Oh well. One thing that will be kissing the clouds over Margate, and the rest of the island, should the air traffic control chaps at NATS get their way, is planes taking off from London City and Gatwick airports. The 'London Airspace Consultation' ends next Tuesday, so get your proverbials on if you want to have your say. Although anyone who can make sense of their Dad's Army style maps is a better man that I am, Gunga Din.
Right. I'm off down the Croisette here in the Millionaires' Playground for my traditional Friday night Krug and caviar! Toodle-pip!
25 comments:
Possibly they meant kismet
The famous seafront tower block should be safe ??
over 7,000 feet? Most of the Manston planes are barely 70 feet above rooftops! Who is checking these airports? Gloag can't afford the compensation for a crash.
Paul Carter denies poverty report linked to welfare cuts because "there weren't any foodbanks 3 years ago" is he for real?
And why is council tax rising - sack some more civil servants. We seem to elect politicians to do nothing and lie to us and tax us. Carter should go. Bayofrd and hart are crap too.
You won't notice anything... the base of controlled airspace is presently 5,000 feet
Does that mean you can't hear them from that height?
What is that rascal Moores talking about - flights in Ramsgate are offroute and rooftop height. Where are the monitors?
Controlled airspace is high level stuff.. Manston aircraft aren't in controlled airspace as they have to get down to 0 feet to land .. Ramsgate is directly on the flightpath so how can aircraft coming and going be off route?
Despite comment moderation, Garbutt is back in 2014 with his aircraft nonsense. Some things never change.
10:42 as you well know the S106 airport regulations require aircraft to land - as you would expect - from the rural end of the airport. Planes over the town are therefore offroute and attract fines.
It also causes unnecessary pollution of the public that the Manston fanatics (and TDC's Airport Committee)are desperate to hide.
Arrests should be made for repeat offenders and missing fines.
Landing direction is governed a the wind.. not the S106, which is a voluntary ACOP that holds no legal requirements.
Complete nonsense Manston Fanatic 8:33. The S106 specifies not flying over the towns for obvious reasons. Strong wind such as gales may affect this landing direction occasionally but is unlikely - especially for 747 or the KLM planes.
The rule is clear: do not overfly the towns. The planes and airport ignore this presumably to save fuel.
The S106 was signed by both TDC and Infratil and now Gloag so is completely legally binding.
You're clutching at straws for the repeated safety breaches at Manston. And the question is how much are the fines and what have KIACC and TDC's Airport Committee and Police done about the illegal flights and pollution?
I see on thanetonline that the old bill are finally chasing after "John Hamilton".
I also understood the Section 106 was signed by both parties voluntarily?
I would also have thought that with so many flying over the town, if it was illegal, something would have been done about it?
Have you tried to complain officially or go to the press Mr Anti-Airport?
How trusting of TDC 10:26 - planes flying over the town are perhaps a minor distraction compared to the Pleasurama corruption etc. Buchanan tells TDC what he will and won't do.
You are right that the S106 was signed voluntarily by both parties - which makes it (very) legally binding.
That does make the flights illegal doesn't it?
OPEN GOVERNMENT AWARD - Private Eye (no TDC?)
Cllr Harry Smith, chairman of Seamer parish council in North Yorkshire, summoned seven police officers to deal with an “anarchist” invasion, which turned out to be five middle-aged members of the public, one of whom, against Smith’s wishes, wanted to film the proceedings. When Knacker declined to intervene, Smith closed the meeting. Other councils to call in police or security in attempts to prevent press or public recording, filming or tweeting from meetings included Tower Hamlets, Keighley, Bexley, Huntingdonshire, Wirral and Stamford
5:37, actually to be strictly correct, Barry James says that Peter Checksfield told him the old bill are chasing after JH whereas, Peter C reckons it was Barry who told him that JH was interviewed by the police.
The difference is that Barry still reckons JH is in Arizona whilst Peter suggests he is a Thanet councillor. It all has the usual blog world ring of truth.
Elsewhere, according to Duncan Smithson, John Hamilton has been spoken to by the police in, wait for it, Arizona of all places. Hang on a cotton picking moment, didn't old Checkers just say that the police told him Hamilton is a councillor. So it now seems the old bill are stirring it with different stories around the Thanet gullible. Could make a good film, Gullible's Travels.
Peter Checksfield gets spoken to by a DCI, whereas poor old Barry and Duncan only get spoken to by a DI.
Peter,
Good hear that you are as ever helping the police with their enquiries
Wonderful, Checkers, now a senior detective investigating allegations of abuse on blog sites had no knowledge of some of those sites until you showed him. Just how long does it take on a PC to find all of Thanet's blog sites? Probably find the guy was actually a drains inspector.
Has William Epps become the new Tim Garbott? Looks like it.
Children, children . Anymore of this telling tales and there will be no ovaltine for any of you. Sticks and stones? If you don't like or can't stand it, don't read it.
Interested to see the pathetic attempts to identify anonymous commentators continue.
To whoever introduced my name into this thread, let me point out that my views on the issue of mystery detectives and John Hamilton have been clearly stated under my own name over on Thanetonline. I doubt I am the only person who finds it all a bit far fetched.
I agree with you, Mr Epps, that speculation over the identity of those who choose to blog anonymously is a pointless pursuit.
But others' fascination with this topic is little worse than your own gossipy and salacious interest in press reports about Councillor John Worrow. Also evidenced on Thanetonline.
Reading contributions on that blog around the time of the press reports about Worrow's arrest do not make you look good. You asked if anyone had any gossip over and above what appeared in the press. You said your phone had been "buzzing" since the news broke. You referred to there being "no juicy details yet". And you said that perhaps you should be glad that you are not one of the members of Sologay's blog and cannot therefore post comments there.
I am sure you and your fellow Tories are almost wetting yourselves with delight over the reports, and I'm sure all your local mouthpieces will be drooling if/when the story unfolds further.
For many, though, your salacious interest and comments simply reinforce the views people have about the prejudice and bigotry that still persist within your Party.
Post a Comment