Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Talking of which please remove your comments from your blog -
http://celticbritannia.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/western-heights.html
The Western Heights Preservation Society has no land to sell to anyone (and most of the developments are planned for land already owned by CGI) - please don't try to defame the name of a charitable body of whom you have no interest in helping.....
Been nice knowing you :)
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
paul well spotted.
come on alex be a gent and take that statement of the blog.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
That is simply outrageous - isn't that libellous ?
Roger
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
DDC planning officers only send letters to those whose land is near to any proposed development, if there is no household or business adjoining the site there will be no letter.
That comment in the blog about WHPS is the biggest load of lying c..p I have ever read and should be removed.
Time to hunt that wall out again Paul.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 644- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,214
I just find it tragic that yet again a group of well-meaning unpaid Dover volunteers yet again find themselves being sniped at by someone with an agenda in complete ignorance of the facts. This isn't the first time this has happened. That blog comment should be removed as not only is it untrue, it is skating on legally dubious areas.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
alex
i cannot tell you what to put on your blog but would strongly advise you to alter some of that.
c.g.i already own the land at farthingloe and w.h.p.s. do not own any land whatsoever.
the internet is not the free for all that some think, legal action could well be taken against you over your erroneous statements.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Sensing a sticking his fingers in his ears chanting "la-la-la-la-la not listening" and hoping we go away.........
Extremely libellous, incorrect and not helpful to someone wanting to go through the legal processess to stop a planned development going ahead.
Been nice knowing you :)
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
well alexander whilst we all may agree/disagree with building around the western heights, you do have to be careful with the facts.
to get into libel is one to avoid.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
This is verging on to intimidation during a public consultation process. I will ignore the latest comments on here. Intimidation usually starts as a benevolent warning, however, Paul Scotchie would have to cancel a lot of public posts to prove his point.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
My proposal is to allow each side to democratically campaign to the public.
I've already contacted the Western Heights group with a proposal.
In my blog, which I usually do not comment on the Forum, there is no wording stating that WHPS own land on Western Heights.
There is mention of a campaign to sell land to developers in return for profits.
As mentioned above, a number of people in DDC, and Paul Scotchie, have openly campaigned in favour of the Forum of the development proposals and what they claim would be the financial benefits to Dover.
I haven't even dented the surface on my blog article as to what has been claimed, I could have spent a whole half hour commenting it on the article.
I haven't, and what is written there, is just an essential outline of the facts as I know them mainly through Dover Forum.
My apologies Howard if the previous post sounded crude, I hadn't read you post at the time of sending, but those of Paul S.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Scotchie and others have never said they openly support this, what they have said is, let's consider the application to see whether parts of it are supportable/negotiable.
They like the majority of others, want the buildings on the Western Heights restored and refurbished and realise there will be compromises, but they are open-minded about it, not closed to anything as you are Alexander.
You are condemning the Heights to slow, gradual disintegration, because if no investment is made, the buildings will disappear and it will revert back to scrubland.
To support your arguments, you must be honest and you are not being.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ROGER;
I think you are being a little unfair to say alenader is not being honest, I feel alexander is putting forward his own views which differ from the vast majority on this forum, and of course that's fine.
The only problem with the latest posts is that some of the posts could be seen to be libel, and that's something no one want's to see.
It's quite ok to put forward views, but you do have to be careful that what is being claimed is infact correct.
Without doubt scotchie and others have some support for proposals for the heights, and there are a large number of differing views on this, where alexander differs is some of his claims, and i think howard has given that luke warm helping post to try to help alexander, the choice is now his.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
kieth,it would be nice if western hieghts was developed in a way that promotes the forgotten jewel in dovers crown.if it means putting a few houses and a hotel/conferance center then its the way to go.as long they inprove millitry hill bothsides,with a proper foot path and lights on aycliffe side.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Brian
I share your views and i'm sure even those on the supporting side of developement probably do to, although on lighting not so sure thats anything to do with the developer.
There wil/is time to put your views forward, and will be planning stages to again put views, an although i'm no great fan of that department it does give you opportunity to object, if that is your course of action
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
kieth,if the western hieghts project go's ahead,aycliffe side of millitry hill needs inproving not just the town side,as it happens the hieghts can be reached from both sides of the hill.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Alexander
There is a BIG difference between campaigning and theorising. I am not going out to the public like you are with half (that is being generous) of the facts !!!! No-one apart from yourself is campaigning, we are all discussing on here.
I have stated here personal views on how a development MIGHT be able to make a difference to the regeneration of the town and to save the heritage from deterioration
Now there are now planning plans available that need fully understanding before further decisions are made and we can come up with our own opinions. I am yet to draw my own conclusions and who knows, I may turn out against it, but I need to read and digest the information before going off half-cocked.....
WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT I AM THINKING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Paul has stated many times that his personal view is to be open minded and to look at what CGI proposes. Alex has interpreted that to mean that WHPS is campaigning for a sell-off of the Heights and has posted that inaccuracy on his blog, to justified outrage. Alex you should certainly remove WHPS from your list of villains on your blog.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Alexander, the only place I have ever read that WHPS are campaigning for the sale of land anywhere in Dover is in your blog.
Paul has repeatedly told you that ALL his posts have been his view not those of WHPS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Paul, you are evidently not at knowledge of some facts: there are people campaigning.
Lorraine has had an article published in the Dover Mercury, plus a letter from her on page 10. This week's edition!
Protect Kent has campaigned, if one takes the presence of their spokeperson at the last meeting of the Western heights group as a campaign, which I believe it is.
Although the wording may be technically wrong and open to legal specifications, for which my apologies, but at least the spirit of the meaning in it's - not so legal sense - is what a person might innocently describe as campaigning.
Let's try avoiding the flinging around of the word libel to describe what is perceived to be a campaign for or against something.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, FACTS - stick to them !!!!
Feel free to come along and help us at our work party at the Drop Redoubt today, starting at 10:30. Do some campaigning to the volunteers - we all be interested to hear your spiel....
Been nice knowing you :)