Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Well you are wrong on the kind of thinking and of no help to Dover,as I said think small and that is what you end up with.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,879
Howard sums it up perfectly for me. If I won the lottery and had up to a million to spend on a house I would not want to live overlooking a public park with its noisy children and dogs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
I was working on a site some years ago in Sevenoaks;you all know it well. the house was cost around 4 to 6million to build.infact I think it was one of the sites Barwicks was working on when they went bust,and you know where the site was, it is on the side of they main carpark cars going in there 24/7 also in therev are the all the bins we use for bottles,and boxs etc a L/centre is there to so I would say the same as you and did would I spend £6 million + on house here. But they do and you will see lots of very big houses on main rds etc.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
So it appears that Roger is in favour of housing development in Connaught Park.
If this be the case, Roger, do you have a democratic mandate for such a proposal? Was it in any election campaign of yours, for example?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
you're twisting words alex, there is nothing in roger's post to indicate a desire to besmirch connaught park.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,879
Very true Howard.
Sorry Alex but you really should not read things that are not there all Roger said was we need some high quality housing in the Dover area nowhere did he mention Connaught Park.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
You are both right,all Roger is saying we need the kind of house and the persons that go with it, he did not say the park at any time.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
There goes Alexander again....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I couldn't believe that; how can you twist people words so easily Alexander. You have made me very cross indeed. If that's how you put over your stories, then someone should ban you from posting on here.
What you have posted is a lie, pure and simple - stick to facts.
Roger
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
It was more of a question, Roger, following the drift of your previous post.
The answer in your latter response clearly rules out any such intent to develop Connaught Park on your part.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Still putting words into people's mouths Alexander,....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
No, Paul. I have meanwhile understood that Roger was not in any way referring to Connaught Park in his post regards housing development.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
You could have understood that if you had read the post properly first - but then that wouldn't have allowed you to make mischief!
And maybe you should instead have been asking Vic if it was in his manifesto the last time he stood for election - or maybe you already know the answer to that as you were campaigning for him then
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
if i remember correctly the leaflets were all about national issues with just a potted history of the candidate.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Yes Alexander - you did exactly the same things to me on the Western Heights thread and and Neil on the Port thread, purposely stirring by twisting peoples words....
Been nice knowing you :)
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,879
#152. A question is usually followed by a question mark (?) that way we all know when it is a question rather than a statement,
I also notice you have not apologised to Roger which would have been the correct way to reply but what more can one expect from somebody whose mission on here seems to be to misrepresent other peoples comments, be it deliberate or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Ray, the UKIP manifesto for Dover expressly stated that the party is for listening to democratic opinion such as in the Whitfield building development, which many people oppose(d).
So UKIP, if in a Council, wouldn't promote a project without the support of the local people.
Paul, I think you're going over the top there, I haven't misquoted you or Neil on either of the mentioned threads, apart from a confusion concerning Charlie MP, who had said he thinks there will be a Port decision soon. As the statement came in the local press, after the Pencester meeting, together with a photo of the MP and Lord Somebody and Neil Wiggins, and in various other occasions in recent times, I mistakenly wrote that it might have been on the DPPT website.
It wasn't and I apologised to Neil on the same thread.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
as if by magic here we have neil with lord somebody.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
It was the T shirt, Howard. Charlie MP was wearing a Trade Union T shirt, that was the cause of the confusion!
