Unregistered User
24 October 2010
15:0476389Did not think I was wrong Keith.
You were there under Peter's Leadership.
I personally miss Peter, but have no problem with conversing with Gordon , tactics and politics apart.
Watty
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
24 October 2010
15:1976393Paul, at the coming election campaign in May, I will make it my dudty to inform the people what and who they are voting for. If they agree with you, they might also vote you.
Caractacus the British Chieftain stood up in front of the Roman Senate after his request to do so was granted, and he said to the effect that if the Britons had not fought back, Rome's glory would not have been evident. They were impressed and spared his life.
If you win the coming Council elections, Paul, then the people will have voted for you, at least in their majority. But you must first fight for it! And I'll democratically oppose your mass immigration plans for Dover!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
24 October 2010
15:3076396alex
i somehow doubt that a possible 5000 houses over 30 years really counts as mass immigration.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
24 October 2010
15:3976401That would correspond to between 20.000 and 30.000 people, Howard. Considering that Britain has no natural population increase, and considering Dover's population, including the villages, if that is not mass immigration - be it from London or anywhere - then I must go back to school from day 1.
Unregistered User
24 October 2010
15:4076402You verge on the point of paranoia about immigration Alexander and I don't think people are fooled by your half hearted description.
The word "immigration" has connotations attached to it that you are using quite deliberately to ramp up local feeling.
Local people will not fall for your less than subtle message.
I don't know which ward you will stand in but I hope you enjoy the experience.
I'm happy to accept the result at the ballot box.
Frankly it is more likely to be national issues that will affect the result except in certain wards.
Watty
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
24 October 2010
15:4776405That's an interesting comment.
Peter was ok as a leader, most of the time
and we all miss any Labour person or any cllr come to that who give up there time.
But your later sentence on Gordon i find strange.
As dep leader for the labour group for a very short time the leader at the time informed me that he had spoken to you and you told him the labour group shouldn't consider puttng gordon in the shadow cabinet.
Of course the leader was told in no uncertain terms It was for the labour group to decde who goes in ts cabinet/shadow cabinet.
I'm pleased you are getting on well now
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
24 October 2010
15:4976406Council elections concern local issues. National issues are something else, and I have not brought up national issues on this subject, other than that there is no natural population increase in Britain, including Dover, and that Canterbury people have also protested against similar development plans in their area. I will enjoy the experience, and suggest that I now dedicate my campaign yonder the Forum. I won't supply you any more information on this Forum concerning my campaign plans for May, Paul, and I also nkow how to ignore attempts to humiliate a campaigner with different views, which is what you are evidently trying. Tada!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
24 October 2010
15:5876408alex
you seem to be taking umbrage over nothing, everyone is allowed their viewpoint, where has there been any attempt at humiliation?
you will get a lot worse than that on the hustings.
24 October 2010
16:3976417Ain't that the truth!!
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
24 October 2010
17:0176420Howard again you are right with that one when it is done to me I love it.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
27 October 2010
01:3976810Mr. Watkins, the consultation process with the public concerning the transformation of Whitfield into an extensive urban area lasts six weeks, until 29th November 2010. This is the 8 weeks period which by law the DDC must respect as consultation period as mentioned (with the community and stakeholders). There is very much possibility that the community concerned and stakeholders concerned - whoever these may be - come forward and say to DDC that they do not want the urban development that has been planned.
Until the 29th of November 2010! I hope the news goes round!
I do not fool people, Mr. Watkins, but am informing them!!!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
27 October 2010
01:4176811Correction. the consultation period lasts 8 weeks! Until 29th November 2010.
Unregistered User
27 October 2010
11:5176828Alexander ,you are not being asked whether Whitfield will have development but what it looks like.
This scheme has been done in conjunction with the Parish Council, Action Group and individual local sessions.
Watty
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
27 October 2010
12:2776835I must say Mr Watkins at this point the above did not have a choice but to go along with the D,D,C, if they had we would not be looking at any development scheme,and where next will it be the BAY that get a development scheme ,I hope not that is a Matcham Patch and your own Chairman is in the Family.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
27 October 2010
12:5876845something is confusing me on this issue, paulw is saying that the developments in whitfield, sholden and middle deal will go ahead, just a matter of minor details.
through my letterbox a few minutes ago came a missive from our honourable member saying that he is fighting the proposed developments. he refers to the sholden and middle deal parts as "inappropriate and misconceived".
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
27 October 2010
13:1676848Charlie simply takes a different view than the Council Howard. PaulW is right and it is all approved by HMG and so they are moving on to the next stage regarding the detail. Charlie would like the whole thing scrapped. A honest difference of opinion on which the Council has the upper hand.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
27 October 2010
13:1876850Yes I have to say sorry but there is alot of rubbish in it.All about Campaign Success etc. I am going to do my post on the new Hospital soon I am just waiting for aletter to get back to me.But Mr Elphiche and The DDC and Mr Hansell and Mr Hansell was at the same meeting as myself 3weeks ago at Canterbury know very well that the new Dover Hospital is going to be where the old one is today,you all can forget any other sites IT IS NOT GOING ON ANY OF THEM what we must do now is get behind The NHS Trust back them and get the very best we can at Buckland we still can make this into avery good community Hospital and have a say what goes there ETC, but only if we stop fighting the NHS all this is doing is slowing the proitect up and might even stop it.
So lets just tell the NHS Ok get on with it and build the Hospital or we could end up without one.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
27 October 2010
13:4376854that is what i thought vic, i read a long while back that money would be injected into buckland, rendering any possibility of a new one elsewhere redundant.
last weeks express had that front page rant from the retiring consultant on the subject.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
27 October 2010
14:0876859What we all have to look at ,That the NHS can build anew Hospital on their own ground which makes avery big saving if they have to buy the ground first that would eat into the funding for the new Hospital there is only £20million so by puting the Hospital at Buckland they have more funding for the Hospital itself.The otherway would mean alot of the funding would go with just buying up the land and that would mean the Hospital would not get all what is needed. What the Dr was saying in last weeks paper was right it was not a rant just one Dr trying to say what was the right thing to do.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
27 October 2010
14:3176861I think reading between the lines what we have here is a consultation period where local people/action group opposecd the large scale bulding in Whitfield, the council then decided it was still going to go ahead wth this developement
(aganst local opinion) and so the action group needed to be part of the talks on there community.
'
That doesn't mean they support the developement, it means, having seen the council impose this developement the locals need to get the best of a bad deal.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
