Looking at the two pictures of inside Ramsgate Library, this time with a date to hang on them, I think there is a sense that the library then was fit for purpose and related to some sort of social need.
Perhaps men of a particular social class are a bit over represented in the pictures, it would be a brave publisher today who produced such imbalance in a picture, but history of this sort can't be changed.
I have tried to put the Thanet Library use and costs figures at the bottom of the post, it is published on the KCC website as an Excel doc here is the link
To me it seems that it costs over £4 for every book borrowed from one to the Thanet libraries, which I think would be more than the average cost of a book from the bookshop here in Ramsgate. This doesn't sound very sustainable to me and I guess something will have to give eventually.
Reading through this we are trying to work out the significance of "Separate entrance to the man's shop" plenty of ideas but nothing makes much sense.
Here is the link to the books we put out in the bookshop today once again a busy day, a mixture of Christmas shopping and people buying books for themselves.
Next some Margate material for 1929
On the Manson DCO front a preliminary meeting at the Winter Gardens has been announced here is the link
Personally I am having problems getting coherent replies from RSP at the moment, I think mainly because communication to them isn't to a major airport company, but to the solicitor and pr firm engaged by what seem to be a property investment group.
Here is my latest email to pins
"Dear Manston pins team.
I am having an issue with slowing responses from RSP with relation to clarification of what I believe is a fundamental error in their environmental assessment relating to particulate air pollution dispersion.
I assume that it is generally accepted that PM2.5 particulates produced by fuel burn travel much further through the air than PM10 particulates. I am assuming this in the same was as if you drop a brick and a feather out of you window, the brick lands on the ground first.
In their environmental assessment results RSP either have PM2.5s travailing the same distance as PM10s or in one case actually travelling a shorter distances. They have confirmed that there are not other parts of their application where this anomaly is resolved with the links in their last email to me.
I would think it reasonable to assume that the PM2.5 particulates from the main source of the burn, 10,000 movements PA, will have considerable public health impacts in all of the concentrations of population within 10km of Manston and this will be accentuated in the coastal towns where the prevailing wind from Manston meets the onshore breeze.
There is a sense in which RSP withholding the dispersion distance they have taken for PM2.5s could be taken as unreasonable behaviour, from my point of view though they are wasting my time, something I don’t have a lot of at spare the moment.
What I am asking for from them is simple information for PM10 and PM2.5 particulates. The distance they have taken for dispersion to background levels, either in the form of a graph or in distance.
As this is such an important figure and key to projected reduced mortality figures, figures related to earlier onset of dementia and other issues already outlined in RSP’s environmental assessment I am concerned that if the information is misrepresented the potential for future litigation may be considerable.
Does there come a point where pins will ask the question on my behalf, or do I just keep asking RSP repeatedly?
My previous emails to RSP below.
Best regards Michael"
I wonder what the compensation situation will be like down the line the small particle situation reminds me of the asbestos situation in the 1960s.
RSP seem to be saying that the small particles given off by burning jet fuel will fall to the ground before they leave the perimeter of the airport, unfortunately for us they travel for several miles.
As for the connection with dementia here is the link to a recent BBC article
|Thanet District||2016-2017||Stock||Costs (£)|
|Location||Total number of borrowers (see note 1)||Child - 0 - 4||Child - 5 - 11||Teen||Adult||Over 60||Other see (note 2)||Number of items borrowed||Items borrowed per location as % of district total||Number of hours of computer use||Computer use hours per location as % of district totals||Number of visits||Visits per location as % of district total||Items in stock (see note 3)||Staff (see note 4)||Premises (see note 5)||Other (see note 6)||Total|