Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Harold Avenue Online Petition

As I am receiving correspondence asking if I would, as a ward councillor, object to the planning application for 15 Harold Avenue in Westgate (F/TH/07/0575) I have created an online petition for local residents based on what are perceived as the most valid objections against the application.

If you would, as a Westgate resident, like to complete it, then this would help, as then I would have a formal record of the objections online as well as in correspondence.

You can find the petition here and on the sidebar of the website, just above the links section.

69 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Cllr Moores - thanks for posting an online petition to your website. I'll let my neighbours know.
Linda Mallon

DrMoores said...

Your'e welcome Linda. We might as well use the technology to better support the paper process and that way, members of the planning committee, can gauge the level of objection at a glance, should any wish to visit the page.

stuart said...

Are you sure about 12 appartments creating traffic congestion? Seems a bit of a non-issue really.

The plans also include car parking!

Also Simon, you petition helpfully points out that this site is in the conservation area of Westgate. What you fail to mention is that the conservation area has recently been extended to cover this street!

Why are you are asking residents to sign your petition rather than comment on the application in the proper way at:

http://www.ukplanning.com/ukp/showCaseFile.do;jsessionid=4A77D1F153860985B10DFF1FA234E750.wam2?action=show&appType=planning%20folder&appNumber=F/TH/07/0575

I guess because a petition guarantees only negative responses can be left!

Is this really one of the most important issues in your ward Cllr Moores?

DrMoores said...

Dear Stuart your talent for derogatory sniping never ceases to amaze! I thought that you were so disgusted at the election results that you would not be coming back to this website but one has to live with such disappointments!

Anonymous said...

Stuart has a point, Councillor. There is an established process for commenting - both positively and negatively - on planning applications. Those comments have to be considered and therefore may have greater weight than your petition, which does not need to be considered officially.

I would suggest you encourage your readers who have a concern to use the link Stuart has provided.

Perhaps if you considered seriously the points being made, rather than deride them simply because they come from a source you do not like, you might avoid some of the tensions that occasionally arise on this blog.


ONEVOICEINTHANET

DrMoores said...

As an addendum to Stuart's comment. "Yes" you can comment and examine the plans on the official site at http://www.ukplanning.com/ukp/showCaseFile.do;jsessionid=4A77D1F153860985B10DFF1FA234E750.wam2?action=show&appType=planning%20folder&appNumber=F/TH/07/0575

but this has a 14 day limit from May 21st and will expire this week.

Secondly, it does not allow me or the other ward councillors to see, at a glance, how many objections have been made in real time.

Thirdly, Harold Avenue is a local issue, discussed here and on which I am receiving correspondence. The presence of the online petition is not in any way a statement of my own position but it does allow residents to quickly indicate their objections to me if they wish and without having to buy a stamp.

This is a petition of objection but I have adjusted it slightly so people like Stuart can indicate their approval of the planning application if they wish to!

stuart said...

Dear Simon

I'm sorry to make you feel that way - not my intention. I know in an ideal world everyone would agree with you, but we don't live in an ideal world.

I see this issue as fairly well off people trying to protect their assets.

I don't see any reasons to object to this application apart from that. The development looks to be in keeping with the (conservation) area, materials used, building features etc.

The examples you use to rally support from your constituents - traffic congestion and parking - are total rubbish!

And I'm sure you are aware that the conservation area was recently extended to cover Harold Avenue.

All valid points that rather than respond to you would rather ignore and dismiss, instead of debate with someone who has a different polictical viewpoint to your own!

I've made many comments on this here blogsite since you were elected - you just waited for one where I disagreed with you before making an absurd statement like the one above.

Anonymous said...

Dear Stewart Thankyou so much for your comments. They crack me up every time. Have you ever considered a career in the entertainment industry?
I think you should bite the bullet, tell us your address and then we can all sign a petition calling for a multi-storey car park to be built next door to you. Being the public-spirited person you are with "nothing of value" you wouldn't mind at all. Three cheers for the true voice of the people of Thanet.

stuart said...

And still no one has raised a valid objection to this development!

Michael Child said...

The point here surely is not so much about who objects but of openness and consultation in local government. I for instance want to know what planning applications are being decided for Ramsgate where I live, if they seem fairly sensible I won’t object to them, nevertheless I should like to see other peoples objections.

If there is a problem here it is that the government panning site doesn’t allow one to view peoples objections. Due to the government site using over complicated technology, you may have unexpected difficulties when you try to view the plans.

You also may have noticed that the links above won’t work and you need a pdf program to view the plans. I have trapped the Thanet panning site here http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/thanetonline/thanet_planning_site.htm you then have to put the application ref. F/TH/07/0575 In the search box.

DrMoores said...

Correct Michael. The objections surround the principle of protecting the conservation area and the available street parking. The road is incredibly narrow and frequently impassable for larger vehicles when cars are parked-up.

Most people will, I'm sure use correspondence but as I was asked if I might put up an online petition to provide another channel of expression to supplement the official path, I have. If residents wish to use it then it provides a visible means of measuring the level of objection and why. If they don't wish to use it, then that's fine too and they can still write and ask me to represent their views as a ward councillor.

It's called "Open Democracy" I believe !!

Michael Child said...

Correct Simon. It would seem that those councils that make use of facility afforded by ITC both to collect the views of the electorate, and to publicly display those views and the way that they have been used to produce decisions that reflect the wishes of the electorate will lead the way, both in democratic development and in benefiting the area they govern.

Whereas those councils whose officers see the democratically elected councillors and the electorate as an impediment to doing what is most convenient to them, and who use ITC badly to make information difficult to access and alienate the electorate from the decision making process, what could they possibly be for?

With the abilities of some of the new councillors many of who have even mastered aspects of the ubiquitous aptly named member portal Thanet District Council now have the opportunity to lead the way in this field and open our democracy.

Ken Gregory said...

Yet again we see that many people do not understand the planning process.

A petition is fine, but please remember, many people may oppose an application,though for different reasons.

A valid objection to a planning application has as much weight as a petition with a thousand signatures.

If I started a petition to lower the interest rate and reduce the basic rate of tax to 1% I suspect I would get Zillions of signatures, however, It does not mean the petition would be reflective of the real public perception. ie how would we pay for the essential services etc?.

I have no view on this application as yet, as a member of the planning committee I cannot, but I would say that every application that comes before our committee is judged on the facts, and given a fair hearing.
Ken

Michael Child said...

Ken the planning application that I am most familiar with is for the Pleasurama development in Ramsgate the main sheet being 13-106 elevations because of errors that I have pointed out on it, it has been resubmitted on 4.11.2003, 15.12.2003, 28.01.2004, 18.01.2005 and 22.09.2005 I gather now another set of plans is being drawn. The appearance of the building has changed considerably most notably it has lost any architectural merit that it could one have been said to posses.

With your knowledge of the planning process could you tell me if as this continues we will ever reach a point when we can object to this now very different building to the one that has received planning consent?

Anonymous said...

A rap on your knuckles there, Councillor Moores, from your fellow Tory. All part of the learning process.

DrMoores said...

Why do you think it's a "rap on the knuckles" all petitions are judged on their merits, as Ken says!

Ken Gregory said...

Anonymous,0830hrs,

No 'rap on the knuckles' as Simon says, Any valid objection (or support) is treated with respect.

Anonymous said...

Seems quite straightforward. You, Councillor Moores, "created an online petition for local residents based on what are perceived...".

Your fellow Tory Group Member, Councillor Gregory, later commented "Yet again we see that many people do not understand the planning process. A petition is fine, but please remember that many people may oppose an application, but for different reasons. If I started a petition to lower the interest rate and reduce the basic rate of Income Tax to 1% I would get zillions of signatures, however it does not mean the petition would be reflective of the real public perception".

That is an obvious criticism of your petition approach. That was the only point.

Still on Tory Group “relationships”, before the recent Council Elections, you said that you would delay commenting (until after the vote) on why your Party de-selected Councillor Chater in Westgate Ward – creating a vacancy which gave you the opportunity to stand as a Tory candidate. I don’t think you have offered an account since. It excited a lot of interest at the time, so it would be good to hear just why it happened.

DrMoores said...

It's not for me to comment on any de-selection decision as I was not party to it. Given the results of the local elections here in Westgate it may be best to draw a line under any matters surrounding Mrs Chater and her record as a local councillor and I wish her well for the future.

Anonymous said...

I think I and many others took your post of 6 April:

"I sense some attempts to draw me into making statements about the conduct of the election in the ward I am standing in. This really wouldn't be sensible or indeed appropriate and so, while I will still be writing weblog entries as usual, I'm going to 'recuse' myself from making any comments until after May 3"

as an undertaking to explain all after the Election. A first broken promise?

Anonymous said...

4 06 "many others" I don't think so.
Most of us have lives.
Why not go mad and leave the house, you'll feel so much better.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely 5;17 I think the strings on his anorak are a bit too tight!

Anonymous said...

For all of those interested in the de-selection of Ms. Chater, the answer is obviously to telephone her yourselves and ask her directly why she was de-selected. It is grossly unfair to ask another Councillor to discuss this matter as he was not involved in any of the decisions made. As Ms. chater did not challenge her de-selection it would seem obvious that she is more than aware of the reasons behind the decision and is the most likely person to answer your concerns. Given the outcome of the election in Westgate, it proves that the decision was the correct one as the electorate did not want her to remain, even as an Independant. This is all history now yet Ms. chater's attendance record is still available, I believe, on line for all those that want to keep this matter 'alive'. However, any suggestion that Ms. chater was de-selected in favour of Dr. Moores is blatantly untrue.
With 10 candidates chasing 3 seats in the Ward, Ms. chater had as much chance as the other candidates. It would seem her popularity, like her achievements in the last 4 years, were both, actually fictional. If she was indeed as popular as she presumed to be, then why didn't she win a seat ?

Anonymous said...

I know I can take comfort from the fact that when people resort to cheap insults they have clearly lost the argument, but it is nonetheless sad how opposing views on certain subjects routinely prompt such ritualistic abuse on this blog.

It seems that the issue of Ms Chater’s de-selection in Westgate is a sore for her and the Tory Party. But if it was simply because she failed to attend meetings or failed her electorate in some other way, then why not say so. That might make the Tories look good – dealing robustly with a failing councillor. Of course it does then beg the question why this was allowed to continue between elections. Don’t the Westgate voters deserve answers?

My main point here, though, for the ritualistic abusers, was that an explanation had been “promised” on 6 April by Councillor Moores, but none has been forthcoming. A simple point.

Picking up on a couple of Anon 612’s comments, surely it is for those who de-selected Councillor Chater to account for their decision – not for the person de-selected. Yours is an astonishing proposition. And she may not have challenged the decision, but she clearly still wanted to be a Councillor and stood as an Independent – whatever the final outcome. On your last point, I assume, then, that you also feel Ms Spencer’s record was poor, given her dismissal at the Westgate polls?

Anonymous said...

You shouldn't be so touchy 8.07. I can't see any insult cheap or expensive! Maybe they're only concerned for your welfare as you do seem to get quite easily upset. Just because you think something, it doesn't make it so.
I'd be fascinated to see your reasoning behind claiming to have "won" an argument that hasn't taken place!

Anonymous said...

Only person I see on this blog getting "ritualised abuse" is Cllr Moores.
The abusers are always anonymous, so I wonder how convinced they are of their opinions?
Obviously not enough to put their names to them!

Anonymous said...

I don't think "Why not go mad and leave the house", and "I think the strings on his anorak are too tight" are terms of endearment, Anon 11.02. They are certainly far from constructive and polite contributions to debate, which the house rules for this blog supposedly require. But they are mild compared with the abuse that has been dished out in the past, including by Councillor Moores (Anon 1153).

Whatever, they are the norm for those on here who fear their world is being attacked.

More important than behaviour though is the core issue of the de-selection of Ms Chater - on which some answers are, I think, still due. Let's at least settle that.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12.00pm, has it not occurred to you that maybe Ms. chater would like to put this whole sad episode behind her ? By constantly bringing it up you are compounding her embarrassment and keeping it alive. Why do you continue to 'demand' an answer to the question of her de-selection ? Cllr. Moores does not have to answer, and indeed, if anything, he should not have indicated that he would 'after the elections'. He does not have to justify anything to you and your obsession with this subject is damaging to both Ms. chater and yourself. Don't ask one councillor to explain a party decision that was made before he was elected, he is in no position to know the whole truth. If you insist that you simply MUST know, then why don't you write to the Leader and ask him ? But I doubt you will discover any more than has already been reported here, it was, as already stated, her lack of attendance that brought about her demise. Her failure to be elected as an Independant proved that her popularity was a figment of her imagination. Why can you not just leave it there and stop hounding Cllr. Moores and Ms. Chater ?

Anonymous said...

12.00 Are you just looking for things to moan about? The more upset you get at harmless wind-ups, to your anonymous posts, the more you prove their comments true. Its not their fault you've had your sense of humour surgically removed!
P.S Attacking someone's world.....bit melodramatic don't you think!

Anonymous said...

Touched a nerve then anon 12'00!

Anonymous said...

Regarding the de-selection of Ms Chater,if this councillor was so bad as some people would make out,then why should she be asked,on the morning of the counting of the votes at the Winter gardens by a senior conservative,to cross the floor if she were to be successful in being elected as an Independent and rejoin the Tories? Ms Chater displayed more integrity than the party that now rule us by laughing at this dispicable suggestion.I don't consider 545 votes in a field of ten too unpopular do you?

Anonymous said...

What an interesting approach you demonstrate to openness, truthfulness, integrity and accountability, Anon 547. If you are involved in the Tory Party in any way, that must sound warning bells for the electorate.

And Anon 702/3, I think from your and your associates' reactions, it is clearly I who have touched a (Tory) nerve on this one. If the last post is true, then I can see why.

Clearly the Westgate selection/deselection/election was a thoroughly sordid episode right through for the Tory Party. Small wonder no-one will "reveal all". Enough said.

Anonymous said...

One Voice.. What did George Bush say about the cold war last week..?

"It's over"

We have had an election in Westgate. The people chose their representatives so please stop trying so hard to invent stories and trouble that you can blaze over your own very sordid website!

Anonymous said...

Si is what Anon 858 said true?

Anonymous said...

And nothing is being invented, however hard that may hit your (Tory) Party's sensibilities. The (apparent) truth is interesting enough.

You de-select a sitting councillor prior to the election. No-one in the Tory Party is prepared to explain why to the electorate - to treat the electorate as adults.

Some suggest unofficially it is because Ms Chater had a poor attendance record, but no-one will confirm this. No-one will explain why the Tory Party allowed such allegedly poor representation to continue between elections.

One of your candidates - Dr Moores - undertakes on 6 April to tell all after the election then fails to do so, with, instead, laughable claims from others that it is unfair to Ms Chater to keep referring to this saga. Not as unfair as dumping her, perhaps.

The fact that raising the issue has caused so much blue vitriol to be poured proves how messy this is for you all.

But again, enough said. And without any of it being said on any other blog that you and yours view as sordid simply because it isn't an organ of the Tory Party.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely right 709 You are the one voice of reason in Thanet. Why don't you set up your own blog to tell everyone about the election conspiracy. Everyone who voted Tory was part of it. Nearly 2 thousand people in westgate alone and they all get their orders from you know who.
If certain members of the Tory party take off their heads you will find that they are the 10ft lizards who are controlling the world by starting with Thanet. They will bring in the flouridation of our precious drinking water to pollute our bodily esences. We need you to be our leader, to reveal all, to explain to the people about what the Turner centre is going to have built under it. We don't want the Doomsday machine here. We just want to be free.

Anonymous said...

You all know damn well why poor Ms Chater didn't attend some meetings etc. I think it is really spiteful of you to keep raking this over by pretending to be informing people of some great issue. Ms Chater was a Conservative and you still hold that against her but quietly. This is so you can cause a lovely woman maximum pain and all disguised as caring for her fate at the hands of the Tories. You sicken me with your disgusting behaviour. Leave her alone.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1050, I for one have nothing against Ms Chater; I don't know her at all. I am not questioning her behaviour, actions, motivation or decisions.

But the public, the people who voted for Ms Chater and all the other candidates in 2003 and 2007, and are invited to do so - AND THEN COVER THE COST OF THE SUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES' PAY AND ALLOWANCES - have a right to expect their politicians to account to them.

Contrary to what you say, the electorate do not "know damn well why...Ms Chater didn't attend some meetings". If this is what led to her de-selection - no-one in the Tory Party will say - then this should have been, and should be, explained. Councillor Moores undertook to comment after the election but has since reneged on that undertaking.

Saying now that a line should just be drawn under all of this, because that suits the ruling party in Thanet, is a gross insult to the electorate. Nothing for Ms Chater to answer, but an increasing amount for her former Party to answer.

And most significant that instead of offering answers, the Tory Party dishes out abuse and idiotic posts like Anon's of 10.39.

So again, for starters, is what Anon 858 has said true?

Anonymous said...

I'm 1039 and lifelong Labour voter who is simply taking the mick because you have to be just about the most self absorbed, sanctimonious bore on this blog. You have no sense of humour and take yourself so seriously that I think you need someone to talk to. Obsessives like you give our party a bad name and play right in to Tory prejudices about the looney left. I'm sure in your own mind you will take this as "abuse" too, but remember, its in your mind.

Anonymous said...

So you speak for the electorate do you? How do you know what the electorate wants? And if you are now so stressed about speaking for the electorate, why not go public and let us judge whether or not you're fit to represent us?
Perhaps you should stick to sniping anonymously from the sidelines. P.S. Please don't try to hide your personal animosities and insecurities under the guise of public interest. We're not that stupid!

Anonymous said...

Nothing idiotic about Dr Strangelove. Brilliant film.

Ken Gregory said...

Ok,

Lets leave planet zog behind, and deal with the real issue of this thread.

ex cllr mrs chater was part of a selection process that was designed to present the conservative party candidates to the electorate, She did not gain the approval of the north thanet conservative association.

She then stood as an independant candidate against an official conservative candidate.

Result. Her membership of the party was at risk (its against the rules of the party)
(it was said to me , by her, that she would try to become a conservative member again.(( planning april)) I told her I would oppose this , as 'if your in a club you stick by the rules'

That was the reason I left the Labour Group. I could not , in all Honesty, obey the group rules!

After the election she was not successful.

End of story.

Anonymous said...

So, Councillor Gregory, what Anon of 858 says is emphatically not true?

As for Anon of 251, you clearly are living in fantasy land.Enjoy yourself there.

DrMoores said...

I must have nodded off!
Did I miss something?

Anonymous said...

Yes the fantasy land of the picket line at Wapping when you were in nappies.

Anonymous said...

What is this obsessive going to do next Doc? Go after your wife and kids? He's so twisted up nothing would surprise me. Be careful.

Anonymous said...

I can't stand this anymore. Mr Questioning person please put up your email address and I'll tell you all privately. You can then decide if it was worth all the worry or not.

Anonymous said...

Amazing how straightforward questions not about opinions, personal background or whatever, but about factual events cause so much pain and hysteria on Thanet Life.

Amazing how infrequently truthful answers appear.

I am clearly the only person who is interested in why a sitting Tory Councillor was de-selected, why her allegedly poor performance wasn't dealt with by her Party, and whether or not what Anon of 858 said about a senior Tory's actions is true.

Not quite sure I AM the only one because others have raised the issue too, but...

Many of you clearly think that asking those questions and pressing when no answers are forthcoming is "obsessive". Ok, you're entitled to that view but to me it signals you are very uninterested in the "goings-on" in political parties locally. Strange, when this blog encourages and achieves such an obsessive interest in such things nationally.

But fine, you all prefer local "dog bites councillor" stories; so be it.

Amazing what offensive abuse is dished out when the Thanet Life boat is rocked - especially when boarding parties are sent out to other blogs as they have been in the past with some now legendary bad and libellous language in play. You blue-rinsers are clearly lovely decent people!

As for Anon 815, if your comment wasn't so laughably stupid, it would probably be actionable.

There you are Councillor Dr Moores, you can go back to sleep now. Don't wake the dog.

DrMoores said...

Thank you I will, 'One Voice in Torment' Why I wonder are you using an "anonymous" entry unless you are simply trying to stir-up trouble that simply doesn't exist?

If you lived in Westgate you might have a better grasp of the circumstances but you clearly don't and the matter simply isn't relevant to some grand conspiracy theory of your own making. Clr Gregory explained the procedure quite lucidly.

I'm afraid you are in such a tiny minority and your mischievious comments have been treated with such disdain by other, more intelligent readers, that you had best call it a day!

Anonymous said...

Clearly the honest, simple and straightforward questions I have raised simply won't get answered on here. Ah well.

As I (according to you) must live with torment, so I guess must you live with deceit, manipulation and spin. I hope your current teflon coating is a good strong one.

As to your "more intelligent" readers, perhaps they are; I have no delusions about my abilities - unlike some. But if "more intelligent" means spitting out allegations of paedophilia (against ANOther, not me) and now stalking and whatever else Anon 815 had in mind, and general unchecked abuse, I would choose intellectual inferiority any time.

Anonymous said...

As a postscript, I am astonished that one of your Party supporters hasn't suggested that I was dressed up as the dog that bit you. It seems par for their paranoid course.

Ewww, what a thought.

Anonymous said...

One Voice.....you really are pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Oh dear, what a low level of debate, Anon 206. I hope it's made you feel better though.

Anonymous said...

Dear OVIT,(under Anon guise or otherwise), surely Cllr Gregory gave a straightforward and precise summary of the Chater issue? If you would like a bone to chew on, try and get sense from any Councillor concerning GOSE and TDC grant of £100,000 to 'Outfitters' to provide I do not know what to I don't know how few youngsters for I don't know how short a period but managed to refurbish a property purchased for £90,000 only to now have it on the market for £400,000. This is the sort of issue you should be getting your sharp teeth into, not what Thanet Conservative Selectors have done; at least they haven't ripped off tax-payers.

DrMoores said...

Without recalling the exact details of this, I have a vague recollection that property prices have risen quite substantially in Thanet over the last five years in line with other parts of the South East. These are market forces. I sthat what you are referring to?

Anonymous said...

Dr Moores, a 360% increase in value in 4 years is pretty extra-ordinary even for Thanet. No, what I am interested in is how a GOSE grant (via TDC) for £100,000 is trumpeted on GOSE's site in 2006 and in May 2007, 'Outfitters' (refurbished throughout courtesy of GOSE) is closed and up for sale. As I commented before on this topic, £100,000 seems to have been wasted by an arty-farty farce whilst you have to scratch around for a few pennies by comparison to set up a basket-ball goal and small court for Westgate youngsters. How was the grant spent? How many children benefitted from the initiative and is there any money that can be claimed back? Who has actually benefitted from this whole business other than the owners of the property?

DrMoores said...

Seems like a fair question. I wonder if anyone can answer it? If I can find out more on the subject I will let you know.

DrMoores said...

I hear that the original grant will be recovered, as for any other case where owners move on.

Anonymous said...

You know 11.25 one voice. The more I read your comments, the more sorry I feel for you. With your sort of personality I suppose negative attention, or even abuse is still some form of recognition. I find it terribly sad that a grown man's only achievement or claim to fame (as you raised it) is to be remembered as "one half of a whole moron". I presume that's where your inability to communicate rationally with those whom you percieve to have achieved more than you stems from. I'm sure you'd be a much happier person if you got out and did something that you could be proud of or recognised for. After all, there has to be more to life than your present existence. All the best, and hope it works out.

Anonymous said...

The original statement of 858 does'nt seem to have been denied.
One of Ms Chaters 'sins' appears to be that she refused to return from holiday to attend a budget meeting-she was in south africa at the time -how rude of her!

Anonymous said...

In 18 months of visiting Thanetlife, I have never seen an item with 60 comments on. Is this a record?
Thanks for the info concerning recovery of the grant to 'Outfitters'. How was the decision taken to give a grant in the first place as the £100,000 appears to have created very little benefit other than as a tax free 'loan' to do a property up!

DrMoores said...

61 is a new record I'm certain!

As far as I'm aware, it was a non -political decision and the outfitters took an investment risk which was supported by a GOSE grant in an effort to help regenerate the Old Town. That grant should be recovered. I don't think anybody realised that prices would rise by such an amount, which says something about the regenration process I suppose. I'm sure that you would have liked to have invested in the Old Town with the benefit of hindsight?

This is only a personal view with the information that I have managed to find since your last question and I don't have a definitive answer on the subject.

Anonymous said...

You’re quite right Anon 136, which means it must be true, and which explains the especially vitriolic response to the questions raised on here. They have clearly caused embarrassment to the local Tory machine. Chuck Ms Chater then ask her at the count to come back if she wins the election. What highly principled, honourable people our local Tory representatives are!

Anon of 1151, you are simply offensive, and I recognise seeing that probably gives you some form of physical excitement. You are in the same camp as the Thanet Life supporter who alleged Eastcliff Richard was a paedophile and the sad unfortunate who suggested I might go after Moores’s wife and kids. For those in the “Party of Law and Order” you really are worryingly inclined to commit slander as well as being disposed to the vilest of outbursts and language.

DrMoores said...

Clutching at straws as usual OVIT. How do you actually "know" that an alleged conversation from an unknown source,at the count was accurate? You don't and perhaps it didn't happen at all, which is far more likely given the circumstances.

While blindly following your own very narrow agenda you simply ignore what you don't like and the visible evidence that readers have a poor opinion of you as a consequence. There's an unhealthy masochism in the way you obsess with "The blue rinsers", "The Party of Law"... and so on. Are you surprised that people call you names?

If unlike you, I did not have an acceptable use policy in place here, one can only imagine the language that might be used against you! This doesn't in any way condone bad manners but if your existence in the real world mirrors that of the online world, you must be a deeply unhappy and isolated person!

Anonymous said...

No, I don't know, Doctor, which is why I asked the question. It is what I was brought up to do. However, if the question isn't answered, one can only make assumptions.

If the story that 858 recounted is not true, then why don't you, or Councillor Gregory, simply say so. Rather than perpetuate the personality bashing instead - albeit that is easier and more exciting for you.

DrMoores said...

Well, I was there and so were a number of others and procedurally we can't imagine it happening, which is as close as a "No" as you are going to get without me knowing who the alleged conversation was with!

Anonymous said...

I think we should all stop commenting as its obviously becoming the only thing in ovit's life at the moment. We should be concerned for his welfare so if we stop winding him up (yes, I know its too easy and tempting) maybe he'll turn off his PC for a while and go outside. Be kind.

Anonymous said...

The only problem with OVIT is that he is spending too much time on Thanetlife and not enough on his own blog 'Thanetonian'and if we carry on taking note we will push comments up to 70! Let it go OVIT as Cllr Gregory seems to have answered your query quite well.

Anonymous said...

Under no circumstances would a de-selected councillor of her calibre be invited back into the party. The reasons why she was slung out remained after the count and the only person in a position to offer her re-instatement hates her guts. Is that clear enough for you ?