Truth, Lies and Politics

"In a propaganda war the first casualty is the truth" and it's the same in any campaign especially in the fight to reopen Manston airport.
The other quote is "never let the truth get in the way of a good story" and that is the essence of a propaganda campaign as the pro supporters have a history of salting their "facts" with a dose of truth. Take the following post:

Firstly the Girdler's were tenants albeit for a number of years therefore by definition it wasn't their hangar..
Riveroak's CEO is Stephen DeNardo is an independent director of Brookfield Property Partners based in the West Indies who with a Quatari consortium forced a buyout of Canary Wharf. He isnt the Chief Financial Officer but is the Chair of the Audit Committee and as Brookfield is listed on the New York Stock Exchange they have to abide by their rules

According to the NYSE rules "no director qualifies as 'independent' unless the board of directors affirmatively determines that the director has 'no material relationship' with the listed company, either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the company" So why bring this tenuous statement up at all? Unless you are trying to portray Riveroak as something they aren't.

"As CFO George (Yerrall) has investors committed to 5 times any reasonable value of Manston"
This is in an apparent move to say how rich RO actually are however the statement is let down by several things. Firstly no one knows what Manston is worth but more to the point why didn't RO offer a reasonable sum in 2014 for the airport seeing it had been up for sale for 22 months previously to being bought by Ann Gloag.

"TDC officers are refusing to prepare papers for the Overview and Scrutint Committee meeting on the 16th November" 
Sorry Bryan, but did you understand the reason for the O&S Committee? Papers do not need to be prepared per se as their raison d'etre to ensure the Cabinet's decisions are based on proper controls. "It does not have any decision-making powers, but monitors the performance of the Leader and Cabinet and scrutinises services and policies throughout the district." Therefore by definition it looks at the evidence that has been prepared for the Cabinet and if they believe decisions are incorrect then they have to refer it back to the Cabinet.

"Due to the lack of a CPO the hangar is currently owned by Ann Gloag and her cronies"
Talk about incorrect and emotive. Firstly there isn't a CPO because no suitable partner has been found to start one, secondly Land registry says the owners of that company are cartner & Musgrave not Ann Gloag. (She does have a pecuniary interest but not ownership)
"Sir Roger Gale is currently calling for a coalition at TDC to vote the CPO through"
He certainly is however not for the reasons he would have you believe this is politics after all. In case anyone wondered TDC cannot vote a CPO through they have firstly to find a legitimate partner then they have to set the ball rolling and its the Secretary of State that makes the final decision based of some fairly fundamental rules.

Re Manston Airport

Section 226 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

______________________________

NOTE OF ADVICE

_______________________________

1.      The new ownership of the site since previous legal advice will be a major factor when the Council is deciding to make the CPO and when the Secretary of State is deciding whether or not to confirm a CPO. The overarching public interest test is whether there is a compelling case in the public interest. As the Circular advises (17), an authority should be sure that the purposes for which it is making the CPO sufficiently justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected.

 

1.      It should be emphasized that any decision to make a CPO requires proper consideration of a likely interference with the owners’ human rights. Before proceeding to any CPO the Council should seek further information on their plans for the site from the new owners. The Council must be in a position to assess the degree of interference with the landowner’s human rights, and also, if appropriate, to consider the benefits of their alternative proposals for the site to strike the public interest balance.

1.      In seeking to justify any CPO the Council would have to show that the benefits of what it proposed would be so extensive that (notwithstanding the merits of the new owners’ proposals) the public interest v human rights balance would still be in favour of the CPO.