Groupthink and the rise of the thug

"The term “groupthink,” defined by psychologist Irving Janis in 1972, refers to how cohesive groups of people make and justify faulty decisions. People affected by groupthink usually feel pressured to conform to the views expressed by an influential group leader. They hesitate to voice concerns for fear of being shamed or ostracized, and, in the absence of dissent, they assume all other group members approve of the decisions being made. Alternatives to the group’s actions are either dismissed or never considered at all. Outsiders who raise objections are often regarded as enemies and dehumanized.
Groupthinking most often arises in homogeneous, insulated groups that possess no clear guidelines for decision making."
Janis’s research uncovered eight symptoms that indicate groupthinking:

1. Illusion of Invulnerability – The group believes failure is impossible.
2. Collective Rationalization – Group members invent reasons to ignore warnings and refuse to objectively evaluate their stance on an issue.
3. Inherent Morality – The group assumes all its actions are ethical and beneficial.
4. Stereotyping – The group creates negative views of opposing groups to avoid rationally addressing objections to its activities.
5. Direct Pressure to Conform – Members are discouraged from dissenting.
6. Self-Censorship – Members willingly refrain from expressing doubts or objections.
7. Illusion of Unanimity – Because dissent is never voiced, members assume everyone in the group agrees with the decisions made.
8. Mind Guards – Some members voluntarily act to shield the group from dissent or criticism.

 Cllr Wells told "Kent on Sunday" I think what's happening is we're seeing inexperienced councillors coming under serious pressure from a very nasty campaign group and being really frightened.

 Well Chris you are stating the obvious here and its been happening since the campaign stalled back in September 2014 when negotiations with Riveroak stalled.

 Accusations of bribery and corruption abound. Attempts to force people to resign are seen as the way forward. If we cannot get the councillors to toe the line then attack member of staff with email campaigns intended to frighten them away. see below

Lets look at what really happened. Manston was run by various firms including Wiggins and Infertil over many years and all failed to make a profit no matter whether it were passenger or freight services. Their losses were considerable however that is ignored.
In 2012 Infertil put the airport up for sale and asked Price Waterhouse Cooper to market it. In 22 months no one came forward, that's NO ONE, NIL, NOTHING. Why did NO ONE in the aviation industry come forward. another fact ignored by the pro campaign.

In November 2014 when the negotiations had stalled under Labour KCC's leader Paul Carter made a statement at County Hall. The Pro Campaigners have made it their life's work to vilify the man when all he has done is point out the obvious. Now the same vitriol has be aimed at Chris Wells leader of UKIP at Thanet Council. Putting aside the politics and looking at why the whole process has ground to a halt the common denominator seems to be the reluctance of Riveroak to disclose their financial affairs and provide TDC with the information they need exactly the situation Iris Johnson found themselves in 2014.

David Green (in Iris Johnson's cabinet)

14 October at 18:35

Way back in pre history, when I was involved in the Manston issue, I asked Riveroak 3 questions to determine whether I could support them as a indemnity partner.
1. If we (TDC) signed up, would they disclose the source of their funding.
2. Would they allow TDC to withdraw from the CPO process at any point without penalty to TDC
3 Would they accept a covenant on the land when TDC handed it to them that restricted its use to aviation related use only.
Their answer to each was NO!
I guess Chris Wells has reached a similar position.

So what do the pro supporter's do?
3. Inherent Morality – The group assumes all its actions are ethical and beneficial.
Anything against the groupthink has to be destroyed and of course anything goes including memes like this

Outsiders who raise objections are often regarded as enemies and dehumanized
 
4. Stereotyping – The group creates negative views of opposing groups to avoid rationally addressing objections to its activities.

So all groups or individuals who state the bleeding obvious like it's all over are attacked and vilified and of course anything they post is treated just like the Word of God.

So as this campaign nears its end where do the supporters go after its all over? Some will pledge their loyalty to the dying end, however as in most campaigns the vast majority will simply get on with their lives with the thought they have done their best but they were beaten by the monied classes. None of them will admit the truth that the bullies didn't succeed and the rest allowed them to get away with the bullying because they hadn't the courage to tell them to stop bullying.

Riveroak - Who are they

Well it seems that many people are asking who is this company that wants to take over Manston Airfield and the answer is, sadly, difficult to answer. As Cllr Wells says the reality and the emotion is difficult to separate.
Firstly what do they do?

"RiverOak Investment Corp. has a reputation for identifying under-utilised assets & creating new value from them on behalf of our client investors.

For more than two decades we have built both our investment business and our reputation on being able to find, research and invest in the types of assets that typically achieve above-average risk-adjusted returns." link to here

In simpler terms they identify distressed real estate, add value, then sell on at a profit or rent.

Where are they

Suite 703, 1 Atlantic Street, downtown Connecticut. (note not the whole building just a suite of rooms)
What assets do they have.
"One of RiverOak’s active funds (there are only three of them) is RiverOak Realty Fund III. It looks as if this RRFIII invested in three assets. One was liquidated in 2013 with no profit coming back to RiverOak. One is a limited service business hotel. The third is a development that was going to be a block of flats. RiverOak ran into construction problems and the lender demanded its money back. Judgement has been awarded to the lender and it looks as if RiverOak will lose the money that it put into this investment. Total money made in management fees by RiverOak for 2013? $90,000 – less than £60,000. Total RiverOak director money in this fund? £59,000.
Let’s look at another fund, RiverOak Realty Fund IV. One asset, an office block, was taken back by the lender via a “deed in lieu of foreclosure.” The other assets are a block of flats and various blocks of student housing. RiverOak’s management fee for 2013? £275,000. Total RiverOak director money in this fund? Zero.
And the third fund? That’s MKRO I. The deadline for investing in this fund was extended. Normally this happens when you go to the market to attract investors and you don’t get knocked over in the rush. The fund’s two assets in 2013 were a 25% share in a portfolio of flats spread over four blocks and a 60% share in an additional, separate, block of flats. Total RiverOak director money in this fund? Zero.
So, RiverOak invests in flats, student housing, a bit of house building, and the odd hotel or office block. In the three current funds, RiverOak’s directors appear to have just £59,000 of their own money invested. They can’t play with the rest of the money invested in the funds – it’s not theirs. Management fees earned by RiverOak look pretty small and a couple of investments have gone belly up" link to here
But Beau Webber says they have a AAA+ rating, higher than a lot of Countries including it seems the United Kingdom?
Now this is where it gets interesting so bear with me. In financial circles companies that deal in financial matters are judged on a number of areas such as Financial strength and these rating are given out by Standard & Poors, and Moodys however it seems that in Riveroaks case their rating is given out by the Better Business Bureau (who?)
To quote "Another of these little-known facts about the BBB: “We are not a consumer watchdog.” While the BBB offers consumers many services—lists of popular scams to watch out for and such—the organization’s mission isn’t to have your back. From top to bottom, the BBB is funded by the annual dues paid by businesses it anoints with “accreditation,” which allows the companies to put those iconic BBB stamps of approval on their storefronts and websites. This fact raises obvious questions about an inherent conflict of interest: The organization’s customers are businesses, not taxpayers or consumers. How can the BBB serve as an honest broker between businesses and consumers when it is fully funded by one of these parties? Many argue that it cannot — that there’s a natural incentive to paint its paying clients in the best possible light."
You can read the rest of the article here

 So it seems Beau is conflating an A+ rating for a paid for endorsement (and a real estate one at that) for a financial rating which there isn't one at all.

So is Riveroak a suitable partner for TDC? Seems Farage thinks Chris Wells is doing things by the book

Now I understand some in the pro camp question my motives around Manston so to clarify some of the questions raised.

1. No I didn't skip out of Ramsgate in a hurry in fact it took me 5-6 months to sell my properties and buy in Southampton

2 No I didn't accept £29K from the Labour party to infiltrate a local group to stop them protesting, in fact I campaigned for 2 years to have the developers (SFP Ventures (UK) Ltd) removed from the lead role over Pleasurama. (read the blog here) Ask yourself would I put my neck and reputation on the line if I didn't care about Ramsgate?

3 Do I want Manston as an airport? Of course I do but not as a Cargo Hub with 40 landings and takeoffs a day with no benefit to Ramsgate and not run by Riveroak, who seem to be less than honest with their propaganda, in fact, they are similar to SFP Ventures, and I suspect, are Land Bankers. I cannot see how they intend to make a profit from aviation.

4. As I have moved to Southampton where we have a successful airport I can see planes everyday with little disturbance due to the type of planes being used to fly passengers

Manston - the end perhaps?

Today has, hopefully, seen a turning point in the whole Manston debacle. The 30 days of silence has now finally come to an end with an exchange of views very publically aired on Riveroak's website. link here


The question is "Can Riveroak really negotiate a deal with UKIP's TDC and Cllr Wells by engaging in what is in effect a propaganda war?" The answer is "No"


Whatever the rights and wrongs of UKIP's manifesto promise to reopen the airport they weren't voted in by the electorate on that one promise as clearly shown by the previous KCC elections where 7 out of 8 councillors were from UKIP and that was with the airport still open and operational.


What is clear for those that have an open mind is Riveroak as business partners is unworkable and for those still questioning why take a look at the negative campaign they have been running.
1. They are a US based Limited Liability Corporation
2. They are registered in Delaware (same as a tax haven elsewhere)
3. They have zero experience in running an airport business
4. Their business model is "Buy a distressed asset, add value, and then sell on quickly"
5. They are fronted by Tony Freudmann, who fronted Wiggens when that went wrong
6. The same Freudmann who gets struck of the roll of Solicitors for misappropriation.


My last post on Manston was about the concerns raised over whether a freight hub would damage Ramsgate's renaissance. go here to read http://promote-ramsgate.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/will-manston-destroy-ramsgate.html

It looks now that this is unlikely to happen and even the pro supporters are starting to believe it is over. It is appearing that attention will have to turn to ensuring that Cartner & Musgrave's plans are fully explored by TDC and KCC and these must include the appropriate infrastructure works necessary to bring about jobs and apprentices to make Ramsgate a vibrant economy and to rebalance the disparity in funding that exists between the different parts of Thanet.

While I am awaiting the statement from TDC I will post some of the more interesting comments from pro supporters while they take in what is happening.

Seems regime change is in the offing:

Now these people Konnor Collins and Beverley Martin used to be UKIP Councillors.

Well Richard I think it's called "saving your arse" from TDC being made bankrupt and being put into special measures. And Brendan she gives advice to the Councillors and they would do well to listen. If you think the advice is wrong then attend the next Council meeting and meet with her, its on the 15th october 2015.

This sounds remarkably like threatening behaviour problem is its all talk seeing as a rally gets only 40 people. I doubt Chris Wells would be that worried about these keyboard warriors even as nasty as they are.

Finally someone who dares to question Riveroaks bona fides. Some in the opposite camp have been saying this for a long long time

Hypocrites

The one thing about the Save Manston campaign that is almost a trademark is the people that say one thing and then do the opposite. Take this exchange on the 8th August 2015.

You certainly supported me Chris. Look at the level of support?

With friends (?) like that who needs enemies.

 BTW Mr. Dan Light the original poster of the last is a committee member of the SMA, so when he posts this crap he forgets he is dragging the campaign into the gutter. Do we really think you can divorce your puerile utterances from the laudable aims of the original campaign and before you get uppity remember I have never bad mouthed you up until you started acting like a playground bully.

One of Loudhailers' main whinges is the alleged grief they get from others, has it never dawned on them that the start of the ill feeling has always been the way their campaign has been conducted and they use the fact that people do not like being bullied and when they fight back do not be surprised. There is a saying "If you cannot take it don't dish it out." And while the subject is being aired just because you shout loudly doesn't mean you have a great deal of support.

Take today for instance, it nears the end of the 30 days of silence and Keith Churcher self-styled leader of the Save Manston Campaign shouts in his own way that a demonstration is needed to show support by waving flags and being together. Seriously Keith?

Seriously Toy

Well you got your answer Nick Toy you do look silly! what a non-event! A lovely sunny non-working day, what are your excuses for such a dismal turnout 0.44% of your supporters. If that's your idea of a great event you need to resign oh yeah you do it for love.
 Well SMA have 9000+ members so you would have expected a massive level of support, seems shouting loudly doesn't cut it nor does bullying people work, and neither does posting crap on Loudhailer that you think funny.

While we are talking about those that support Manston your arch enemy based in the USA is Paul Abela, a person various people on Hailer have accused me of being. Personally I think you ought to look again especially as Cheesewright has accused me of being Abela. So explain this conversation?

So when Abela defends Cheesewright are you really saying I am defending Cheesewright and if you look deeper they have a lot in common. They are both redneck, expat trolls, are we sure they aren't both the same person, are we really so naive.

cyberbullies

One thing that has been apparent over the past year is the increasingly desperate nature of the Pro-Manston support however there is a small cadre of, mainly male, people who have a problem accepting that others have a different view of Manston than they do. They have increasingly found it necessary to identify those in the other camp who stick their heads above the parapet and attempt to coerce them into keeping quiet through cyberbullying.

"The objectives of bullies are Power, Control, Domination, Subjugation. They get a kick out of seeing you react. It doesn't matter how you react, the fact they've successful provoked a reaction is, to the bully, a sign that their attempt at control have been successful. After that, it's a question of wearing you down. The more your try to explain, negotiate, conciliate, etc the more gratification they obtain from your increasingly desperate attempts to communicate with them. Understand that it is not possible to communicate in a mature adult manner with a disordered individual who's emotionally retarded."*cyberbully link below

Lack of Conscience*link below

One of the most notable characteristics of a sociopathic serial bully, which sets them apart in society, is that they feel no remorse and appear to have no conscience.
They see nothing wrong with their behaviour and are oblivious to the difference between how they want to be seen and how they really are seen by others. It's like having a musical conductor who doesn't know and can't read the score, but who conducts the orchestra anyway, and expects applause.

• When something goes wrong, the bully will instinctively blame someone else before accepting responsibility.
• Bullies will take (or persuade others to take) decisions that are extremely damaging to other people, without the slightest concern for the effects of the damage on the person affected.
• Serial bullies know that leaders are supposed to be assertive, and they believe they are. However, assertiveness is the ability to express emotions and needs without violating others' rights and without being aggressive. Bullies are aggressive, and their actions are aimed at causing harm, without any care for the pain and damage they cause in the process.

As a qualified Accountant taking 3 years of study to achieve my degree I find the comments hurtful however those that feed the ego of the original poster do so with the same lack of conscience. And it seems that many of the so called more vocal antis come in for the same attacks.

This is damaging the entire Pro-Manston campaign to the extent that in a recent poll conducted on "We Love Ramsgate" when shown 4 simple statements 2-1 voted for the Legal owners plans however what was much more apparent only 4% of those able to vote bothered. Many felt unable to express an opinion for fear of being targetted with abuse.

FREE SPEECH does not give anyone the right to ABUSE.

* http://www.bullyonline.org/related/cyber.htm

Please consider the effect of liking Facebook posts that are purely posted to cause harm, banter it isn't and you are as guilty as the original poster.


Note: If you want to make a critical comment have the courage to affix your name to the post. Being able to post as an Anonymous is a privilege.

Will Manston destroy Ramsgate

I do not, as a rule, blog about Manston however it is getting to crunch time and with the threat to Ramsgate's renaissance I thought a brief summary of what might come to pass would be appropriate.


Manston is closed, it is no more, it is deceased, in fact it wouldn't go Vroom if you put 40000 volts through it. Famous words and oh so true in this case. The only knight in shining armour is an American hedge Fund who is led by Tony Freudmann , who has run Manston before and failed miserably.
So what do we know about Riveroak? Michael Child recently answered that in part as follows "The choice here isn’t between an airport and a mixed use light industrial and residential development but between RiverOak who as far as I can see have no verifiable record of creating any jobs and Discovery Park who already run the development that is the largest local employer.

As a local businessperson I am only too aware that a very large proportion of my customers, who have an income sufficient that it means they can afford to buy more than essentials, work at Sandwich Discovery Park.

I have looked long and hard to find any references to RiverOak doing anything more than operating as a residential real estate hedge fund company. By this I mean investing clients funds into housing to produce a return on the rents.

I can find no verifiable link between RiverOak and commercial property investment, in fact they don’t even own the freehold of their own office.

I can’t see how any credible company could go through years of trading without leaving a media and internet trail showing what they have achieved, this may of course be because my it skills are not up to the job." In my research I have to agree with him.


Recently a leaflet has been delivered in Ramsgate which seems to suggest a profound difference between the legal owners and the would be owners with TDC being asked to act as Robin Hood.

Whilst this is in part shows the propaganda which has been a highlight of the media campaign over the last year it does make simple the choice available to the people living in Ramsgate. Do you want jobs and development of the site to provide a mixed use site with an opportunity for the unemployed or do you want 747 jets flying in 800 feet about Ramsgate on a regular basis with the prospect of initially 39 jobs and rising to 132 after 18 months even assuming they can get 12 carriers to come here, with what is a very competitive market. Other sites like East midlands and Southend are far better suited to Cargo than Manston.

Some might see it one way and others another however in a recent, unscientific poll, on "We love Ramsgate" 1% voted for Riveroak and 2% voted for the legal owners, showing 97% have no idea what they want and don't get involved.

My personal opinion is everyone has a say else this view may win out:-

I may add more later

They live among us

Believe or not there are some that believe Lee Rigby's death never happened and he is a figment of imagination. This is according to a judge who described Christopher Spivey's behaviour as abhorrent as he made Lee Rigby's family's lives hellish. This is from the Daily Express today, and the article goes on to say "Nothing would ever convince Spivey that he was wrong".


Further the article says "Such people all function perfectly normally in everyday life and before the birth of the internet most Conspiracy Theorists were harmless and caused no great sensation other than incredulous laughter in a pub. NOW they can disseminate their views sufficiently widely to hurt survivors or families and even attract others to their cause"

Now you might ask what has this to do with anything however it seems that not only is John Davis still peddling his conspiracy about a Covenant on the Pleasurama site and still accusing the author of somehow stealing said piece of paper he is now involving a new UKIP Councillor in his dream. The original story was discussed at length here "Covenant my Ass" and he seems now to have decided that not only is there a Covenant (which he is unable to prove) this author has somehow got the only copy in existance.

Well John, firstly TDC have no idea what you are talking about, neither has Michael Child (A well respected Ramsgatonian with many years experience of the whole Pleasurama saga), neither has David Green an ex-Councillor who actively campaigned against the development, with Janet Wood, through 2003 -2010 and who sat in the Cabinet prior to losing the election in 2003 and sat again in the Cabinet from 2011.
So if you have any "Credible Witnesses" where are they?
Vince says on an open FB page "Then produce the documentation" and "This is really Academic, hearsasy will not hold up in Law" all good advice John except he forgets "Conspiracy Theorists will never change their minds" however I do believe conspiring with others to cause harm to others is a criminal offence, so John here is a challenge for you. Are you prepared to visit a police station and make a statement under oath that I have in my possession any evidence that proves your Conspiracy Theories? Remember it is also a criminal offence to waste police time especially on such a witch hunt

Oh and Jon Brooks if Vince wants to have a chat about said Conspiracy Theory I HAVE NO ISSUE IN TALKING TO HIM. Plenty of people have my mobile number.

In other words John Davis "Put up or shut up"

BTW John spell it out, Just who is paying me? Do you have some evidence or is this more libellous remarks which you are infamous for?

Definition of a Land Covenant " A restrictive covenant is a private agreement between land owners where one party will restrict the use of its land in some way for the benefit of another's land. Restrictive covenants, once agreed between the parties, are placed in the title deeds to the property. They bind the land and not the parties personally."