Sunday, 17 April 2016

What do the 10000 on SMA want?

When Save Manston Airport (SMA) Facebook page started nearly 2 years ago who would have thought that over 10000 members would be imprisoned within its closed society. This is a site where dissent is not only frowned upon their "thought police" ensure only one voice is heard. "Riveroak, Riveroak" is the cry and Freudmann is their saviour as they are seen as the only possible way of saving "their" airport.
"Thank goodness SMA have such great administrators, we may have the odd SHP spy sneaking into our group but they daren't have open anti airport conversation on here"
Now the last time I looked Christine this is a society that thrives on free speech however in SMA land (or is that a totalitarian society like North Korea) having free speech is frowned upon, No sorry that's deleted and the owner of that errant thought is instantly removed.

For Cherry here is a novel thought 95% of freight into Heathrow arrives in the belly of passenger, yes that's right PASSENGER planes. So opening Manston as a freight HUB doesn't help Heathrow one tiny bit.
Now imagine the surprise then that a recent poll on this totalitarian like closed group asked the 10000 profiles this question "Use Manston for local UK flights non-world flights?" then various different alternatives were added broadly into passenger or freight options.
So what does this mean? Firstly because no one is allowed to be a dissenter the logic says everyone must want "airport" however the party line is a freight Hub promoted by Riveroak and accepted without question by the Central Politburo so it comes as a surprise that that isn't what those that bothered to vote decided was their objective.
Some figures 10000 profiles and 6% bother to vote at all that is 608 after 24 hours and of them 75% want passenger flights. ARE YOU LISTENING RIVEROAK? not a freight hub after all.


Posted by at
Labels: , ,

90 comments:

  1. Anonymous17 April 2016 at 22:01

    Beau Webber ("plus 750 others") had a woefully-argued letter printed in Saturday's Telegraph, yet again making the totally unsupported claim that the people of Thanet want an airport. How dare this Littlebourne agitator, with his raggle-taggle army of conscripts from the Medway Towns and beyond, claim to speak for the locals. Could he explain the farcically low voting figures for the more vociferous Manston campaigners in the last local council elections.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous18 April 2016 at 12:02

      Anyone identified where each of the 750 actually live ? Wonder how many in Thanet, split between Ramsgate, Broadstairs etc etc

      Delete
    2. Anonymous18 April 2016 at 18:54

      Beau's letter to the paper was grossly misleading because it claimed that Riveroak has made an application for a DCO. Riveroak has done nothing of the sort. They have had a few informal meetings with the planning inspectorate where they were told, in no uncertain terms, that the timescale for making their application was extremely optimistic. Those who have dealt with public officials will recognise that this is code for: "It's going to take much, much longer than that." They were also told that the SoS has not yet been persuaded that this constitutes a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project and that if he decides it isn't, it won't be considered. If I were a scientist, I would be deeply embarrassed to have committed to print something so shoddy and erroneous.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous18 April 2016 at 19:54

      Didn't Robert John Pritchard poll 40 votes in the Ramsgate by-election. That's really funny who were those 40 people?

      Delete
  2. Anonymous17 April 2016 at 22:27

    Don't you mean Kim Jong-un especially as they have their own version of the "little red book" on SMA

    ReplyDelete
  3. marva.rees@gmail.uk17 April 2016 at 23:00

    If you look at change. org you'll see that several signatories eg B.Iggles have been edited out. Funnily enough the most appreciated signatories have names which don't, to me, indicate that the presence of authentic, taking-this-seriously local people. I have never understood why anybody living in or near Ramsgate would want any kind of airport at Manston or indeed at any site near our town.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous18 April 2016 at 09:10

    As Richard pointed out if they were 10,000 Thanet people then, by health stats, over 2000 would be long term sick and about 1 in 7 would have early signs of lung disease. Since they want to be drenched in airport air pollution their mental health is also questionable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous18 April 2016 at 12:01

    The problem is I don't see any letters signed by thousands of anti airport supporters so they either don't exist in which case SMA are right or aren't organised. Where are these masses of anti airporters ? SMA say they've got the antis off their site but you manage to screen print their stuff Barry so you must be on there, and you're the biggest anti I know, maybe you're the only one who's organised with blogs etc. if there are that many antis why no letter from them in the Times or Telegraph.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous18 April 2016 at 17:11

      Anon the logic of your response defies description. As Riveroak have yet to get to the starting gate and haven't yet canvassed local opinion how on earth do you work out that there are fewer "antis"? Nothing to complain about yet surely?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous18 April 2016 at 18:56

      You can't be "anti" something which only exists in the fevered minds of a few rampant extremists.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous18 April 2016 at 19:21

      Why no letter in Times or Telegraph ? Could it be because the effective letters are those sent to Planning Inspectorate ?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous19 April 2016 at 15:58

      Is there an email contact for the Planning Inspectorate?

      Delete
    5. Anonymous19 April 2016 at 16:39

      I don't see any letters on the planning inspectorate site so there are non.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous19 April 2016 at 18:55

      The best place to lodge objections to Riveroak's plans is not with the planning inspectorate, who appear to be complicit in keeping this fiasco running. Objections ought to be sent to SHP because they will be fighting the proposals in court, and will welcome the opportunity to produce real local residents who don't want the airport reopened, but have never been asked what they want. Isn't it strange? It is alleged that a majority of local people want the airport reopened and that the opinions of thousands have been canvassed. But I don't know a single person who has been asked. You cannot trust a poll which has been concocted by people who give their unequivocal backing to the likes of Konnor Collins, and are prepared to lie time and time again about the owners' plans for the site. Why would you assume they are telling the truth about any poll they claim to have done?

      Delete
    7. Anonymous19 April 2016 at 20:55

      Anon 16 39 Perhaps the Planning Inspectorate has not published the correspondence it has entered into ?

      Can you think of a reason why ?

      Delete
    8. Anonymous20 April 2016 at 09:13

      I wrote to Riveroak's solicitors, wrote online feedback on Riveroak's website and wrote to Planning Inspectorate. Only Planning Inspectorate replied.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous20 April 2016 at 15:33

      I guess there will be a chance to respond when Riveroak start their public consultation in late summer then we can see what the support levels are.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous20 April 2016 at 18:33

      You can't have a consultation if you've never told people anything about your plans.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous21 April 2016 at 06:42

      I think you are missing the point 15.33 To truly determine "Support levels" requires that everyone is aware of Thanet health inequality and the history of water supply contamination. IE Having drank the poison water do they want to breathe the poison airport particulates air ?

      Certain deeply irresponsible (or are they on wages ?) Thanet bloggers have long created a distraction of discussing the health of the ground water while failing to lead on the health of the people.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous22 April 2016 at 15:54

      06:42 I don't understand your 2nd paragraph - isn't the health of the ground water(or not) and the health of the people(or not) essentially the same thing?

      And the air quality is safe because TDC were monitoring the airport.

      Delete
    13. Anonymous22 April 2016 at 17:18

      You do know 15:54 the monitors have been missing for years so TDC have not looked after the heath of anybody in the area on this matter.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous23 April 2016 at 15:53

      What do you mean the monitors are missing? Did TDC remove them? How dangerous is it?

      Delete
    15. Anonymous24 April 2016 at 08:41

      Not at all as there are no planes

      Delete
    16. Anonymous24 April 2016 at 11:04

      Disingenuous 8 41.

      Delete
    17. Anonymous24 April 2016 at 16:04

      08:41 there are no monitors now of course as the airport is derelict - but were there when there were planes?

      Delete
    18. Anonymous24 April 2016 at 23:46

      No their wasn't any Monitors when planes were flying in&out 08:41.Dangerous is why they were not in use!,forget 08:41s comment to yourself that woz proberly done to stop U asking once more for an Answer,but U did!Good on You.HD.

      Delete
    19. Anonymous25 April 2016 at 15:37

      23:46 This is worrying - who was in charge of monitoring at TDC?

      Delete
    20. Anonymous26 April 2016 at 01:41

      I Think Richard Card could answer that Question for you 15:37

      Delete
  6. Anonymous18 April 2016 at 12:40

    Some of the local numpties want cheap flights on their doorstep but haven't thought though the noise and air pollution and cancer.

    Nor if it's even viable - as we've seen with Manston repeatedly going bust.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous18 April 2016 at 12:59

    is there a link to Beau's letter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous18 April 2016 at 23:29

      Although the letter was in the print edition, it appears to be missing from the Telegraph's on-line site. Perhaps a wise editor recognised it was total tosh. Spoiler alert - the deluded doctor claimed Thanet people want an airport and Manston would be a viable alternative to a third runway at Heathrow/Gatwick.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous29 April 2016 at 10:25

      Beau's published another of his dreary letters in the Gazette: 2 years since Manston closed?

      Delete
  8. Anonymous18 April 2016 at 13:57

    The SMA wallies are trying to celebrate 100 years of Manston - shouldn't it be 98 years as it went bust 2 years ago?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous18 April 2016 at 18:48

    I find it most amusing that pro-Manston campaigners believe they have anything in common with HACAN. Even more unbelievable is their outrage that other people get involved in the conversation. Those who follow this issue will know that SMA member routinely destroy threads where the airport is being discussed by being abusive and by ignoring legitimate questions which are put to them. It's a deliberate tactic they use to shut down discussions which aren't going their way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous19 April 2016 at 08:50

      They didn't like Richard showing the lie in the Section 106 agreement and really didn't like it when he asked "Why the lie ?" and "How long had the lie been told?" I see yesterday Sir Roger Gale MP Facebook page had a comment from Richard ripping into Gale.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous20 April 2016 at 10:23

      Offtopic but the TDC Kippers are voting on favour of Brexit? What's that got to do with a District council and have they thought how it would affect tourism and the language schools in East Kent? They really are idiotic.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous20 April 2016 at 18:36

      UKIP will cease to have a purpose after the referendum. The sole purpose of their party was to force a referendum. Now they've got what they wanted and, once it's been held the issue of Europe will be settled once and for all.

      Delete
  10. Anonymous19 April 2016 at 18:48

    More weasel words over on Thanetonline. It's billed as a letter showing that Riveroak are preparing to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment. But they aren't going to be able to do this because they don't have access to the site. It's just more smoke and mirrors.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous19 April 2016 at 22:01

    I see Riveroak are interfering in Dover District now over the proposed new masts at Richborough. Anyone would think they own East Kent

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous20 April 2016 at 00:56

      All RivernoOaktrees own is a % in sir Roger Gale MP and that's about it.HD.

      Delete
  12. Anonymous20 April 2016 at 13:31

    Useless TDC councillors: say sit all really - but where is the info on useless TDC civil servants?
    http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/Complaints-Thanet-councillors-doubled-year/story-29144017-detail/story.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous20 April 2016 at 17:38

    13:31 TDC civil servants get to drop the sheep-councilors in it not the other way round...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous20 April 2016 at 18:38

    Ah, but how many of these complaints have been orchestrated and made by a single organisation, the Save Manston Airport Group with their multiple complainants?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous20 April 2016 at 22:48

    Offtopic...FLINT water proberlems in the US is a somewhat earey situation to Manston water contamination,similar area work wise and officially taking no notice off,just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous21 April 2016 at 10:10

    New money laundering offence for public officials

    Interesting is Theresa May going to be ahead of the Manston money laundering rules curve ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous22 April 2016 at 17:22

      Manston money laundering rules...OT O.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous23 April 2016 at 16:29

      What is the Manston money laundering? What is OTO?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous23 April 2016 at 21:57

      TDC, like any council, has to apply tests for suspicions of money laundering subject of statutory duty to report. A test is to be able to identify the sources of investment. USA has confidentially and UK does not is the basic issue. But TDC is in UK subject of UK law.

      And though they have blown RO out now the fact remains that the money laundering tests should have been applied by TDC much earlier when the CPO was being discussed.

      The only OTO I know is masonic jiggery pokery.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous24 April 2016 at 16:02

      Does Pleasuram as a BVI company require such tests? What is Masonic OTO?

      Delete
    5. Anonymous24 April 2016 at 23:50

      Ask Freudmann he can give You an answer as his fiddling with hes pinkey ring!

      Delete
    6. Anonymous25 April 2016 at 10:18

      So you donlt know what OTO is?

      Delete
    7. Anonymous25 April 2016 at 14:16

      Yes 10:18 in masonic layman trems it means moving facts around to fool/trick people.Normal everyday use is like saying'OTO it's raining'.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous26 April 2016 at 16:47

      what do the OTO initials mean?

      Delete
  17. Anonymous22 April 2016 at 16:49

    Are we supposed to wait 4 more years to get rid of Wells UKIP?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Unknown22 April 2016 at 19:29

    Planning Inspectorate should be publishing question from me and their advice in response. I did email Roger Gale and Riveroak solicitors at the time I questioned Planning Inspectorate. But no reply.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Unknown23 April 2016 at 08:57

    Dear Mr Card,



    Thank you for your correspondence received 15 April 2016 regarding Manston Airport.



    Any Environmental Statement (ES) submitted with an application for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project must be prepared as required by the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 (as amended). If we are asked for an opinion on the scope of the ES by the Applicant, we will consult technical consultees and expert bodies. Further information on this can be found in advice note three and advice note seven.



    As you know, the Planning Inspectorate has not received an application for the above scheme. We will not accept an application unless we are satisfied that the Applicant has undertaken pre-application consultation and has had regard to responses that they have received. It is strongly advised that you write to the Applicant for your representation to be considered while they are still forming the scheme, since this is the most effective way to influence the form of the proposed scheme and highlight the potential impacts that should be assessed. This front-loaded emphasis of consultation is designed to ensure a more transparent and efficient examination process.



    If an application is received and accepted, one or more Inspectors will be appointed as an Examining Authority to conduct an examination, which cannot take more than 6 months, and report to the Secretary of State. It is the responsible Secretary of State (in this case, the Secretary of State for Transport) who will make a decision on the application in accordance with any adopted National Policy Statements which may exist at that time, and having any regard to any relevant and important matter. If the application is accepted for examination, you will have an opportunity to make submissions on that application at that time.



    I would like to make you aware that all advice about making a representation on a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project application is published on our website. Therefore, this email will be published and the questions explicitly asked in your email to The Planning Inspectorate.



    Kind regards,


    ........
    Major Applications and Plans



    ReplyDelete
  20. Unknown23 April 2016 at 09:03

    I have taken the advice. I had already emailed Riveroak solicitor once and now I have copied the exchange, with Planning Inspectorate, to RO solicitor again.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous23 April 2016 at 13:05

    Well this is all a bit rum. Beau Webber is supposed to be a man of integrity and he sent a letter to the Telegraph saying that Riveroak had applied for a DCO. Yet here we have the Plannign Inspectorate themselves saying that they have received no such application. By the sound of it any application is some way off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown23 April 2016 at 15:18

      Yes but to influence Planning Inspectorate in getting expert advice and in influencing the loading of Riveroak eventual application the way to put it on record is write to RO solicitors. Then if they get as far as Secretary of State the matters put on record with RO solicitors can be cited in submission.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous24 April 2016 at 16:01

      What does Tim Howes the TDC lawyer we fund say?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous24 April 2016 at 16:06

      What if RO solicitors just ignore the letters?

      Delete
  22. Anonymous23 April 2016 at 15:15

    And everybody really believes that RiverOak wants to run an Airport and struggle!instead of grabbing the land and selling of plots with local council help which would dwalf the SHP greener plan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous23 April 2016 at 21:24

      No. But to get the land RO would have to jump through the airport use hoops. So your point is moot.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous24 April 2016 at 23:54

      We shall see what hoops RO will have to jump through and which ones are as big as the London eye so no jumping needed,just step through.

      Delete
  23. Anonymous23 April 2016 at 15:55

    It says a DCO should take no more than 6 months after consultations etc?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous23 April 2016 at 21:26

      No the Planning Inspectorate examination must not take longer than six months.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous24 April 2016 at 20:36

      That figure doesn't take any account of the legal challenges. This could run for many years in the courts.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous24 April 2016 at 23:57

      RivernoOaktrees and Mates will be coming to a sticky end,mark my word.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous3 May 2016 at 19:36

      How so anon 23.57

      Delete
    5. Anonymous4 May 2016 at 18:28

      By way of 'mud sticks'these people have iffy pasts,all of them!I shall say no more.

      Delete
  24. Unknown26 April 2016 at 17:38

    TDC have no records for Planning giving scoping advice for the Wiggins 106 agreement

    Pretty much corroborating what Peter Binding of Manston Airport Consultative Cttee wrote on Facebook. Planning law was avoided and thus statutory risk and environmental impact assessments dodged.

    I have sent a link to the FOI to Riveroak solicitors and to Planning Inspectorate.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous27 April 2016 at 09:55

    Looks like RO consultation has started. Meeting tomorrow night at Cliffsend.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous27 April 2016 at 14:54

    So what? TDC approved the S106 with Infratil. Every monthly meeting with KIACC and TDC airport committee and council referred to the S106.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous27 April 2016 at 17:38

    Good riddance to Arlington House and lots hope Manston is demolished too

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous28 April 2016 at 11:58

    There's only the terminal and 2 warehouses left at Manston now? Evne the radar's gone? An eyesore - Gloag in the Rich List can afford to clean it up

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous28 April 2016 at 23:23

    SHP will look alot better once the poject is completely finished,You'll be able to have nice walks on the once out of bounds private property.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous29 April 2016 at 11:40

    Why does ThanetWatch always call for democracy and debate...then opts for any Labour candidate just before an election?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous29 April 2016 at 13:41

    Pleasurama: http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/Cardy-construction-pulled-Royal-Sands-scheme/story-29198786-detail/story.html
    Has anyone seen the March 2015 contract mentioned?
    Wasn't that signed the month after the project could/should have been cancelled?
    Who signed it?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous30 April 2016 at 22:33

    Have the Plane Stupid group been contacted re Manston being reopened and devastating the lives of 40000 people in Ramsgate ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous1 May 2016 at 08:30

      Have you contacted them anon 22.23 ?

      Delete
  33. Anonymous3 May 2016 at 14:28

    I have not )8:30 I'm too lazy so would rather ask other people to do it anonymously

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous3 May 2016 at 19:35

    No

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous4 May 2016 at 09:22

    No I'm prominent in the SMA site and don't want to break cover. I thought BJ was coordinating all anti airport activity anyway

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God help us5 May 2016 at 07:17

      Er! No I'm not

      Delete
    2. Anonymous5 May 2016 at 10:45

      Ho can Barry or anybody be anti-airport? There isn't an airport and hasn't been one for two years.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous5 May 2016 at 16:36

      2 years today Manston closed?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous5 May 2016 at 23:45

      When you read Barrys blogs 09:22you would see that he just reports the facts and waits for peoples comments,which are very interesting and wakes up more questions to be looked into.

      Delete
  36. Anonymous4 May 2016 at 13:39

    offtopic but why is Driver a s a councilor being spied on by the police?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous5 May 2016 at 07:17

      Is he, he hasn't said

      Delete
    2. Anonymous5 May 2016 at 14:03

      He was on BBCTV with Caroline Lucas being spied on

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)