I make the council’s political composition as: 26, Labour Group; 23, Conservative Group; 3,
Independent Group; 2, Thanet Independent Group; 2, UKIP; while The Isle of Thanet
Gazette in today’s article http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/Independent-Thanet-councillor-John-Worrow-joins/story-21242552-detail/story.html
about Councillor John Worrow joining the Labour group makes it 25 in the group
so someone can’t add up.
It is a funny old world on the blogging front not very long
ago this would have been bignews for http://birchington.blogspot.co.uk/
and the sister site http://tigabout.blogspot.co.uk/
now not even a mention.
There is also the whole business of an air freight
only hub as there are plenty of T-shirts saying, save Manston, but none I have
seen saying, build a freight hub I can’t fly from.
On the whole I would say nothing is more likely to harm any cause than stifling debate, refusing to answer questions reasonably and if you are just plain wrong saying so.
An interesting aspect of SMA is that this FaceBook group has around 7,000 members and yet only 3,000 have signed the council’s E-petition asking TDC to make a cpo for the airport. Now as you can sign this petition as many times as you have email addresses and don’t have to be on the TDC electoral roll, it does make me wonder if there is much enthusiasm for a cpo by TDC. To me this seems to me to be rather on a par with a local grocer resolving Tesco opening next door by trying to buy them out.
I guess the real question here is, why didn’t Conservative MP Sir Roger Gale push for the Conservative controlled KCC to mount a cpo instead of the much smaller Labour run TDC?
We then come onto the spat developing between the two
FaceBook FORS Friends of Ramsgate Seafront and SMA Save Manston Airport
This seems to be about the SMA group being very concerned
about anything that could be perceived as being against the airport, this may
even extend to even discussing the negative side of both aviation and the
various political moves to attempt to save the airport.
All of this is a bit of a non starter as far as I can see as
airports have a down side and an upside, the downside, like roads or heating
your house is that air travel creates air pollution. With Manston having a
flight path over Ramsgate, which is at the end of the runway there is also the
noise pollution aspect and with Manston being on the drinking water aquifer the
potential ground pollution issues. Of course airports can have an upside in
terms of economic growth so there is plenty to debate.
On the rescue plan for the airport I would say there are
still many issue, like is TDC the best bit of government for a cpo and is
RiverOak just what it says it is on their website http://www.riveroakic.com/ five financiers
in a small office, or are they, as our local MPs would have us believe, large
airport operators.
On the whole I would say nothing is more likely to harm any cause than stifling debate, refusing to answer questions reasonably and if you are just plain wrong saying so.
An interesting aspect of SMA is that this FaceBook group has around 7,000 members and yet only 3,000 have signed the council’s E-petition asking TDC to make a cpo for the airport. Now as you can sign this petition as many times as you have email addresses and don’t have to be on the TDC electoral roll, it does make me wonder if there is much enthusiasm for a cpo by TDC. To me this seems to me to be rather on a par with a local grocer resolving Tesco opening next door by trying to buy them out.
I guess the real question here is, why didn’t Conservative MP Sir Roger Gale push for the Conservative controlled KCC to mount a cpo instead of the much smaller Labour run TDC?
I make it 26 as well. And as for the lack of posts, it's not just blogging that has suffered. Many groups of Facebook are also seeing a lack of commentary. It seems that if you are not commenting in the way the group admin wants to comment, you get ejected from the group. Which is a shame. But as one person said, many of these sites are run by little Hitlers.
ReplyDeleteGetting there anon.
DeleteMichael as an admin on FORS FB page I took note of the increasingly bitter exchanges that occurred whenever Manston was discussed, even in a light hearted way, we made a decision that posting on that subject was not going to be allowed as it detracted from what FORS was set up to achieve.
DeleteNow we haven't banned anyone from the group, despite me being called a muppet for instance, and we do not normally have to go that far, however bad language, name calling and downright rudeness will not be allowed.
I wouldn't like to call it a spat as all that happened is posts were deleted and one person took exception to that and decided the whole group was against saving Manston which it patently ridiculous and manifestly unfair to those that didnt get involved me included.
I think the key here Barry is that Manston Airport and the future of this huge site is likely to have a significant impact on the future of the whole of Thanet but particularly Ramsgate which is in the unusual position for a UK town now of being at the end of the Runway. To my mind the future of Manston is and should be a significant FORS issue and members of the group ought to be discussing it.
DeleteObviously as I have published my views on Manston on this blog over the last few years everyone either knows what they are or can find out. I think this allows me to speak freely on the subject, which I have been doing.
I really don’t think the there will be any good solution to the Manston issue unless people feel comfortable to say what they actually think, especially as no night flights has a local and proven status which no other airport specific issue does.
Michael as you know as a member on FORS there have been a number of debates, both putting the for and against views, and if this were debated in a normal manner then there would be no issues at all. It has been increasingly apparent that the debates have been getting personal, vitriolic and increasingly destructive and for this reason and none other debate has been stopped.
DeleteShould there be some acknowledgement that debate will stop its self destruction then debate can resume however we need some time to let tempers cool before that heppens
And there is the issue in a nutshell! People have got control of sites and are refusing to allow discussion about the issues if it is against their agenda. SMA won't discuss the negatives of a CPO. The Broadstairs! group has died because the admin wouldn't allow anything negative to be said. FORS is the same. It's stifling discussion because of people with fragile egos not wanting to hear alternative points of view. Telling people off is not the answer.
DeleteAnon did you actually read what I just posted obviously not from your response. If you bother to join FORS, Michael has posted the link, you will see plenty of comments both for and against different subjects.
DeleteAlternative points of view are fine but not when either viewpoints contain personal insults and attacks. Nowt to do with fragile egos and funnily enough I have had plenty of thanks for the admin stance.
So please join in discussion on Ramsgate Seafront issues by all means
'I am right, you are wrong'. And quite rude! Criticism seems to be something some like to give, but can't take, eh! Makes you wonder why the blogging scene has died
DeleteSorry I didnt realise you were criticizing I thought you were having a moan. And anyone please don't shoot the messenger it was after all an admin decision
DeletePeter,
DeleteI agree with your definition of 'anonymous'. Come to think if it you and I have had our run ins in the past, but at least we knew who we were and could throw darts at the other's photo.
And I suspect my comment will stir up the anonymous foaming, ranting banshees of cyberspace.
Peter, John the problem is that in reality it just doesn’t work as one would expect, I have tried turning anonymous comments off here for periods and what actually happens is that very soon no one comments at all.
DeleteA case in point being my press release blog where anonymous comment has been turned off for about a year attracts about three comments a month and is only getting about 100 page views per day. It is my intention to close it soon due to lack of interest.
I must admit Peter I barely contained my febrility when I burst onto the blogging scene! Still, better "out than in" as they say! My humble readership is from overseas in the main. And as a piece of social comment, the most read posts shown on the right hand side gives a fair indication of the issues that interest people the most, whether these be universal or purely local.
DeletePeter I though I had linked to your music blog and if you are posting several times a week and it isn’t coming up then something must be wrong.
DeletePeter, highlighting what has happened to my family is half the reason I started the blog, albeit not obvious at first. Viewing figures are way above average each time I post on this, so I know something is happening. Ultimately though, the outcome is thankfully out of my hands. I have no desire to represent the views and needs of others on an ongoing basis.
DeleteEasy to find http://www.musicdvdslist.blogspot.co.uk/ if you know it’s there but if you don’t want me to link to it, fine by me
DeleteSo what if Worrow is not independent any more but back in labour?
DeletePeter you dont mention several blogs available on the right mine included
DeleteI think that the reason many blogs have closed down is here to see. 10 of the last 20 comments were by one person. There are certain individuals who have the time and inclination to seek to dominate discussions with their own narrow views. I think that many other posters have got fed up with having their perfectly reasonable views and opinions rubbished. Personally, I am fed up with the superior attitude of one named poster, who believes that anonymous postings should not be allowed and cannot accept that this decision is for the blog owner to make. When somebody goes on and on like a broken record, it's hardly surprising that people go elsewhere.
DeleteI don't think I said that people were posting on other blogs. I said that they had gone elsewhere. A few years ago, there were no blogs. People who wanted to have their opinions heard had to write to the local papers. If the blogs are being destroyed by people who are swamping them with their limited views, more balanced individuals may well have decided that the platform is becoming childish and puerile. They may well have decided not to bother posting their views at all. An example of childishness would be the comment above: "I knew you couldn't name any." This is childish because it is based on the presumption that I had said something which I had not said. Children often behave in this way. They do not listen to what they are told and respond without thinking their response through properly.
DeleteI agree, 6.51. I would rather read something fresh from an Anon (and no, we are not all the same person!), than the same named people posting the same opinion over and over again, usually building up to an insult or a feeble attempt at a put-down. Even "anonymouse" was dragged out again the other day, for goodness sake!
DeleteI agree with 12.12 its seems as though silly fb admin who cant spot people who dont come from Ramsgate maybe not even Thanet are letting them dictate how their fb site should be run and what topics should be talked about I was on FORS when a savemanston p**ck came on and said that Ramsgate deserved to have run down buildings and its a sh*t hole and so are the people this was not removed and nor have the supposed light hearted comments that have been pro-manston also FORS are saying that the manston issue is nothing to do with them but the beach and town are on the flight path and its the most important thing to happen to Ramsgate for quite a time. I can see admins point about heated comments but if anybody is not sticking to the facts and starts insulting people who have a different point of view then they should be warned once with the comment being removed if it happens again then remove them form FORS fb group
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me very one sided in favour of the pro-manston at the moment but I bet most of the members of FORS that are pro-manston dont come from Ramsgate and will never give there time to helping clear up or raising money for a project.
Got me Peter, it was a case of; eats shoots and leaves and god knows I tried to put that comma in man, but somehow there was an inner battle and the comma lost.
ReplyDeleteMichael in your opinion would you say that Ramsgate being on the flight path has stopped anybody from investing either buying a house or starting a business? As for me, I cant see any other reason that Ramsgate has had such little investment and why the beautiful housing stock is so cheap.
ReplyDeleteOm it’s what seems to happen in Thanet, you can have a situation where a local airport increases economic activity so house prices rise. This would be a offset you noise problems. With Manston the problem is that we haven’t really had the economic activity, just the threat of expansion, so rather the worst of both worlds.
DeleteI think there are about 80,000 people of employment age in Thanet and around 4,000 out of work, so on the one hand saying that the airport would expand to employ around 2,000 people and perhaps another 2,000 indirectly sounds like a solution.
In practice the most it ever employed was about 150, which for the people who lost their jobs was, yes, a disaster, but in terms of the prosperity of the area not very significant.
The sleeping tiger effect though which has lurked in the background and at different levels at different times over the past 50 years of commercial activity there, which at its worst, you could have noise disruption at a level which would make it impossible for many people living under the flight path to function properly, has been a very negative influence.
Recently there has been much more concern and investment constraints around environmental considerations, so I guess while there may have been companies that saw having an airport on their doorstep as being advantageous, there would also have been those that wouldn’t have moved here due to the environmental uncertainties.
Frankly there is nothing business investment likes less that uncertainty.
My take is that it could be beneficial for Thanet to have an airport where the size of that airport remained the same, however the threat of a large airport that never actually turns into one I would think would have a l detrimental effect on property prices.
Michael,
DeleteAs a child I lived in the Admiral Fox in Grange Rd during the 50's. At a time when the USAF Thunderjets from Manston roared low overhead. The susequent noise was never such as you put it "at a level which would make it impossible for many people living under the flight path to function properly." Really Michael, you do exagerate.
John, Peter. Frankly when a plane flies over I am the first out the door with a camera so I guess I know what you mean.
DeleteHowever if you read this http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/blogpicts2/id71.htm I think you will agree there is an element of rose coloured glasses over the American airbase period.
But as I said it isn’t so much the existing aircraft noise as the sleeping tiger effect of not really knowing what the effect of the noise would be, I did try to get the airport to run a test so that people could make an informed decision on night flights, see http://michaelsbookshop.com/charles/ but they refused.
The house prices in Cliftonville is a completely different issue, I think they must be about the lowest in the southeast at the moment.
I have considered buying in Cliftonville but the problems with multi occupancy will never go away not unless the planning dept make a ruling that multi occupancy licences are revoked
DeleteThe problems with Cliftonville houses are to good and big to be anything else other than hotels
Flats are fine bed sits are the problem
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMichael,
DeleteI do not agree that I can measure the effect of aircraft noise through rose coloured spectacles. Neither am I entirely sure what you mean by a "sleeping tiger effect". But I do know that a problem can always be found with anything and everything, if you try hard enough. Even when you personally consider that you do not have a problem there will always be someone around to convince you that you do, even if it's just a sleeping tiger effect. My parents were not bothered by the noise. I suspect theirs was a more resilient generation.
If a tiger stays asleep then there's not a problem but if the tiger wakes up, you get it, So John you will admit the noise coming from low flying aircraft over Ramsgate is at best a nuisance and most people who haven't lived with it all their lives would rather do without it.
DeletePeople that have had it all their lives maybe miss it, but I do liken it to Stockholm syndrome. I hope one day people of Ramsgate will understand it was for the best and they will never admit to fighting on the side of an airport that held back the place they lived.
You are endeavouring to put words in my mouth. You say, "So John you will admit the noise coming from low flying aircraft over Ramsgate is at best a nuisance......" I admit nothing of the sort. If you wish me to paraphrase then it's I'm sick of single issue moaners.
DeletePurple Om.
DeleteOnce again you err. You are assuming that I have lived in Ramsgate all my life. You are wrong. Just for the record I have lived out of Ramsgate for 61 years with 21 of those years in various countries around the world.
Your words not mine
DeleteMy parents were not bothered by the noise. I suspect theirs was a more resilient generation.
why would they have to be more resilient if there was not a problem???
And can you answer me, why do you think its a good thing for Ramsgate seeing as your life expectancy is 2 years shorter under a flightpath, your far less lightly to sell your house for a good price, you have to endure 30 seconds without hearing your tv or anybody your talking with, aircraft emit pollution see link ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation, but the most important to Ramsgate is the lack of investment being put off by airport owners wanting night flight expansion and to crap over all of Ramsgate for a few extra £.
DeletePurple Om,
DeleteHow long an argument do you want? When I have already explained to you that I am sick of single issue moaners.
Good facts there John, I'm glad to see your argument is as strong as all the other pro-Manston supporters. When will someone give me a good reason for supporting Manston and its stupid CPO?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNIght flights dont bother me nor do day flights because there ins't any hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
DeletePurple OM @ 0210,
DeleteNo one is obliged to give you a good reason for anything, especially me.
Besides, I know who you are Purple OM. I've seen you standing on the cliff top tossing bread crumbs to helicopters.
There ins't even an airport
Delete"When an airport not an airport"
"when it doesn't have any of the equipment required to be an airport"
you would think with all those years behind you. You would have grown up a little but it looks like i talking with a 5 year old John why not read what you typing and you decide if your comments look as though a 5 year old typed them
DeletePurple Om,
DeleteI have studied your remarks at 9:02 am & 9:06 am about Manston
What you say has been an immense contribution to the debate on this subject. Not only that but you could also be described as charming intelligent and witty. And perhaps one day you will be.
Purple Om 8:58 am & 9:02 am
DeleteI'll be back!
Your wind ups are not working on me John. Facts are not normally charming or witty as for intelligent well I have never claimed to be. But compared to you I am Leonardo da Vinci and you are found in Darwin awards under the winner. I'm not saying your, childish, stupid, senile, living at you parents house after wasting your life becoming bitter, self loathing, with nothing left to do than post childish remarks on blog sites without contributing anything at all. I'm not saying any of that
DeleteAnyway I'm not going to bicker with you any more thats not what i come on here to do if your not going to contribute to a reasoned debate then I will not respond to you any more.
Purple Om bearing in mind your logo try this: कैसे एक व्यक्ति बचकाना और बूढ़ा दोनों हो सकता है?
DeleteMeanwhile I'm busy right now. Can I come back and ignore you later.
Good grief, just got to the blog after a busy morning during which I zapped a few comments with mi phone, especially anon ones with links in them.
DeleteDo be careful caps and chapesses, won’t you, some of these lead to viruses.
Have a look at John’s link, it may look like a riddle in Hindi but it leads to a website, perfectly safe in this instance, but it does have a completely text to where it takes you on the web.
I still think that on the airport front, what I am trying to say is that if you are very much pro saving the airport, then TDC raising a cpo based on five American real estate bankers, looks far enough off the wall to me to be a diversionary tactic to keep the pressure of where it might actually save the airport.
In this instance a hostile petition to KCC demanding a referendum for a cpo could very likely actually work, up to a point.
The key question, and very pertinent as there can be no doubt that the airport would have to be bought, have a considerable amount of money spent on it and then be subsidised for a considerable number of years, is would the people of Kent be prepared to pay for this?
But KCC would have to give all the facts before a referendum. No one (other than people around Lydd and Boris island) is going to think that's a good idea. Places that are close enough to Boris island and Lydd without being on the flight path might benefit financially from being next to a major airport will vote no for a Manston CPO. I'm sure that someone not close, or doesn't stand to benefit at all Isn't going to let KCC spend the sort of money you can build a hospital for on an de-funked airport that now needs staff, equipment, planning permission. CAA licence, EP, and last but not least a court order that says a CPO can be used to take a privately owned business from one owner and give it to another owner.
DeleteAh Om well not exactly, I think as far as I can see it would be very difficult for KCC not to hold a consultation along the lines of do you want us to raise a cpo for Manson Airport: Yes/No. If they faced a petition of say 5% of the electoral roll this would be about 55,000.
DeleteThe referendum would be triggered not by the petition but by the need to raise council tax to pay for; the airport, getting the airport’s infrastructure to the necessary standard for a planning consent, paying for the various studies needed for the planning application, (not sure who would pay for the public enquiry this would trigger) and then the costs of subsidising the airport until it became profitable.
No need for a cpo Peter as Maypole airport is for sale, their website says please ring Susie on 01403 700222 for more details
DeleteHow funny: is Maypole on sale for a quid? the only Kent airport expanding is Lydd - a bit, and talk of Biggin Hill - a bit. The thousands of flights and passengers are from Gatwick and heathrow nowhere else. Manston should be demolished and cleared as soon as possible.
DeleteYou're right in principle Michael 5:17 but KCC and TDC have form for simply lying to the public and doing what they like eg EKO, Manston previously, the Port, planes fly out to sea etc etc. Central government funds could be raised or shunted around through quangos like EKO and Kent Tourism: remember the £100k KLM fund?
DeleteSorry I did not quite understand before it would only be Thanet that would have a referendum not the whole of Kent and it would only be Thanet tax payers footing the bill? I'm not to sure how a monster bill like that could possibly be paid by council tax. it would never be voted for.
Delete"Do you the bill payer want you council tax to go up by £2000 a year then vote yes for a CPO on Manston airport if not vote no"
99% voting no lol
The biggest bill will be for the CPO £600,000,000 so what would an extra £10-20 million be peanuts.
DeleteIt would be cheaper to not have an airport. Its location Isn't in the right place
DeletePurple Om
DeleteIt's in a perfect place, just need to get rid of some of the houses, that's all. Or we could keep Manston and flatten the Nethercourt estate and return it to fields. Perhaps a nature reserve. This would help cure the noise nuisance.
8.26
DeleteWe don't want or need an airport
Yes we do, Purple Om. We need an airport at Manston, a big and busy one. Why would you object to that?
DeleteActually, we don't need an airport. What we need is industry or commerce which generates well-paid jobs. For fifteen years we have had the great and the good telling us about the great potential of Manston. These would be the same people who told us that a hoverport was the answer to all of our woes and then told us that a ferryport was the answer to all our woes. But all of these things failed to deliver and the airport has failed in spades. Now, I think we can all agree that the area needs jobs. What I don't understand is why the Manston diehards (I'm not allowed to call them the PAL any more) are so averse to trying something different. After 15 years of failure, why would you sign up for another 15 years of the same? All of the time and energy spent promoting the airport could be put to afar better use promoting realistic and more promising alternatives. We need some progressive thinking in Thanet and this means that we need to get away from the foolish notion that only an airport can deliver jobs. All over the country, airport-free economic prosperity is being delivered. The only reason we have not been able to do the same is because a vocal minority have insisted on having an airport. It is time for them to admit that they have been wrong, to shut up and to allow other voices to be heard.
Delete10.18
DeleteI wish I could get my point across as well as you Well Said...... So making Thanet a transport hub has failed its also bought down the tourism industry to boot.
what we now need is something that no one else has. The only thing is the isle its self if TDC, public volunteers groups and private investors focused on the sea fronts only, leaving the town centres alone until we start to attract holidaymakers. With a new bus service running up and down the 3 towns sea fronts until 5am 7 nights a week in the summers months with free passes given to holidaymakers maybe 14 trips a week or 2 a day with a scratch off pass for people staying in hotels and B&Bs. A train deal also attached to hotels and B&Bs. With maybe Ramsgate asking the people the put in the London eye if they would consider putting something smaller but still good, asking other fair ground company's to install rides on the ferry port car/lorry park with a rent free deal for a few years.with a promise that TDC would go out of their way to advertise and promote. Also we could turn the unused part of Ramsgate tunnels into the best nightclub using its long and straight shape ideal for a fantastic laser show being underground it could go all night with out disturbing anyone and turning the rest of the port in to an extension of the marina then we could have a real attraction.
Is the above going for the most comments removed on a single post???????
DeleteDoesn't he realise he's just giving himself a very bad name, or has it gone well past that????
Sad man!!!!
Peter my take and yes, I concede it may be the wrong one, is that whatever your feelings are about the airport the TDC cpo RiverOak option lacks credibility and I can only see that it is already costing TDC money in terms of investigating its viability.
DeleteIt is as though the SMA group once handed the most unlikely solution have blindly ignored any more viable solutions.
The airport’s catchment is Kent not Thanet, SMA members appear to be from all across Kent and ultimately petitioning a small council where most of them are not on the electoral roll can only result in some form of consultation with members of the TDC electorate, from which most SMA members will be excluded.
It is the old taxation without representation argument in reverse, ultimately representation without taxation is a road to nowhere.
To Purple Om at at 1:43am,
DeleteWell done, well done, your handling of the keyboard is coming along fine. You have mastered ? and ! It is now time to try some of the others. Have a go at using # and my personal favourite ~ Do not lose heart for it will not be long before you graduate to useful punctuation and grammar. Even if that means you must occasionally delete your post in order to correct it (and no, I'm not Peter).
But I may wrong. Perhaps your use of ????? and !!!!!! signifies that you were shouting. Why shout? It cannot be to rise above the noise of passing aircraft. I appreciate how infuriating it must be for you to discover that there are many ignorant people out there who disagree with your point of view on many subjects. They need to be shouted at, don't they. Never the less It would be wise to save your voice bearing in mind that the aeroplanes will be back; and in greater numbers than before.
You are right, Zip, for I heard that, as Manston is surrounded by water on three sides, the RN are thinking of using it as a static aircraft carrier until the new HMS QE is ready for service. Their preferred landing and take off direction for navy fighter jets is straight over Clarendon House, South Eastern Road and the Manston Tesco with a monthly prize for the pilot who collects the most chimney pots.
DeleteI heard that a Scot was going to build houses all over it. I bet you I'm right............ Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
DeletePeter this is an old misunderstanding about what I can and can’t do, now at the moment I have a bookshop full of customers which I have to be there for, answering questions as best as I am able and trying to ensure the right people get the right books.
DeleteI may write a paragraph and the switch into shop assistant mode for an hour, when I close nearly all my time will be devoted to dealing with my children although I may get a chance to paint or draw a picture.
I just don’t have time for action groups or going to meetings, hence the blog.
I really am not certain what the best way to go with Thanet is, although I am convinced that transport hubs are not the solution, either in terms of sea or air, there may be a viable use for the port as a port and for the airport as an airport, but a hub isn’t one of them. The simple geography of three quarters of Thanet being surrounded by sea and around fifty years of failures means looking for some alternative solution.
I am not against the cpo on the grounds that I support the closure of the airport I am against it because it just doesn’t make any sense regardless of anyone’s views on the airport. TDC don’t have the money to get involved with this one, they already have a port on the road to bankruptcy and dereliction, which must be sapping their meagre budget, adding an airport that they couldn’t afford to turn into anything viable wouldn’t help anyone.
Starting up an action group against a CPO thats never going to get off the ground, would be like starting an action group against Woolworth's starting shops again.
DeleteHi Peter. There is no need to start any kind of action group to counter the CPO since it isn't going to happen. I know you would like to think otherwise, but you will see shortly. In any case, you only need an action group if there isn't a straightforward way to counter the threat. In this case, all local people would need to do is to write to the council stating that they don't wish to see any of their council tax used for this purpose because it will expose the council-taxpayers to greater losses. Should those losses occur, those who have written would be able to claim their share of the losses against the individual councillors who authorised the CPO.
DeleteBut Ramsgate does not have that multi occupancy problem. I am absolutely sure that a lot of Ramsgate problems lie with lack of investment caused by being on the flight path and as soon as its definite that Manston will never fly over Ramsgate again then we will see a flood of investors and house hunters pushing up prices and lowering availability.
ReplyDeleteThe Mod fire training sessions with fires and chemicals to water would affect quality of life too. The sooner that closed the better.
ReplyDeleteOne to take up with the MOD anon I don't think anything you say here will make much difference
DeleteI wonder if there's any way of finding out what their burning. I would think it cant be that harmful to the environment and people
DeletePerhaps you're right Om want to drink some and let us know
DeletePurple Om, [8:53 pm]
DeleteYou are correct, the chemicals are not harmful when properly managed, which they are. There is a detailed safety report that covers this subject in great detail including test results. I cannot direct you to it because I've forgotten where it is.
Which chemicals are not harmful? I thought fire retardent was cancerous?
DeleteIt is cancerous especially with thousands of litres sprayed around. How has TDC checked on this?
DeleteIs John Worrow in line for Ian Driver's old seat in Northwood as a Labour candidate?
DeleteI can't imagine him getting elected anywhere.
DeleteBrighton, perhaps, or are you not allowed top say that?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMichael scared of discussing the TDC Chief executive leave of absence after the Eko inquiry. ..
ReplyDeleteApart from what is on Ian Driver’s blog I don’t know of anything to discus anon and I think Ian has said it all. Was there something you wanted to add to the issue?
ReplyDeleteActually, I think that any discussions about Sue's leave of absence will be used as part of her severance package, so Michael has probably saved the tax payer money!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhy is Michael so scared of discussing this? TDC corruption or indeed the Chief Executive's disappearing or paid off is hardly new? Any councillor that agrees any payoff should be sacked.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOh dear anon and just how do you suggest we sack a democratically elected councillor, an armed coup perhaps?
ReplyDeleteThat would be killing them (some of those with cancer because of their decisions may take a different view) but a vote of no confidence or resignation or withdrawing the party whip or voted out would suffice? You're not suggesting there should be a pension and payoff for senior TDC corruption?
ReplyDeleteWhy have we not had a council tax rebate for corruption? Michael may be made of money but I don't see why I should pay for the rampant fraud and salaries for inaction at TDC?
ReplyDeleteAh anon I see euthanasia for the victims, you hadn’t thought of a reality check here had you? I mean it’s the councillors who you don’t like that you want to make a vote of no confidence in themselves, or do you mean that we the electorate should hold a sort of spontaneous election. You can’t withdraw TDC councillors pensions as none of them get any, unless of course you are suggesting issuing them with pensions first so you can withdraw them.
ReplyDeleteThen we come to your old corruption business, as far as I understand it there are two officers being investigated at the moment, are you suggesting that we should take some sort of action before the investigation is complete? Lynch them perhaps? You seem to be saying that everyone should be seen as guilty before they are tried, no presumption of innocence then? Perhaps you should make a list of all the people you don’t like and have them arrested just to be on the safe side, I think it is a coup d'état you are suggesting.
And then when it comes to sacking the council officers with no compensation, do you think that we should just dispense with employment law altogether? Or perhaps we should just dispense with employment law for the people you don’t like. You could be a dictator and we could pay our taxes to you instead of the council, couldn’t we.
You've completely lost me on this Michael. your first paragraph makes no sense at all despite rereading it. Some councillors get pensions apparently but i didn't make that point - it was for the officials' pensions my point. On your 2nd paragraph you're indulging in your own hyperbole I simply made the point that the TDC corruption is extensively detailed. Perhaps you should ask yourself how long we should accept these delays and what a fitting punishment for corruption should be. So far it seems the council can delay matters for as long as possible and then resign with a silencing payoff - all our/your money.
ReplyDeleteI thought only macgonigal was being investigated. Who is the 2nd one?
Your 3rd paragraph is similar hyperbole: the issue is clear gross misconduct such as corruption results in no payoff or pension and indeed jail. You seem to suggest we should pay. Your talk of coups and executions and dictators is baffling but laughable for normal council corruption. The worst part is you seem willing to excuse it.Why not a tax rebate?
Anon if you look at the comment guidelines you will find it is against the rules here to refer to people by their surnames only, however from your slightly out of context use of the word hyperbole and having tried the definition on my own children just now I am assuming you are around first or second year of secondary school, so I am making an exception in your case, however please don’t do it again or I will have to delete your comment if you refer to Dr Sue Mcgonigal as just Mcgonigal, adults find this sort of thing rude and we just don’t do it here.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry you couldn’t understand my reply, I would suggest that you would find George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” a good read and this would help you understand why we have laws and can’t just sack people without compensation.
There isn’t any proven corruption within the council, if there was the police would deal with it as they did with Cllr Sandy Ezekiel who went to prison not all that long ago for trying to buy a house the council owned for less than it was worth.
To be honest if there was corruption we would soon fid out as the councillors of one party are always trying to trip up the councillors of another party.
It really isn’t a very good idea to go around say there is corruption when no corruption has been proved, it can get you into serious trouble.
As far as a tax rebate goes, well it just doesn’t work like this the council puts any left over money into a fund and if this gets large enough they reduce the council tax.
You should watch your manners and pomposity Michael, especially as what you say at 6:55 not only fails to answer the points previously made but is simply idiotic. There is no corruption at TDC you say? Idiotic and perhaps you've forgotten the LGA report. And there can be no tax rebate? Idiotic. A percentage is simply rebated or discounted off the next bill. Who is the 2nd official you say is being investigated - which repudiates your own earlier point on no corruption...
ReplyDeleteTHANET MPs, Sir Roger Gale and Laura Sandys, yesterday met with the CEO of RiverOak, Steve DeNardo, and fellow directors who wish to purchase Manston and to re-open the airfield as an operating airport cargo hub.
ReplyDeleteAt the meeting at the House of Commons RiverOak , the company which offered the full £7 million asking price for Manston prior to closure but had their offer rejected by the current owner, Mrs Gloag, reaffirmed their desire to buy the airfield and their faith in its future as a significant cargo-handling and possible future passenger centre.
Earlier the RiverOak team met with Aviation Minister Robert Goodwill to outline their proposals and to maintaincontact with the UK Government.
Further meetings will follow later this week.
Following their discussions with Mr DeNardo The MPs said in a joint statement:“It is clear that RiverOak are committed in their determination to acquire and to operate Manston as an airport, with all the job-creating potential that will flow from that. There are, of course, obstacles to be overcome and much will depend upon the ability of Thanet District Council to bring a Compulsory Purchase Order to a satisfactory conclusion but with cross-party political support that exists we believe that this can be achieved. Literally and metaphorically we and RiverOak are in this for the long haul. The due processes may take a little time but we intend to realise our objective and to see planes flying from Manston once again”,
10 Easiest Tricks To Tighten Loose Skin After Weight Loss
Read more: http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/MPs-meet-Manston-bidders-RiverOak/story-21256227-detail/story.html#ixzz35278E3jX
Read more at http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/MPs-meet-Manston-bidders-RiverOak/story-21256227-detail/story.html#HBSAExXOEztOH6H5.99
Futile!
ReplyDeleteStargazer
All well and good but without the owner being present it's all a bit futile, isn't it?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteRiveroak can now put something about being invited to Hogwarts in Londonshire by members of the Conservative Royal Family on their marketing guff. Gale and Sandys can tick their 'seen to be doing sumpfink' box and the shopping-mall builders can attract more investors to their investment vehicles.
Peter, you do realise, if you actually are a tax-payer, that you are helping to fund this pantomime??? You haven't got a Scooby-Doo do you!
Can we please knock on the head this nonsense about Riveroak offering the asking price. There was no asking price because Ann Gloag didn't want to sell. All that happened here is that RiverOak made a silly offer. This was turned down and so, they upped it to the amount they were really prepared to offer. When this was turned down too, they walked away from the table. They were free to offer more but they didn't.
ReplyDeleteWhen River Oak close the airport in 3 years time and look to turn it into houses, it will be hilarious to watch Ann sue the socks off TDC. All those Thanet postcodes who have signed the petition should all be in for extra council tax.
ReplyDeleteEspecially you Peter.
You have to assume that the old duffers aren't so thick that they can't foresee this happening, and have asked for legal advice on just how much they would find themselves in the hole for. There must come a point where their incompetence reaches a level where they have to pay the money themselves rather than trying to pass it all on to the long-suffering taxpayers. In this case, I would say that any financial liability resulting from a foolish decision to misuse the CPO system to force a sale of the airport, should lie with the councillors and officers of TDC. There is no reason why the rest of us should be faced with paying a dime.
ReplyDeleteExcept Peter of course, and the other brains signing the petition.
DeleteTDC would be better off financially if they gave all the ex-employees £250k each and burning £10,000,000 rather than take on Ann with a CPO.
all the time it's not their money there is no downside.
Dreamland, Turner, Pleasurama and potentially Manston all state owned. The Tories are creating a communist utopia in Thanet.