonstration of support evident in the community, Thanet Labour Leader Clive Hart is unapologetic about his administration’s continued ‘no night flights’ stance. This continued lack of support for operational flexibility for Manston is consistent with the lukewarm statements of support emanating from Labour councillors, including Cllr Hart and Labour PPC for South Thanet, Cllr Will Scobie.

      In contrast, TDC Conservative Leader, Cllr Bob Bayford has re-stated his Group’s support for the airport, including limited night flights: “We made our position clear back in 2012 when we condemned the flawed night flights consultation and urged the Labour Administration to demonstrate real operational support for the airport. They refused then and refuse now.”



      Thanet Labour – No Regrets (Part 2)

      Oasis Skate Park

      Meanwhile, Clive Hart both disowns and stands by the Council’s decision to send in bulldozers to destroy Little Oasis Skate Park. This is despite the conclusion of the ROSPA report stating that "This skate park is currently under construction and awaits completion by the skate group. Overall the area has been improved since the last inspection, however the risk is unchanged due to unfinished ramps and surfaces. The finish of the completed items is very good and gives an indication that the site will provide a well built area with risks within the normal level for this type of facility".

      Cllr Hart claims that the decision was an officer one, despite the fact that the power of TDC as a landlord is vested in elected members and he should therefore be responsible for the decision. In any case, he does not regret that the money spent demolishing the skaters’ work could have been spent bringing it up to the acceptable ROSPA standard.

      Thanet Labour – No Regrets (Part 3)

      Animal Exports

      Thanet Labour Leader, Clive Hart has defended his Group’s animal exports ban, following the recently announced transfer of £180,000 from the New Homes Bonus to meet legal costs and the further potential £1.5m bill to Thanet taxpayers. This despite the coruscating verdict of Mr Justice Birss who adjudicated that “TDC set out at the start of 2012 with a preconceived wish to use its powers to block the trade if it possibly could and was heavily influenced by the political motivations of the Council leaders who were vehemently opposed to the trade” and that it was a “disproportionate decision reached in haste” without receiving separate legal advice.

      Clive Hart has said: “We stand by everything we did….we did absolutely the right thing.”

      However, Cllr Bob Bayford commented: “Labour’s reckless action has, entirely predictably, landed the taxpayers of Thanet with a potential bill of legal costs and damages of £1.5m. The Conservative Group at TDC consistently warned that this was the likely outcome of such action by the council, however desirable the sentiment to stop this unpleasant trade.”

      Delete
    21. Peter I think this is much more about the point where your life expectancy balances out between sitting inside with the windows shut and being out in the “fresh” air taking exercise. Assuming that you agree that most of the freight takeoffs where the most fuel is burnt would be towards the west, that jet engine fuel has a very high heavy particle content even higher that diesel and that the prevailing wind direction is from the west to southwest so the air flow is mostly towards the east and northeast then I don’t think I have to draw you a diagram. The problem is that according to the latest figures we are around the halfway stage in terms of the background problem in Thanet.

      Chris you comments are coming fast and thick so I will endeavour to reply when you seem to be done.

      Delete
    22. Funny thing here Chris, the Conservative group usually send me their press release for publication on the press release site but they didn’t send me this one, which seems a bit odd.

      If pasting Conservative group press releases into the comments form of posts here instead of sending them to me for publication on the press release blog is the some sort of new policy, I think some sort of email about this would be apposite.

      I know you have political points to make, but is there any chance you could also give me answers to the questions I asked.

      Delete
    23. People are going to continue flying, whether it's from here or elsewhere. What we should be doing instead (and not just in Thanet) is discouraging car use to reduce pollution.

      Delete
    24. Peter while I agree with you that the background level of particulate pollution and the level of resultant reduction of life expectancy in Thanet is of concern and that a reduction in vehicle movements across southern England would make a difference, I just don’t see this happening.

      What concerns me here is that 747s burn a ton of fuel taxiing and getting off the ground and in the area around 5 mile upwind this hasn’t dispersed into the overall background problem.

      My take here is that there are two questions that relate to making Manson into a transport hub.

      1 how many cargo flights to make this viable?

      2 how many cargo flight emissions added to the background air pollution level push north and northeast Thanet over the safe level?

      People flying isn't the issue it's loads of cargo from Manston.

      Delete
    25. Michael, I'm guessing that you never eat fruit and veg (etc) from other countries. Otherwise this would just by NIMBYism.

      Delete
    26. As for cars, the idea of a 20 mph speed limit for all towns and villages is quickly gaining in popularity and has already been introduced by many councils nationwide. This greatly encourages cyclists and pedestrians while discouraging motorists.

      Delete
    27. The AA says 20mph zones can increase pollution by 10 percent.

      Delete
    28. They would say that, wouldn't they... Obviously they're not taking into account the fact that less people will use their cars.

      Delete
    29. Strange to post what is very much off topic press release here and one that contains nothing new, no new ideas for Thanet.
      As for Manston night flights, the new owner employed the person that revitalised Southend airport including starting up night flights and I dont thing a bit of opposition in Thanet including at TDC would have stopped Manston from thriving if the figures stacked up

      Chris might lie to know that £220,000 has been set aside to set up TDC run skate parks across Thanet that conform to all safety aspec
      The Live exports is old news and its nothing new for TDC to have to use money set aside for one purpose to balance the books as was the case with the Transeuropa loss which was instigated by the conservative administration.
      I dont think that the consearvtives have learned anything new from the LGA peer report about showing TDC in a better light and give us some fresh ideas.

      Delete
    30. ... and that was a party political broadcast on behalf of Thanet Labour.

      Delete
    31. Does anyone know where the nearest skatepark will be for Cliftonville residents?

      And is this an amenity that should be thought about by all neighbourhoods I wonder?

      Delete
    32. The Tories could call for an investigation into pleasurama or the LGA corruption raised. Best not though....

      Delete
    33. 3:49, the investigation reveals that it was a Labour led TDC that signed up with an offshore cowboy outfit in the first place. Thanks for the suggestion.

      Delete
    34. Why was bayford so keen on keeping it going then...

      Delete
    35. Trying to take some of these points in turn, allowing for the glitch between iPad and blogger with random shut offs, which explains the quick fire batches the other day.

      Delete
    36. Firstly Michael's questions. An incoming administration will be faced with 2 clear difficulties with both the Maritme museum and the theatre royal. Both are subject to council approved contractual arrangements which are onerous on the council, and very easy on the other signatories, both with hidden costs. Both would be expected to be kept as both in their different ways contribute to the tourist appeal of their areas. However, until the secretive deals are considered whether either is really value for money is a different question. The officers who would deliver some of the community elements and support required have been disbanded, and would have to be replaced by external consultants, as is already happening at the theatre royal with a set of consultants running options appraisals under a contract that has not to my knowledge been declared or admitted publicly at all. Rather like the Labour Party policy on Manston which you so support, the answer has to be they should both br

      Delete
    37. be supported but not at any price, which is where the Labour Party is right now. I am fascinated by the anon comments from Labour Party sources that we should interpret the LG A review as a signal to stop any or all critiiism

      Delete
    38. And all join in a chorus. Of TDC's a jolly good fellow at all times and in all circumstances. The LG A review effectively endorsed the view of the independent members of our own standards board, whom Clive Hart and cabinet colleagues hounded out of office for daring to criticise them. This latest tactic is an attempt to stifle proper criticism of a weak and self serving administration who do not hesitate to bend and ignore rules of procedure and conduct for their own ends. That is also why the press release is relevant, as clear evidences of repeatedly telling half truth - and that's being kind - to cover some of the dreadful decisions which are being made. And those transgressions are nothing to those that have gone on to cover the backsides of cabinet members and senior officers subject to complaint. There is little integrity and less honesty in this administration and the evidence is there, but subject to constant suppression and evasion of responsibility. If any or all of these things had been done by a conservative or UKIP administration I suspect you would have been all over it with criticism and accusation. Your refusal to even comment on it, or simply send anodyne emails knowing you will get anodyne answers is hardly the Marxist Leninist approach you claim.

      Delete
  17. Infratil stated at various consultations their expectations if about 36 flights per night Hence the ptotests etc and removing the pollution monitors and denying fines.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prove that statement, 3:32. Direct us to one document that says Infratil requested 36 flights per night. It is no good saying it was said at a consultation. They would have had to apply for it to get that number.

      Delete
    2. I can't be bothered to do so 4:12 but that's what was said and minuted etc so take it or leave it

      Delete
    3. 4:12 you forget that night flights began before the consultation with Eujet. None of the councils spoke up and same people still there paid by you

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

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

      Delete
  19. It's not over yet: http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/update/2014-05-08/new-hope-for-manston/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Similar words were spoken by Roger Gale before the last proposal was rejected. Doubt much will change this time around.

      Delete
    2. James, how long before you appear as a candidate for Labour at a local election?

      Delete
    3. At least he's TRYING! Which is more than Clive "We're All In It Together" Hart is doing.

      Delete
    4. Gale is doing nothing other than giving the impression of having done something. Tje Sunday announcement of a bid knowing it was rejected days earlier? Resign

      Delete
    5. And YOU are doing what exactly, besides hiding behind anonymity spamming blogs?

      Delete
    6. I know this may seem a bit of an odd question, but can anyone find any connection between RiverOak and aviation whatsoever. I know they are supposed to be the financial backers for various aviation companies in the USA and I also know that American companies on the whole are much more likely than most to put corporate information up on their websites than most nationalities. It did occur to me that RiverOak are just what they appear to be i.e. a real estate company who can see a very cheap and desirable brownfield site, which they wish to develop real estate on.

      Delete
    7. Completely agree michael. Their main business is housing

      Delete
    8. I'm sure that Sir Roger Gale has looked into this more thoroughly than Michael Child, Peter Checksfield or any anons have.

      Delete
    9. Peter I guess the website address for one aviation company where RiverOak appears as a financier in their corporate information would resolve the issue.

      Delete
    10. I wouldn't trust Gale to wipe his own bsckside or michaels or peters. Riveroak is just a property company that Freudmann knows and Gale is clinging to be seen to be doing something.

      Delete
    11. Peter look at this another way, this is based on the understanding that RiverOak are behind several of the freight hubs in the US of A so that financing these huge businesses in America would have caused thousands of related web pages as the American media took an interest, yet Google - "RiverOak Investment Corp" freight hub - and see what comes up.

      Delete
    12. I'm an optimist, as are many others in Thanet (even Ramsgate).

      Delete
    13. Am I missing something here, but if Michael's objection to Riveroak is that they might not run it as an airport but build on it, what exactly does he thinks the present owners plan to do? Riveroak have made an offer and they say they wish to develop it as an airport. Is that any worse than Ann Gloag who, four months ago was claiming the same sort of plan.

      Perhaps I should go into Michael's shop, offer to buy an expensive book and then wait for him to refuse to sell it to me as I might want it as a door stop.

      Delete
    14. Gloag took Manston off Infratil's hands as a favour and wants rid of it now it's bust. It's cost her almost nothing. Infratil bought it for £17M and at best may get £5M or nothing. To them it's loose change. RiverOak would give it a whirl for £5M for a few months then close it and seek housing if they could get planning permission.

      Delete
    15. Complex issue Peter, anon. For instance would you buy a valuable book of the internet from a seller with less than about 97% positive feedback? Or even what do you base the value of a book on? I use the amounts copies have actually sold for at auction over the last forty years, which is how far back my book auction data extends.

      There is a problem with the attempts to save Manston involving information that either doesn’t add up, like the local politicians seemingly prepared to offer anything to save it.

      I am broadly supportive of a local airport with destinations you can fly from and an emphasis on historic aircraft. I have considerable reservations about a major freight hub for environmental reasons. At the moment Manston has no environmental permit EP despite a long and expensive public consultation on the conditions Infratil agreed with the EA, at the last moment Infratil pulled out because they said it was too expensive to become compliant. Manston has no planning permission and at the moment runs on a S106 any major changes there would trigger a planning application and resultant public enquiry. Then there is the very new information about the background particulate air pollution. Manston has no fuel pipeline, which the other major freight hubs do, so every freight fuelling would mean the fuel had to come by road tanker. The night flights issue is also complex with no real understanding what allowance the Conservatives would give when they get back into power at TDC and to an extent their return to power is related to the issue.

      With RiverOak I am inclined to think that if it quacks like a duck there is a chance that it may in fact be a duck.

      Delete
    16. Manston was always intended to be a cargo airport essentially because the people of Thnaet were too thick to do anythiing else and it would instantly provide 10,000 jobs and magically/easily end unemployment.

      Passenger flights were a sweetener to make night flights etc palatable.

      Interesting that the EA has not developed the EP - is there any information on this and the pollution levels at Manston detailed by the EA? Is there a fuel pipeline from Jentex or is that trucked over?

      Delete
    17. Just counted 27 pro-airport loonies on South-East news. How unrealistic can these people get? Gloag bought the airport for £1 but she has spent millions running it over the last year. If she sold for £5 million, which is what Freudmann is said to be offering she wouldn't make a penny. However, if she sticks with plan A and develops the airfield she could make hundreds of millions. I can't see any good reason to sell and I can't see why 27 people, wearing silly 'T'-shirts and using their children to gain publicity, would influence the Scotswoman. Time to grow up people. It's going to close and no amount of cute kids, wailing or gnashing of teeth will prevent this.

      Delete
    18. If you'd had the guts to come out from behind your computer you would've seen several hundred people there, including Laura Sandys, Will Scobie and several other politicians from ALL sides. A great day for Thanet, and the real start of positive change.

      Delete
    19. You can't honestly believe that the guff you are coming out with will save the airport. River Oak may well WANT to buy the airport but how do you know that they want run it as an airport? They may just see the opportunity to acquire 700 acres of brownfield land. Mr. Freudmann does have experience in the travel industry:
      http://www.ttgdigital.com/tony-freudmann-defends-steven/2229963.article

      Delete
    20. Anon 12:56, it is not so much what people believe as what they know and that is that if the airport remains in the present ownership it will close. The only chance of its continuance as an airport is in new ownership, but you are second guessing what a new owners intentions may be. That you do not know.

      The attendance at the demonstration, particularly by the likes of Will Scobie, may suggest that his party have at last come to realise that Thanet, even the Thanet South Constituency, is a bit bigger then just Nethercourt and central Ramsgate and that there are a lot more votes at stake than the few the picked up in the local elections over their 'No to Night Flights' stance.

      Before someone leaps in about Conservatives writing off Ramsgate, let us just look at the fact that Laura Sandys had a 7,000+ majority in 2010 and that could not have been achieved without winning many votes in Ramsgate. In fact, apart from Steve Ladyman's few years, South Thanet has always been Conservative.

      Delete
    21. To be fair on Will Scobie, he's not one to do exactly what Clive Hart wants him to do (unlike John Worrow!), as he also proved by speaking out against the recent Skate Park debacle.

      Delete
    22. The official figures for yeaterday's peaceful demonstration is over 300 people. A bit more than 27, but then maths was never your strong point anon.

      Delete
    23. Peter, I do agree and what contact I have had with Will Scobie leaves me with a favourable impression. I just feel that his prospects are not improved by the antics of some of his party's local hierarchy, but then, Laura Sandys was not always helped by her side at TDC back in the run up to 2010. I am just pleased to see that Will appreciates the importance of Manston.

      Delete
    24. Dear Mr. Epps. Unlike your good self, I live in Ramsgate. Laura Sandys was indeed elected with a solid majority. One of the key factors which gained her many votes was her willingness to express her opposition to night flights. Strangely, since the news of the airport's closure was announced she has remained silent on this topic, even when Lord Guff made deliberately misleading statements about the impact on local residents. Mr. Scobie has a very good chance of being elected provided he sticks to the party line and supports the existence of the airport provided there are appropriate environmental controls including restrictions on night flights. However, I don't think it will be necessary for Will to say anything on the matter. The airport will close this week and, once it is closed, the price to be paid for owning it will be the going rate for a 700 acre brownfield site with development potential. With land for housing fetching £1 million per acre it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that Oakfield's £5million offer is not even in the ballpark.

      The big question you have to ask is why Oakfield didn't offer £5 million for it when Infratil were selling. Nobody offered anything. That's why Infratil ended up selling it to Ann Gloag. In my opinion Ann Gloag got a bargain. She is now sitting on a goldmine and good luck to her.

      It is up to the local and county councils to ensure that development of the former airport site is in accordance with their overall development framwework. In this, they would have been greatly helped if they had foreseen the the very real possibility that the airport might close and had prepared a contingency plan. Their failure to do this has left a dangerous black hole in the planning framework which could result in inappropriate development being forced through. Instead of standing around in front of the airport waving flags, our elected representatives should be working hard to format the acceptable options for development of Manston and getting them incorporated into the planning framework.

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

      Delete
    26. Perhaps you give it away by saying "I live in Ramsgate" for it is that very kind of localism that is holding Thanet back. The isle is too small to break down into differing components because our destiny is interdependent. Whilst there are variations between the small towns, overall we are a coastal community, with some attraction to visitors, but in need more than a few tourism jobs to secure decent living standards for our people, Sadly, and for some years now, it seems that we have lost far more in local employment prospects that we have gained. The airport is just the latest in a long run of job losses.

      As to 2015 and the general election, I would not disagree with you that Will Scobie has a chance, but, on the last election result we have to go by, the county council elections, UKIP seem to be flavour of the moment. The 2015 result will inevitably depend on how much of that support surge UKIP can hold and who they take the votes from.

      Also agree with you that post airport use, if closure happens, is very important, but even that is dependent on interest from without. Ideas punted around about industrial or commercial usage, even car manufacturing has been suggested, will require companies finding something to attract them to invest in Thanet. Past experience suggests that East Kent is not exactly on the radar for any big players. Hence you come mainly back to housing and planning for such will invariably demand a percentage of social or affordable housing. We local residents may not have too much say in the final analysis. Just hope that we do not come to regret not having a nice big green airfield instead of yet another mini town with no jobs or infrastructure.

      Delete
    27. I was merely pointing out to you that I am in a good position to know why my friends and neighbours voted the way they did and that Laura Sandys obtained a large number of votes, unlike the less successful Tory candidates who preceded her, because she was prepared to come out and say that scheduled night flights were not going to be acceptable. Clive Hart too picked up on this and that's why Ramsgate returned so many Labour councillors. For me it's a positive example of democracy in action. The loud-mouths who have lied about the numbers of people opposed to night-flights have been exposed, because the pro night-flights candidates were soundly beaten. The converse is also true. If so many people are in favour of night-flights, why can't they return an elected representative to support their case? The answer is simple. The majority of people backing night-flights don't live in the areas which would be affected by them. They are the worst kind of NIMBYs because they are trying to dump the night flights in someone else's backyard, knowing full well that they are safe from the consequences. It's all very well moaning about localism and to some extent you are right. However, it is simply unrealistic not to expect people to try to protect their interests.

      If you want the people of Thanet to begin to look at the bigger picture you first have to educate them to respect their neighbours' views. In the case of Manston this simply hasn't happened. For years those of us likely to be affected by night-flights have had to endure a vicious campaign of insults and lies from people living in Broadstairs, Margate and beyond. We aren't going to forget this in a hurry. Many of us supported the existence of an airport with appropriate environmental controls but, after 15 years of failure we think it's time for a fresh start and a new approach. It's time to concede that the airport has failed and that those who blustered about it's great potential may simply not have known what they were talking about. In terms of moving forward, it follows that we shouldn't be listening to people who have been so wrong and have cost the area so dearly.

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

      Delete
  20. Manston Airport, Kent

    RiverOak Investment Corp LLC of Stamford Connecticut announced on May 4, 2014 that it hadsubmitted a formal offer to acquire 100% of the shares in the company owning ManstonAirport.The offer wasconditionalonlyon an expeditedprocess of due diligence with closing anticipated by the end of May 2014.

    The consideration offered is significantly higher than the entire capital investment expended by the current owner since Manston was purchased in November of last year.

    RiverOak’s executives visited Manston on April 29th and travelled to Scotland to meet Mrs Gloag and her advisor on May 2nd. RiverOak currently has $350 million of assets under management with a number of operating partners and has a successful track record of turning around troubled operating and real estate assets.

    In this particular project, RiverOak is the capital partner of a number of aviation operating entities specializing in aircraft maintenance and cargo operations, and principal partners at RiverOak have extensive US experience with the capital markets and debt restructuring of a number of major airport assets, one of which is a singular maintenance and cargo hub in Texas.

    RiverOak has developed a long term plan to own and manage Manston as an airport in line with its investment philosophy of diversified investing in asset backed businesses. RiverOak remains committed to investing in and developing Manston as a successful diversified aviation services, cargo and potential future passenger airport facility, and values Manston as an important piece of aviation infrastructure that is very important to both Kent specifically and the United Kingdom in general.

    RiverOak is distressed to learn of the announced closure of Manston today and remains willing to engage with all parties to achieve a solution which allows the airport to continue operating and preserves the jobs of its staff.

    For further information or press inquiries contact Tony Freudmann at 07785 306715

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any particular reason you've posted the same thing twice?

      Delete
    2. Some people are not as astute as you Peter, I just wanted to make sure it was seen. And according to anon at 3:52 pm, below, I am only 2 days old at most.

      Delete
    3. Indeed, it is very important that everyone can see this document. Two earlier postings which referred to Mr. Freudmann were removed by Michael for no good reason.

      Delete
    4. Do NOT tell RiverOak about the water pollution or missing monitors whatever you do...

      Delete
    5. Apologies about that anon 7.40, it relates to anonymous posts about real people, which I am very cautious about. Once I have deleted something I can’t put it back, frankly if you post information about a real person and you want it to stay here use an id of some sort, or I may zap it with my mobile to be on the safe side, before I have a chance to check it. To me anonymous comment is very much disposable comment and I guess I delete at least 20 a day, most of which I probably should have done.

      Delete
    6. Very strange that on the front of the Gazette, Gale is now saying there is an aquifer at manston - but this would make it unsuitable for housing but a cargo airprot would be OK?! Is he an idiot?

      Delete
    7. Can we have some realism here folks. Act in haste repent at leisure springs to mind.

      When JG destroyed Pleasurama and was evicted the then Labour administration had to find a developer and chose an overseas organisation without doing basic checks as to their bona fides and look where that has got us over the last 11 years.

      Delete
  21. Bemused this info is almost older than you. Manston is finished

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NEVER!!!

      Even if it shuts, it will reopen. Have faith, my boy!

      Delete
    2. Spot on, Peter, and wont we be glad of it when the Reds reach Calais on their push from Ukraine?

      Delete
    3. Yep. We didn't let any Fokkers shut Manston airport before, and we won't now!

      Delete
    4. The luftwaffe destroyed it in the first days of the war. It was junk even back then
      And since 1999 it has repeatedly failed

      Delete
    5. You'd be writing in German if it wasn't for Manston!

      Delete
    6. 4.25, where do you come up with this crap of yours. Check out the Channel Dash or the airfields part in the Battle of Britain or the major part it played in and after the Normandy Invasion and then its cold war role when the USAF were there and subsequently with its link to RAF Ash. You don't sound like much of an Englishman, but, if you are, you should be done for treason.

      Delete
    7. We nearly were writing in German because of the disaster of Manston is.my point

      I

      Delete
    8. My point is clear 4:34 and so destroyed was manston it became emergency only landings. Interesting it was a grass airfield in 1940. Let's humour you treason on what basis?

      Delete
    9. Anon at 4:40 pm. Try reading the history of Manston first, then if you are still of the same opinion let this blog know. Channel dash, Barnes Wallis bouncing bomb etc. A VC awarded to one pilot from the Channel Dash. All this despite being the most bombed airfield in WW2. But of course Manston didn't stand alone, Tangmere, Biggin Hill, Hawkinge to name a few.

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

      Delete
    11. Manston was badly damaged but not destroyed. It was not really any use as a fighter base because aircraft could not reach a useful height before the German aircraft were on top of them. It did however have the first squadron of Meteor jet aircraft based there from July 1944.

      Delete
    12. Oh, how the twit exposes himself, RAF Regiment do not open gates, RAF Police do, the RAF Regiment Squadrons at Manston were light anti-aircraft defence units and did not go there until 1942, long after you would have us believe Manston was destroyed. The runway was built during the war, Fido introduced and it was used by a range of aircraft in the latters years of the war.

      It only became a diversion airfield after the Americans left, long after WWII. Appreciate you do not want an airport, but don't let your hostility interfere with your reason, always assuming you have any.

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

      Delete
    14. Russian nukes in the English Channel: presumably they could dropkick them onto London and save the launch fuel?

      Delete
    15. Could the WRAF not patrol airports?

      Delete
    16. Point of order Anon at various times including 7:22 pm. Manston was not destroyed. There is a difference between badly damaged and destroyed. On one occasion the airfield was bombed while aircraft were taking off and seriously damaged and had to close, but 24 hours later it was back in use. The RAF Regiment of which you are so scornful was not brought into being until January 1942 which was just a month before the Channel Dash in February 1942. I suggest you try a bit of googling before you write any more on this blog.

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

      Delete
    18. Sad news about the death of WW2 gun enthusiast and Margate Museum curator Bob Bradley.

      Delete
    19. The hole of the south east has a rich history.As for Manston it also has a long and good history of the men that so bravely fought from there but as a private airfield it should close you cant have a 700 ache war monorail also its not what Gloag had in mind for the site

      Delete
    20. 11:03, obviously something of an oldé English student, or just illiterate, has the 'hole' of the south east, presumably some mine shaft or something, and a 700 ache, that must be painful I would imagine. Then we have a monorail, now that is an interesting thought for Manston, but what exactly would be its purpose. Still none of this expertise with the use of words explains why a WWII airfield should not be an airport. Surely Heathrow was one successful conversion.

      What anon really means is, not here or like anywhere else except where I live.

      Delete
    21. Yeah thats right 11.13 you lot lost and you cant take it. Asset stripping Gloag for our new MP

      Delete
    22. Heathrow was a successful WW2 airport conversion - back in 1946. And very successful since. While Manston is bust. You may as well blame the sun for not shining at night but think that one day it might...

      Delete
  22. Who gives a monkeys about WW2? Ancient history.

    ReplyDelete
  23. We have someone here with a very jaundiced view of our armed forces, WWII history and Manston in particular. The Blitz was not a battle, but a reference to the bombing raids carried out on London and other cities after the Germans had lost the battle for air supremacy, normally referred to as the Battle of Britain. The USAF did not come to Manston until after WWII. RAF Regiment troops were stationed at Manston from 1942 onwards and some of them landed at Normandy. RAF Regiments units, which comprised infantry, armoured cars and anti-aircraft artillery took part in every theatre of war, not just North Africa.

    There are no longer WRAF in these days of equality, they are now all in the RAF, but during WWII the ladies were known as the Womens Auxiliary Air Force (WAAFs).

    Don't know why I am bothering because this is historical fact that can be checked out by anyone who is interested. Just seems some troll likes to put down Manston in particular and our forces in general at every opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hawkinge, which did feature in the Battle of Britain, was closer to one of the German main French coastal airfields than Manston. Wonder how they managed to get high enough in time.

    ReplyDelete
  25. One has to wonder why the Luftwaffe wasted more bombs on Manston that any other RAF station if it was such a useless airfield.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/raf_manston_world_war_two.htm. Read this then criticise if you must, various anons. If Manston is to close for good that will not change its important role in 20th century air warfare history.

      Delete
  27. You're not listening Bemused: Manston wasn't important in 20th century aviation - with the notable exception of being (the only RAF base?) bombed out of existence by the Luftwaffe and the takeoff point for the Channel Dash. Other airfields were more notable and had a more illustrious role eg Biggin Hill etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't realise I had to listen to you anon. Each airfield played its own important part in WW2, including Manston. Whatever I say will be twisted by you to suit your own petty argument, but you will still be anonymous. I suggest that if you haven't done so already pay a visit to the museum at Manston, and for good measure go to the one at Hawkinge too. If the one at Hawkinge doesn't leave you in awe of what the RAF did in WW2, then you must have a heart of stone. This is my last word on the subject in this thread.

      Delete
  28. Thank goodness you've shut up then Bemused as each airport did not play an equally important role and certainly not manston which was bombed out of action as explained to you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The trouble with you is, 3:34, you do not read what is written. What Bemused said was that each airfield played its part, not equally, as location made some more suitable for one role than another. Typically the East Anglia and Lincolnshire fields were mainly bomber whilst West coastal and some Scottish bases were Coastal Command, convoy protection duties. Other inland fields were transport or troop carrying roles. If you bothered to check out your facts before you gob off, like paying a visit to the RAF Manston museum, you would find that the base had varying roles during WWII.

      As for the USAF leaving after ten years, they also left quite a few other fields, in Kent for example West Malling, as the role in Europe changed from occupation to the cold war NATO era and the destructive capabilities of aircraft weapons systems increased.

      From some of the stuff you have written I doubt whether you could tell the difference between the HLI and the Salvation Army. If you did service, I presume it was in the bedding store getting squaddies to pay up for blankets that had cigarette burns when they were given them

      Delete
    2. Largely agree with your dull explanation in the first two paragraphs except Bemused was arguing that Manston was special and important when it wad largely irrelevant.

      Sadly I was rejected from the Wrens although the RAF Regiment did offer a general command from the off as I could walk and talk. The shame haunts me still even though I turned them down

      Delete
    3. PSI with the TA I suppose made you a big man, 4:29.

      Delete
  29. I'm with Bemused on this one anon, your arguments are so tiresome and boring, bereft of actual facts and biased in the extreme. Manston wasn't the only airfield to be bombed out of action but each and every one was able to recover from the onslaught and return to the business of defeating the German war machine in any way it could. I would argue that each airfield was important in its own way, each depending on the others for emergency landing, refuelling etc. Now be a good boy/girl anon and shut the F**K up.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Rude 4pm you're agreeing with me though rather than Bemused that Manston was bombed out of action. Now fck off and reread the comments and pay attention before commenting

    ReplyDelete
  31. I have deleted the comments above for the reason below. Ed.

    The comment I want deleted are those on the 8 May at 5.20, 7.22 and 10.38 and today, 9 May at 12.40 pm. This is at my request as an officer of the RAF Regiment Association. William Epps

    ReplyDelete
  32. Looks like this has gone to the top, with the PM talking about it now! We WILL win!!! : )))))

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Does this mean that anybody who feels offended can ask that postings be removed? e.g. As a resident living under the flight path, please can you remove any postings containing ignorant claptrap about noise levels and what those of us who have to endure the noise can and can't put up with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's Michael's blog, therefore it's Michael's rules. Of course there's nothing stopping you starting your own blog...

      Delete
    2. It is, of course, Michael's blog, and he is entitled to set the rules and moderate in any way he sees fit. However, as any primary school teacher will tell you, if you give in to children and allow them to get their own way, you will forever be inundated with their demands.

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

      Delete
  35. Can any of the anti-Manston lot give me more details of that meeting in a school hall that apparently included "many more" than the 500 who packed The Winter Gardens? Photos, videos, etc? Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  36. There has never been an anti Manston group all the meetings at Chatham House school have been full of anti night flight and training flights protesting residents and if some grasping American outfit thinks they can come here and do as they like just to keep this three times loser of an airfield going with night flights that deprive us of or sleep and quality of life they are in for a rude awakening as there will be thousands of resident demonstrating outside Manston or on the runway just listen for the cheers when it closes that's if the wind carries the sound in your direction as you obviously live well away from Ramsgate.
    Stargazer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, there won't be thousands of residents demonstrating as the vast majority even in Ramsgate SUPPORT the airport! I've asked before, if there's so many against night flights (etc) then why isn't there a group now? I can't even find just ONE person who uses their own name when writing about it, let along turning up to pro-Manston meetings to make their opinion heard. What are you all (all 5 of you) scared of???

      Delete
    2. Quite see why you call yourself Stargazer ass you are obviously somewhere off with your head in the clouds. The anti night flights protest never attracted thousands and, if there were such numbers, where are they now.

      As for the wind, well, according to Michael the expert in such matters, that from Manston blows over Broadstairs.

      I do love heroes who threaten rude awakenings when the probability is that they could not punch their way out of a paper bag. Dream on, Stargazer, whoever you are.

      Delete
    3. I believe this the same Stargazer who complained about the "bias" of Radio Kent when discussing Manson, yet didn't have the bottle to phone in with his point of view. Says it all really.

      Delete
  37. Checksfield. You were wrong all along. It's closing. Us 'anti's' only had to let the market do its thing. It did.
    How's Margate looking?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The trouble with the market is, 5:14, that Thanet is fast not having one of any kind at all. No airport, no Pfizer, no mines, no port, no Pleasurama, no Royal Pavilion, no Woolworths, no Littlewoods, no ferries, no fracking and not a fracking chance of anything much else it seems except whining residents. Enjoy for I am selling whilst I still can.

      Delete
    2. No anon there will be no fracking, possibly because Thanet is on chalk not shale

      Delete
    3. That's either "Mr Checksfield" or "Peter" if you don't mind. Address me with respect then I may answer your question.

      Delete
  38. 5.29

    You'll find that your house will be worth more now without the ongoing blight that WAS
    the airport. Everyone's a winner!

    ReplyDelete
  39. So Sir Roger Gale, in his role as big deal intermediary, knew or didn't know about the housing plans.
    Either way, it's pretty damning for him surely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could be because there are no housing plans anon, and the other way, what was that?

      Delete
  40. Michael, the Gazette insider claims different.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nah old news about the plans for building on the part of the airport north of the road, discussed with the council, in the local media in Feb 2013, just a bit of stirring

      Delete
    2. Ian Driver doesn't seem to think it's old news.

      Delete
    3. We are talking about the redundant land on the airport's northern pasture here, the bit the other side of the road that used to have barriers on it from where the airport is now.

      Delete
    4. Interesting housing seems to be the basis of secret Hart and Gloag discussions. He is stitching us up again as with the Port

      Delete
    5. By having housing over the road in a former part of the airport would be setting a precident, therefore making it more difficult to refuse housing in the other part. A slippery slope, and Clive Hart knows that.

      Delete
    6. Once houses are built where gliders used to be launched from then aircraft noise will become even more of a problem. And what of the people of Manston village? Will they be consulted in the same way as the night flight consultation was conducted, i.e. in the same way as turkeys would be consulted about Christmas?

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

      Delete
  41. Michael, not like the Gazette!

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      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.