Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Council Knockers Get Global Coverage

Talk about making a mountain out of a couple of molehills! Our beloved council must be feeling a right tit after the laughable attempt to get Ramsgate hairdresser Marcello's banner of his decouped missus taken down made headlines across the globe. Earlier this morning it was the most read story on the BBC News website! (Click on pic to watch)

Ramsgate Society's Jocelyn McCarthy says it 'shows too much cleavage', but personally it, er, perks me up every time I drive past it!

It's all rather reminiscent of Margate Borough Council's attempt to prosecute renowned seaside postcardist Donald McGill in the 1950s under the Obscene Publications Act for this:

The postcard's currently taking pride of place in a new exhibition, Rude Britannia, at the Tate. Not dissimilar to my Fannit flag in the sidebar on the right, I'd say. Harmless seaside fun. So go on Thanet Council, stop whingeing about the knockers! Take those big old pants off and wave them in the air a bit!

74 comments:

Bill said...

You can see the doss house behind Mr Marino's head which seems perfectly reasonable to have next to the conservation area.

Perhaps Ken Gregory and Jocelyn need to tackle the real issues beset in our town before hounding a businessman for putting a poster on a wall.

Readit said...

Just a couple of points which relate to this post and the last one.

It is no wonder lorries are illegally parked, TDC closed the lorry park "to repair potholes" and then leased it for 50 years to London Array.

As far as planning permission is concerned it is true the poster is in a conservation area and should require permission, but nobody has explained to me why the new London Array building can be built in the port WITHOUT PLANNING PERMISSION.

Anonymous said...

Well done Readit...my point exactly, to 'Ken'. One rule for TDC and another for us!!!

And what about the banners on the airport fence then?

Someone has lost the plot - and it ain't the locals.

Malcolm

Peter Checksfield said...

A tad over-dressed (I would've lost the trousers) but otherwise very artistic!

Lucy Mail said...

...and, perhaps, added a young lady, licking the end of the rock?

Lucy Mail said...

Oh yes, and she'd be standing naked, on some poor bugger's grave?

Bluenote said...

Not sure I would want the world oggling my wife's cleavage, especially with some of the weirdos one gets in Ramsgate.

Anonymous said...

Having seen your wife Bluenote I can safely say that not many people would want to see her even slightly undressed.

Bluenote said...

12:10 Not even remotely funny and extremely bad taste. You have no idea what my wife looks like and even if you did your comment would be out of order. But then, how can one expect your type to know that!!

Richard Eastcliff said...

Leaving personal insults out of it (please!), I think the point is that TDC have made a real, er, boo-boo here.

Whilst allowing most of our heritage buildings to crumble into eyesores, they get all worked up when an enterprising chap advertises his business with a bit of, um, titillation. He's not running a cannabis factory or a crack house, he's trying to run a legitimate business, which can surely only be good for the area.

Anyone would think he'd erected a giant cock on the dome of St Paul's, judging by the way the Ramsgate Soc and the council have been banging on!

Peter Checksfield said...

Don't knock it until you've tried it Lucy (& Mrs Bluenote!). ; )

I agree totally with Readit's & ECR's comments.

East Cliffer said...

You started it Bluenote; run down Ramsgate and its people and we'll hurl insults back.

Twat.

Anonymous said...

I think Bluenote's role and purpose is simply to challenge anything that appears critical of Thanet Council and most especially the Tory Group that runs it (badly). He is simply a mouthpiece, and apologist, for the local Tory Party. No problem with that as long as we all recognise it.

DrM. said...

In fact I gave an interview to the BBC SE news last night and they chose not to run it.

Simply stated, what's on the banner has nothing to do with this case; it's effectively invisible to officers in making any determination and I pointed this out to the BBC. It's a striking image but could be equally be a photo of Donald Duck and doesn't alter the fact that in advertising a business in a conservation area, surrounded by Georgian buildings, certain rules need to be followed!

For banner of this size and location, planning permission to display an advert is required. TDC have written to the owner explaining this.

TDC has also said that its always be happy to discuss options available for displaying advertisements on buildings through our planning process.

The best course of action would be for the owner to talk to one of the enforcement officers before submitting an application so that they can advise him of the relevant advertising legislation and guidelines - which are quite complex.

I guess the BBC weren't that interested in hearing the facts and preferred the 'vox-pop' impression from passers-by instead!

malaprop said...

Hang on! Are you suggesting TDC follow rules?? I thought rules were a one way thing applying only to residents!

Anonymous said...

DrM, this shop is in fact opposite brand new houses.....which had great big signs with "New Homes" hung from the railings for the best part of a year whilst they were being flogged.

Anonymous said...

I agree that these things need planning permission (although I don't recall the airport ever getting it) but the point is that the way the council has handled it has been a cock-up if you'll pardon the pun.

To persecute this hairdresser for a banner and turn him into a national cause celebre when there are bigger fish to fry is nonsense.

Readit said...

So DrM, being TDC p[lanning expert.
Why is planning permission NOT REQUIRED for new buildings in the port?

Anonymous said...

As usual Dr Biggles takes his hypocritical stance on things & his one rule for them & another for us.

Perhaps he could give better consideration to conservation areas, during his flying escapades !!

DrM. said...

If you don't want to hear the facts than that's your choice. Local government has regulations that it is obliged to follow and if any reader believes that those same regulations have not been properly followed or interpreted, then appropriate channels of complaint are available.

Where a so called 'hypocritical stance' comes into the argument I can't quite fathom. Council officers are simply doing their job.

Now if you want me to explain the facts then spare me the invective or I simply won't bother in future!

Anonymous said...

Dr. M said
" I simply won't bother in future!"

sounds good to me

Anonymous said...

1-52...We've heard that before, but he can't keep away.

Anonymous said...

Council officers have got the power to say it would not be in the public intrest to enforce this matter. Therefore, not waste public money!!

Bluenote said...

Think your record is stuck in the groove 12:48. Like I've told you before I am no one's mouthpiece and I feel no need to apologise for the Tory party or any other for that matter. My view was nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the sign location or whether it offended planning. Simply wondered how anyone would want to display their wife, girlfriend, daughter or other female relative scantily attired to the world at large. A totally apolitical view I would suggest but with dear old 12:48 everything he disagrees with has to be Tory inspired. Sad really!!

Readit said...

So DrM you want to "explain the facts" and I want an answer. Why is planning permission NOT REQUIRED in the port?

Or do you not know either?

Peter Checksfield said...

Bluenote, why on earth wouldn't anyone want to display their wife, girlfriend, daughter or other female relative scantily attired (or nude) to the world at large - if this is what THEY (the women) want to do?

Bluenote said...

Peter, as a purely personal view I would not want to see my women folk paraded like cattle for the world at large to lech over. What they, the women, if we are to be all PC, want to do is entirely up to them and of their choosing. Merely expressing my own preference.
I would also suggest, appreciating your love of nudity, that there is a huge difference between baring all in the company of like minded souls and being displayed on some wall in down town Ramsgate or any similar location. Seem to recall the woman's liberty fraternity strongly opposed women being displayed as sex objects.

Anonymous said...

Will TDC persue any businees displaying banner/advertisements regardless of what is stated on it. Has the Oak in Harbour Parade got permission for its banner advertising new rooms from £40? I suspect that Thanet is full of such adverts and it looks like one rule for some which is why the council is held in such ridicle.

Lucy Mail said...

OMG, Womens Lib! What a bunch they are! Have you ever been along to one of their meetings, Bluenot?
You wouldn't be advocating their ideals if you had. You'd be fearing for your life.

Personally I like to be flaunted by my partner, as I see admiring glances, hear compliments and feel good about it.
You'd see lechers, hear filth and feel bad about it. So you'd best buy your wife a headscarf.

Or see with better eyes than that.

Anonymous said...

Bluenote = Taliban

Readit said...

Am I going MAD or am I the only sane one on Planet Thanet. Half the world seems to have their knickers in a twist over an well designed very harmless poster but ignore the BIG question.

WHY IS PLANNING PERMISSION NOT REQUIR%ED IN THE PORT !.

Somebody must know, I am sure there is a simple explanation. Please put me out of my misery someone before I jump in the dock
(or do I need permission for that ?)

Mark said...

Perhaps Roger Gale can now remove his election banners still scattered over Thanet unless he knows something we don't!

Anonymous said...

Where's the Marina swimming pool gone?

Johnny Envy said...

I don't see why anyone else should enjoy such perky breasts when most of us have to endure those which aren't half as good. Bleeding immigrants bringing their wife's boobs over here, it shouldn't be allowed.

Anonymous said...

The Port is built below what used to be Ramsgate Cliffs, so technically it is outside Thanet. That's why it doesn't need planning permission from TDC.

Anonymous said...

It should host a pirate radio station.

Anonymous said...

Don't rock the boat!

Anonymous said...

Anon 6.20 so why does TDC own it? And if its not in TDC area which council does it come under? Must be french.

Readit said...

Sorry anon 16.20 that does not hold water. The actual London Array turbines received planning permission from Tendring District Council and they are in the sea.

Readit said...

Sorry should be 6.20.

I do not object to the London Array building 7.06 but we do need a level playing field when it come to receiving permissions.

Anonymous said...

Do you think her haven is shaven?

Anonymous said...

Mark, are you saying that Roger Gale's erection, sorry election, posters carry pictures of his publicly-funded wife Suzy without all her clothes on? My oh my. I'm used to seeing pictures of him with his bitch, but didn't realise his election posters showed a scantily dressed wife. By "his bitch" I mean his Newfoundland dog of course.

Anonymous said...

Look... if someone complains re an advertisement in a conservation area..or anywhere else... TDC is obliged to investigate.. If they did not, it would be cause to complain... Of course, if I were not so believing, could it be that the owner of the hairdressers wanted cheap publicity, they have now got it!!! only the cost of a retrospective planning application, and minutes of publicity on the local BBc and papers!!!

Anonymous said...

I think, "DrM", that everyone would acknowledge that the Council must uphold planning law as well as many other laws for which it has delegated responsibility.

The first point here is whether it has been unduly rigid in its approach to this banner, and whether or not it could have applied some largesse and flexibility. If there is none available, then that is a bit sad. The second point being made by several contributors is that the zeal and speed of action shown in pursuing this planning case is simply not evident in other branches of Council activity, such as rubbish clearance. Regardless of the legislative requirements, it is the latter that is important to the people of Thanet.

Ramsgate resident said...

As far as planning permission and the port is concerned, my understanding is that TDC leases the port off the Crown Estate so as long as HRH gives permission that's all they need.

Readit said...

Thank you "Ramsgate resident" your explanation makes sense. I copied this from the Crown Estates website and as the port was built on reclaimed land it could be included in the following:

"extensive marine assets throughout the UK, including 55% of the foreshore and all the seabed out to the 12 nautical miles limit"

Anonymous said...

The biggest tits in this episode are undoubtedly the council, although Mrs Marino has a fair pair herself.

Anonymous said...

Some special brew swigging cunt has just tried to break into my car. He had his eight year old son with him. This is the type of person DrM and his merry band seem to want here.

I suggest Doc you and your cronies take your head out of your arses and start dealing with the real issues - the economically inactive parasites you've been bending over backwards to accommodate for the past decade.

Fuck the poster. Get real.

Anonymous said...

You don't sound too classy yourself either 9:35...

Anonymous said...

Sad to say that fostering unemployable morons, who will themselves breed the next generation of unemployable morons once they reach the ripe old age of 13 or 14, has become something of a cottage industry here in Thanet. Many councillors are involved, and who can blame them at £800 a week?

Anonymous said...

Businesses slapping cheep vinyl banners all over the place contributes to making our towns look a mess.

I'm not saying it is the only thing, Enforcement of building and signage in conservation areas needs to be more enforced not less.

Regarding the subject of the poster, I couldn't care less.

A poster needs planning permission.

If one business feels they have to fix a banner, all the others will feel they have to put one up too.

So more enforcement please, not less.

Ramsgate Society said...

From THE RAMSGATE SOCIETY

Ref the BBC South East Today programme of 7th June in which the Marcello’s Hairdressers sign was featured with comment from the Ramsgate Society.

The interview with Mr Jocelyn McCarthy took place in the gardens of Vale Square, Ramsgate accompanied by the society’s Editor and Planning Officer

Over a half an hour of recording was made together with much off camera discussion praising the art worthiness of the poster. The Ramsgate Society’s position is that this could be considered an extension of our desire to develop a Ramsgate Art Culture, complimenting our Art and Architecture initiative being developed.

During the course the discussion it was made plain that the matter is one of planning concern to be dealt with by TDC Planning if necessary.

If and when an application is submitted it would receive support from the Ramsgate Society with the only proviso being that installation of any posters to the buildings in the conservation areas does not damage the fabric.

We are therefore considering a complaint to the BBC for media manipulation and misrepresentation.

Anonymous said...

Was a pompous comment from the Ramsgate Conservation Society.

ECR, is this postall over a poster your longest post ever?

Lucy Mail said...

I'd imagine that Mr Marcello's scissors will be as red hot as his wife's tats (er, allegedly), after all this advertising.
That poster will probably be the best value item that he's ever bought.
Though I couldn't possibly guess how much his wife costs to run.

Anonymous said...

anon again!
Wow, this has to be the longest messaged subject on here,
and I just wanted to be part of it!

Bluenote said...

An earlier entry on the Ramsgate 'hole' near the harbour also attracted 54 comments so thought I would push this to at least 55.

Interesting how 'tits' and 'holes' seem to excite such activity but then I suppose it takes a pair of tits to stimulated a bunch of tits!!

Anonymous said...

You should know bluecock!

Bluenote said...

Interestingly enough, 11:28, I have some bluetits nesting in my garden but I am sure that wasn't what you meant. Lighten up, my friend, for life is too short for such nastiness.

Anonymous said...

Please note the Margate big events posters which are....errr posted all over RAMSAGTE's CONSERVATION AREAS!!!!

Did anyone view a planning notice for them, thought not.

TIT's are us at TDC?

Anonymous said...

If there's this much fuss over a banner, how then did somebody get planning permission to build a three storey modern block of three studio flats (ie future crack den) on a plot where there was formerly just a garage in the Bellevue Road conservation area?

It seems to me that somebody somewhere has got their priorities wrong.

At least the coalition government has announced today that garden grabbing is to be outlawed, a very positive move in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Huge placards advertising Margate Old Town opposite Westwood Cross. Got planning permission? Doubt it. Banners on the airport fences by the Minster roundabout. Got planning permission? Doubt it.

A rather tasteful banner (in my view and I'm female) causes all sorts of hoo-hah but meanwhile the customers must be flocking to his salon as a result.

Roger Gale election advetisements in various locations need planning permission if left up after 14 days following the election so if they're still there, complain to the council.

Anonymous said...

By the council objecting the shop in question has now got what it set out to do PUBLICITY....It worked

Retired said...

Snipcock said

He can apply for retrospective planning consent. I suggest he apply for consent for the banner to drape from his traditional erect barber pole.

Lucy Mail said...

Thanks for the scoop, 1:27PM.
Do try to keep up!

Anonymous said...

Also he may be able to erect a linen line without planning and hang from it all sorts of towels, tee shirts and lingerie adorned in whatever art he likes.

But the drawback is that local tories might express themselves over the lingerie if they can harden their resolve.

Anonymous said...

This is all getting a bit sordid!

Ramsgate Retiree said...

As a local retired woman I really can't see what all the fuss is about! I went past the shop on the bus today and thought the poster looked very good - certainly if any young man has a wife as gorgeous as that he should be proud of her. TDC don't seem that bothered about all the other breaches of the conservation regulations such as plastic windows, TV satellite dishes etc so why so much fuss over one poster? I hope Mr Marino's business increases as a result of all this fiasco and good luck to him.

Richard Eastcliff said...

Oh come on. We've got to get this to 69 comments, surely?

Anonymous said...

Well a councilor has tried to justify the councils actions on this blog regarding this poster but it looks like the council has fouled up on to many other issues for anybody to believe him. The council may be legally right on this one but there are too many other violations of posters being displayed for the council's actions to be merited.

Anonymous said...

Bollocks....sorry meant to type Bollards!! apparently these suffice to cordon off large areas of Cafe Clutter and double parking.

The point here is that TDC do not enforce these planning indiscretions - and don't get me on about the muck and filth after closing - and we are not just talking about rubbish!!

P O Bristols

Anonymous said...

TDC get the basics right, clear up the rubbish, actually check that developers are building within the plans and stop worryng about airports and china then we the chattering Thanet classes may have an ounce of respect for you. But most people on here with an ounce of brains think there is rampant negligence, incompetence, cronyism and corruption going on.

Anonymous said...

the banners in richard Ash's field advertising Margate Old Town( A fine place to visit) and others are on private land. Hence the reason they are there.

Anonymous said...

anon again!

I just weighed my brain, it's just over 6Kg. Sorry, I don't know if that's average or superior or what!
It is better than an ounce though.
At least I like to think rather more on the superior side, having spent a long time away from Thanet and England.
I'm not a nasty bloke just chucking insult's at crets and morons.
I feel deeply about my root's and childhood. Margate was a great place to grow up in. Oh how I loved to visit Dreamland then, but, what have I come back to?
A shabby Town with a High Street to match. So many closed shops, Dreamland a deserted wreck, with criminally inclined car clampers.
What scum allowed these things to happen?

TDC.....

Thanks.

If I had the power, I'm afraid the lot of you would bite the dust.
A new broom would sweep cleaner. Get rid of all the corruption and other mis-doings.

Ramsgate Society said...

BBC admitted their mistake and have amended their website accordingly

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/10255798.stm