Few took him seriously (as usual most realise he was just leaping on a passing bandwagon), with a few notable exceptions, such as the proven moron, and Ramsgate's own village idiot Joe Turner for example.
Seems that the building company boss is prepared to expose Drivers grandstanding, showing with evidence, (you could learn from that James ;) ) that he has a solid legal footing to counter TDC's accusations, and Drivers's and his minions bullshit.
Go for it Mr Perlov, you have the support of the VAST majority of Thanet that long to see progress!
As you know, the argument is not with Cllr Driver or me, but with TDC planning enforcement who say that Panther had no planning permission to demolish, have no planning permission to build and did not have authority to close a road. Of course, you are totally incapable of thought, otherwise you'd already know that.
ReplyDeleteHello boy, I'm surprised you want to be made to look as stupid as you clearly are all over again. No problem.
ReplyDeleteSome of your laughable lies from Michaels blog;
"Demolition of the buildings went on for days, at the point where I complained, the officer maintained that there had been no offence, however the demolition continued and we got to the point where a building fell into the street. Lack of action earlier in the process by TDC officers directly led to a dangerous and illegal collapse"
So, by collapse, you mean when the workforce, as planned, demolished the long derelict building as they had planned, having informed Kent Police of their plan...
When you say "lack of action" does that mean that when you said "TDC enforcement officers visited whilst the demolition was in progress and issued enforcement notices" that was an outright lie, or are you simply to stupid to remember what lie you are trying to convince people is true?
Seems Panther have quite a strong case, and all you really have is lies and bullshit my boy. Tell me, what is your connection to this building, were you squatting in it perhaps, did you have some kind of emotional attachment to it? What is your attachment to this building boy, I think we should be told.
1. Kent Highways said in the local press that they were not notified about the road closure, at they would have to be to officially close a road.
ReplyDelete2. The work continued over several days. On the first day, when I visited, the workmen said they were taking the roof off the building and nothing else. I spoke to enforcement who said this did not contravene the planning consent.
3. However, the work continued, to the extent that the site is now entirely cleared. Far beyond simply removing a dangeorus roof.
4. Towards the end of that process, TDC officers issued an enforcement to prevent further demolishing of the buildings, against the planning permission. But the developer continued to demolish the buildings (plural, there were several buildings on the site).
5. There is no lie or contradiction in what I've said here or elsewhere, because that is what happened.
The facts are that there is no planning permission for 20 buildings and no planning permission for demolishing the buildings from TDC, who are the legal authority to issue such permission. It was applied for and denied. That the work went ahead without that permission is a legal dispute between TDC and the developer.
If you were actually in Ramsgate you might have been able to come and see the events for yourself. Given that you are not, it must be very difficult.
I don't have any attachment to the building, I thought it was wrong of TDC to deny planning permission for demolishing the site. However, I also believe that safe building practices mean that such things should always be done in the correct way - under the supervision of local authority planning - for the safety of our town.
I have no interest in the buildings other than my office is near to them.
I'm not sure whether you are simply thick, or an out an out liar. Let me see,
ReplyDelete"Demolition of the buildings went on for days, at the point where I complained, the officer maintained that there had been no offence, however the demolition continued and we got to the point where a building fell into the street. Lack of action earlier in the process by TDC officers directly led to a dangerous and illegal collapse"
or
"TDC enforcement officers visited whilst the demolition was in progress and issued enforcement notices"
Now which is the lie boy?
Fact is that the workmen informed police and closed the road, hence the demolision was clearly well planned and executed, as evidenced by it's perfectly safe execution as planned.
Who are you to question people on the site, is as you claim you have no connection with the site or building? I would have thrown you out on your sorry arse!
The "facts" that you claim are what you would like them to be, and as evidenced by the by the reply from the building's owner to Drivers bullshit, clearly their version of events is far more credible, as they don't contain the lies,bullshit and mis representations that your bullshit does, and his motivations with this building are clear, as are Drivers, yours of course are simply those of a nosey busibody
who simply wants to try to feel important.
Sadly all your doing is making yourself look like the clueless cock you clearly are, you think anyone will believe you are annoyed that planning consent was "denied" when you are a proven liar?
The events are more than clear, consent was granted, and activated some years ago, and completed recently. I suggest you aquaint yourself with the facts in future as clearly your grasp of building and planning consent is as tenuous as your as your baseless pedantry.
You work in an office? Really? You post like a 9 year old, i thought you were still in junior school! How many offices do you have to clean to make a living then?
I don't know which part you can't understand. It took several days to demolish all of the buildings, at the start TDC did not have a problem, by the end they had issued an enforcement notice. Which made no difference in the event, the dangerous demolition happened anyway. No contradiction there.
ReplyDeleteThere is no factual evidence that the police were informed. You are taking the developers word for that, the police have not confirmed that is the case, and even if it was, it is only KCC that have the authority to close a road.
Once again, here are the planning documents from March 2013: demolition denied and flats denied.
The developer claims that he has permission from 2005 that still applies, but he will have to prove this in court. If he thought they applied, why did he apply again in 2013?
I care about my town, you don't even live here.
Ah ok, so your whole paragraph:
ReplyDelete"Demolition of the buildings went on for days, at the point where I complained, the officer maintained that there had been no offence, however the demolition continued and we got to the point where a building fell into the street. Lack of action earlier in the process by TDC officers directly led to a dangerous and illegal collapse"
is inaccurate dishonest bullshit, glad we got to the bottom of that.
Dangerous demolition? Road closed, and no injuries, seems it was perfectly safe, and no members of the public were endangered at anytime. Glad we got to the bottom of that.
There is no evidence they weren't informed either, hence the claim of a director of a business would seem to be the only evidence thus far. I look forward to you proving the director a liar, as I have proved you a liar.
Once again my boy, planning consent was apparantly granted and activated between 2005 and today. You post does not invalidate that permisssion if it had been activated in the intervening years.
I doubt it will end up in court, and even if TDC decide to waste further case persuing someone trying to improve Thanet, and to whom they had previously granted permission, then if as claimed the consent had been activated, they will have wasted more time and cash.
I would suggest you keep your nose out of others business, I would guess I have lived in Thanet since before you were even a thought on your mummys mind. Sadly those Thanetians that chose to try to interfere in others affairs to try to make themselves feel important have caused Ramsgate to sink to it's current depths.
You can rest assured if I had been on the site, you would have been thrown out on your arse, and invited to mind you own business, and quite rightly so.
You really should get some understanding of the subjects boy, at the moment, you are making yourself look like a cock.
Now trot off boy, and TRY to come up with a way for you to make a contribution to Thanet, rather than simply being a worthless, whining and inaccurate pedant.
I don't care what you think John Hamilton, or whatever your real name is. I suggest you stop trying to tell me what issues to take an interest in.
ReplyDeleteI know you're happy just posting inaccurate claims, bullshit and out right lies boy. Best you stop poking your nose into everyone elses business, and concentrate on trying to not look like a clueless cock in future, as alas, the only thing you have managed to do so far is prove that you are indeed a clueless fuckwit.
ReplyDeleteNow off you go boy, get mummy to give you some jelly and ice cream and tell you what a cwever lil soldier you are ;)
You've not proven a single line of anything that I've said that is inaccurate or lies. Evidence is more than just a photo - that you nicked from someone else's blog - which gives a one-sided view of a contentious local issue.
ReplyDeleteOh dear me Turner my boy;
ReplyDelete"Demolition of the buildings went on for days, at the point where I complained, the officer maintained that there had been no offence, however the demolition continued and we got to the point where a building fell into the street. Lack of action earlier in the process by TDC officers directly led to a dangerous and illegal collapse"
Lie - " the demolition continued and we got to the point where a building fell into the street"
Truth - building was demolished, it's didn;t "fall"
Lie - "Lack of action earlier in the process by TDC officers directly led to a dangerous and illegal collapse"
Truth - TDC issued an enforcement notice
Truth - building didn't "collapse" it was properly demolished in a planned process.
You are a proven liar boy, and proven to be clueless on every subject you have posted on thus far.
Really, it is a lie to say that the building fell into the street? Even for you that is pathetic, John Hamilton.
ReplyDeleteThe enforcement notice did not prevent the building being demolished. It was not issued until several other buildings had been demolished. Hence that is not a lie.
The building was not properly demolished - as no permission was gained to do so. It was therefore not a properly planned process.
0 + 0 + 0 = 0
Not proven.
Yep, as it was demolished according to a plan my boy, and it certainly didn't simply "collapse" as you dishonestly claim.
ReplyDelete"Lack of action earlier in the process by TDC officers directly led to a dangerous and illegal collapse"
So there WASN'T a lack of action as TDC, as they served enforcement orders, seems you're caught in the same lie AGAIN boy.
Oh dear boy, you are clueless aren't you. The process of demolition can be perfectly carried out to a plan, whether that demolition has consent is another matter, and as it seems that developer would seem to have a claim to have consent, your assersion that the demolition was illegal is ill informed bullshit at BEST.
Yep that would be right, your score so far is 0+0+0+0=0=the boy turner really is a clueless and dishonest moron - Proven..
I didn't say there was a total lack of action, but that it was too late. Learn to read.
ReplyDelete"Lack of action earlier in the process by TDC officers directly led to a dangerous and illegal collapse"
ReplyDeleteThe clue is the word "lack".
Caught you in another lie turner.
No, the clue is the phrase 'earlier in the process'. I should know, given I said it.
ReplyDeleteI know turner my boy, shame you can't keep track of the lies you've trotted out, and hence how you manage to look like such a dishonest cock, with little help from me, I simply point how that you're lying,
ReplyDeleteAs a bystander in this exchange of pleasantries I have to say that if the developer went to the trouble to take out a full page display in the local press, at some expense to themselves, then there might be a small clue as to who is telling the truth and who is seeking to obfuscate. Mendaciousness springs to mind.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that the developer is happy to make his case in public, with facts and evidence referenced, and even case law on which to base his assertions. I think it will come to pass that the developer has the correct planning consent, and gullible morons such as the boy turner will be proved to have simply been bullshitting, which to be fair, has already been proven here and elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you meant to post that twice bemused, but I ok'd the one with the latest timestamp, hope that was the one you meant to use, let me know if not.
Oh Turner, if you don;t have a grown up around to explain to you what Mendaciousness means, drop me a mail, and I'll explain, I don;t want to humiliate you any more than necessary ;)
ReplyDeleteBless im.