Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ALEXANDER;
Due to your serious allegation i have re read chris p post, but i'm afraid can find no problem with it.
chris p and i may not agree on the way forward, but certainly there is no libel that i could see
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Kettle/Black moment again Alexander.....???
Still waiting for your slanderous comments on your blog to be removed - you have no evidence of your posting about the Western Heights Preservation Society as they are yet to make any comments at all on the CGI plans. I'll quite happily report it to the Blogger website if not.....
Been nice knowing you :)
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
scotchie;
I feel it would be shame if you took that route.
whilst i may not share your or alexanders views, i feel its more passion from alexander.
that said, alexander has been given a fair deal of advice on here many who have no axe to grind
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
It's not any libel here that is of concern to me, Keith, in Chris's comment, but his statements that are misleading the public during a public consultation process, giving false information, and trying to intimidate so as to make people believe they have no right to challenge the proposed developments other than in the way that Chris wishes them too.
His statements seem to have the intent to condition any representation or other comment one might make to DDC Planning, and this is not on. I'm not sure if Chris is aware of the legal implications he could get himself into by acting in this manner.
As said, there are other people who may feel concerned at his statements there.
Paul, when making your complaint, site your posts on Dover Forum!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Apologies, Paul, the word should read: cite your posts on Dover Forum, in other words, point out in your complaint your personal expressed stance in the matter.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
alexander;
You have in previous posts given misleading comments maybe as part of your passion, and i do find it a little rich you make the comments on chris p.
if you feel that to be the case then you should be able to see the previous posts
your statements could be seen to be libel.
for my part i would encourage all to post and take on board these frustrations, but also get involved in the planning process
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Alex, the only stance I have noticed from Paul is what is normally referred to as OPEN MINDED. For your clarification:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=open-mindedI'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Alex I have just pointed out that if you submit the most wonderfully researched, 800 page objection, written in the most beautiful prose that amounts to history and the exquisite views, it will not be considered. Much as we all want nice views and they are included in good plans, they are not a planning consideration. Likewise, if your objection includes objections to other proposals or projects, not a part of the planning application, then the whole objection is likely to be ignored.
If you cared to think about it, I am offering a way of putting together an objection that will be read and will be pertinent to what you are objecting against.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Peter, it's up to Paul to make up his mind as he feels fit.
In all this process of commenting on the proposed developments, I have never used the personal negative comments towards the proponents of the plans but which have been expressed by some towards me, including Roger Walkden, who wrote that may-be Dover is not a town for me, and that I am trying to make Dover become a backwards town ... Such comments are not befitting in a public debate on an issue that is object of public consultation.
Chris' last comment, which I mentioned, is particularly nasty, it is offensive!
It seems, though, a message to anyone who tries to challenge the proposed developments, and THAT is what concerns me more. It is an attempt to condition people's response to DDC Planning, and this needed addressing.
Personally I am not prone to intimidation, but others may be.
I say this also because my expressed views are similar to those of Lorraine, who has already mentioned in her last post that she was not happy with the bullying going on towards opponents of the development plans.
As for my article, I perceive it to be right, it is not a deliberate attempt at libel. If I considered it to be so, I'd have changed it accordingly.
It uses the word: currently.
At the time of writing that word, that was my perception, and still is.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Thanks for your offer, Chris, but I am in liaison with other members of the group who oppose the development plans, and have plenty of advice and information to go by.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
I really must question whether you read the posts Alex, or just skim through for things to object to?
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
How about some EVIDENCE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Dover District Council (DDC), China Gateway International (CGI) and the Western Heights Preservation Society (WHPS) are currently campaigning for the sale of large areas of Western Heights and neighbouring Farthingloe to developers"
Show me a statement from WHPS or show me a posting from WHPS to back up your posting.....
Been nice knowing you :)
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,897
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
paul,head,bang,wall.do you need some paracetamol for your headache.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I'v tried to help, but obviously that hasn't happened, and instead of objections being heard and real debate, this thread will get bogged down with claim and counter claim, and hpefully though no legal challenges as thats in no ones interest
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
alex
you are getting a bit emotional here, best to take a step back as things said in the heat of the moment can cause problems later.
you mention lorraine feeling she was bullied, has she contacted paulb to complain about it?
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
I have tried, and so have others, to be HELPFUL towards the cause by pointing out factual information and where comments really won't help the cause if this does go to court in the future. Surely it is a good thing and why is it intimidation?
I really cannot understand why Alexander is posting slanderous comments about a charitable group that have done nothing but good for the past 12 year to promote, open up to the public, teach and hopefully make a small dent in protecting our heritage, which is surely something he wants?
Many thousands of people have come along to our events over the years, travelling from all over the country and even abroad, hundreds of volunteers and the Heights are now known all over the world.
Rather upsets me really if someone is suggesting I don't care after after the many thousands of hours myself and friends have put in, and the amount of struggling that has gone through to get to where we are.
Been nice knowing you :)
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,897
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
DDC are the Local Planning Authority who will make the decision, DDC as a body have not and are not currently campaigning for the adoption of the CGI proposals. DDC have received and posted the planning application so that we can all read it, understand it and make our submissions on it, whether those submissions are in favour of all or part of the proposed development or whether those submissions are against the proposals in whole or in part. Once the period for submissions is over, the DDC will examine the entire application, taking into account the submissions that have been made, the consultations that have taken place etc. and will make known whether or not they have granted the planning permissions required and what modifications, if any, CGI need to make to their proposals in order to meet the requirements of the Planning Authority and address any technical or heritage issues raised by consultees and members of the public who have made submissions.
There may well be some individual councillors in favour of this development, just as there are those councillors who are against it. But the body (DDC) itself, whilst welcoming the application, has not embarked on a campaign to sell or develop the heights and Farthingloe.
WHPS have not and are not currently campaigning in favour (or against) the CGI proposals. Paul has said time and again that the WHPS are examining the proposals and will make a submission on them to DDC as per the legal and planning process and that the WHPS submission when it comes will be the result of careful and open minded study of the documentation that has been presented and consultation with its membership in order to ascertain their views.
The list of parties/bodies/corporate entities currently actively campaigning for the adoption of the CGI proposals is really rather short - just the one - China Gateway International. To suggest that either DDC or WHPS are campaigning to concrete over the heights and Farthingloe is a falsehood.
Well said Neil and Paul ,
eddited due to typing error , so nothing new there :-)