At last week’s
Council meeting, the Conservatives emerged as the only party willing to give
Manston airport the operating flexibility it needs to develop and provide much
needed employment for local people.
Labour, the real
Independents and TIG all rejected a Conservative amendment which stated: 'Thanet District
Council fully supports the airport and recognises that it needs some
flexibility in its night-time flying policy in order to realise its full
potential and deliver the jobs that Thanet desperately needs.'
Clive Hart's
'socialists' made it clear that job opportunities were a reasonable sacrifice
for votes in Ramsgate, to keep them in power. TIG’s Cllr Ian Driver went even
further and stated that he would welcome the closure of the airport now.
Labours proposal to put
a total curfew on the airport's operating hours from 11pm to 7am will seriously
harm Manston's prospects of becoming a thriving business capable of supporting
up to 3000 new jobs. Thanet's residents are left to envy the success of
Southend Airport which, with full local council support, has, in just three
years, become a major employer in the area. Labour claim that their recent
survey of public opinion on 'night-time' flying supports their stance but it is
clear that the methodology employed was
skewed in favour of motivated responders in the 'no night flights' camp.
Conservative Group
Leader, Cllr Bob Bayford said: “We are not in favour of a ‘free for all’ at
Manston throughout the night – that would clearly be unacceptable. However, Labour’s iron fist policy will kill
Manston and its potential to offer real jobs to people in Thanet. Yet again, Thanet’s Labour administration
has proved it will pander to a vocal minority when it can keep them in power.”
Yes, 300 jobs many of them not local have been added to Southend airport and its airline's work force for the additional 800,000 passengers per year to 8 european destinatons. The modern self checking etc airline does not need an army of workers. 3000 new workers at Manston, dont make me laugh its not economically viable.
ReplyDeleteJobs are jobs for those that have them and the number has sweet FA to do with financial viability. Can you possibly change the record for this one is getting boring. You have obviously learnt the objections list parrot fashion without the intellect to either understand it or debate when challenged.
DeleteWhat Southend airport is saying about their plans to increase the number of passengers from 800,000 to 2,000,000. Not make believe but fact. Phase 1 create 300 jobs.
Delete"Jobs are jobs for those that have them and the number has sweet FA to do with financial viability."
DeleteWhich planet do you live on?
The one where they dish out brains!
DeleteBut nobody with a brain would blindly believe jobs figures produced by an organisation which has a vested financial interest in promoting night-flights. They would look at recent history, which would tell them that flexibility to conduct night-flights does not equate to jobs; they would read the independent consultants' report, which would tell them that Infratil was over-egging their job claims and they would read the well-researched document by NNF which would tell them that night-flights don't produce thousands of jobs at other airports. I'm assuming they dish out brains on your planet to eat them.
DeleteWho blindly believes anything? Jobs are jobs, however many or how few, and are not to be dismissed lightly. Anyway, why are you worrying for, if all you say is to be believed, there is no chance of Manston amounting to anything and you can carry on living peacefully in your run down backwater. Enjoy!!
DeleteThis is typical of the Tories; playing politics with something that is important and affects people's lives. Infratil weren't able to produce a shred of convincing evidence that giving them permission for scheduled night-flights would produce any jobs. Councillors who bothered to look at the evidence were persuaded. Unfortunately, the Tories had pre-judged the issue and had decided to vote in favour of nights, regardless. Now they are seething with impotent rage. The increasingly out of touch and irrelevant, Roger Gale boasts in the Extra about how he has been lobbying the aviation minister. You shouldn't really be boasting that you've been lobbying for something that 75% of the people don't want. The big dilemma facing the Tories is to explain why they are so vehemently opposed to an airport in the estuary whilst being so gung-ho for development of Manston, which could have far more damaging consequences. They've worked themselves up into such a frenzy about Manston, they've forgotten that they have to have a policy that makes some sense. At the moment they don't seem to havea policy at all, unless it's to allow Infratil do what they like and hang the consequences.
ReplyDeleteYou mean 75% of the 2,000 out of 132,000 who bothered to respond to TDC's rather targetted consultation. That would suggest 130,000 are not bothered about night flights.
DeleteSo despite independent reports expressing concerns over the airport's exaggerated jobs claims and the environmental impact of night flights, and 75% of people rejecting the proposal in the consultation (a consultation model which has been frequently implemented by TDC on numerous occasions), the Conservatives would have sanctioned the airport to operate as they wish regardless of the consequences. And the 40,000 people of Ramsgate who'd bear the brunt of this action are dismissed as a handful of votes, which clearly they're willing to sacrifice without any compelling arguments as to why they have believed everything that is fed to them by Infratil, a company who has finally put their cards on the table, never intending to invest in the area but simply wanted to extricate themselves from their disastrous investment.
ReplyDeleteAnd the monitors were removed to fake the pollution reports and avoid paying the required fines by these criminals.
ReplyDeleteBetter nip down the nick quick then and tell the boys in blue. Don't be surprised, however, if they take no notice.
DeleteIt's not economically viable? Another sweeping statement, back it up with FACTS!
ReplyDeleteProspective investors in Manston would probably be worried about the proximity of Southend airport to the London Gateway and its distribution hub.
Deletehttp://www.londongateway.com/
“London Gateway is within easy reach of the major London international airports of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. For business travellers, London City Airport is only 25 minutes by car and now operates flights as far as New York.
For air freight, Southend Airport is even closer to London Gateway, being just a 20-minute drive. As a 24/7 airport, Southend provides excellent access for urgent freight and invaluable support for Essex-based industries, particularly those associated with just-in-time demands. A range of ground-handling equipment is available, including a high load, forklifts and pallet dollies etc. Cargo storage facilities are available on the airport including a fully racked 60,000 square foot warehouse, cold store, customs bonded compound, customs examination room and trailer park.”
Well then, 12:56, you obviously have absolutely nothing to worry about. Manston is not viable and will close this afternoon. Bit like the Turner was doomed to failure and the money would have been better spent on a skating rink so all the Thanet NEETS could enjoy themselves. Sadly Thanet deserves all it gets with folk like you around.
Delete"So despite independent reports expressing concerns over the airport's exaggerated jobs claims and the environmental impact of night flights, and 75% of people rejecting the proposal in the consultation (a consultation model which has been frequently implemented by TDC on numerous occasions), the Conservatives would have sanctioned the airport to operate as they wish regardless of the consequences. And the 40,000 people of Ramsgate who'd bear the brunt of this action are dismissed as a handful of votes, which clearly they're willing to sacrifice without any compelling arguments as to why they have believed everything that is fed to them by Infratil, a company who has finally put their cards on the table, never intending to invest in the area but simply wanted to extricate themselves from their disastrous investment".
ReplyDeleteBloody hell, breathe man, breathe. The whole "consultation model was skewed and in any case it really doesn't matter because if Manston starts flights through the night there's bugg*r all the council can do to stop it!
Well said, 9:47, and, when all said and done, the need for runway space and commercial demands will prevail. Then maybe this vociferous anti-airport fraternity will all move away. What a pleasure!
Deletethe sooner arrests are made over the pollution and missing fines the better...
ReplyDeleteDon't you just love your arrests, 11:44, and you still have not got the message have you? Arrests only apply to criminal offences, not civil, which a breach of the 106 is, so that's why there are no sirens wailing around Manston. You have been told before by several contributors. If you think there is a crime, report it to the police. Go on, I dare you!
DeleteYou seem happy for Infratil or TDC to ignore the 106 and aquifer as long as there's an airport 12:47
ReplyDeleteDon't worry I'm sure the pollution will clear itself up and you can pay any extra tax.
Why is it that it's all the Tory MPs who are lining up to ban night flights at Heathrow? They don't have a problem with the facts and research out there showing that the economic and environmental impact of night flights means that they cannot be justified. Why do we have Tory councillors down here who can't do their own research but simply take the views of a self-interested corporation as gospel. Choosing to disregard independent reports and the thousands of people who will be directly affected to boot.
ReplyDeleteWell that's fine then. All these independent reports and the less than 2,000 out of 132,000 who said they were against night flights should definitely tilt the balance in favour of the anti-airport people. Just close it down and move on to the next protest, whatever that may be.
DeleteAnti-night flight people.
Deleteand infratil leaving means they're hardly pro-airport: just pro-pollution and pro-cancer and pro-tax subsidy and pro-tax cleanup
DeleteI think maybe it has something to do with Paul Carters Africa trip, he was looking for sponcers in the Thanet Gazette a few weeks ago, maybe Infratil coughed up,seems strange that all the tories supported Manston, i understand jobs are jobs but the problem is how many jobs would be created by the airport bearing in mind they've got to make a vast profit for their investers so there won't be many jobs, also Manston isnt very big, the sickening part about it is all these tory councillors supporting an airport that allows dangerous aircraft not allowed to land @ any other airport in the uk to fly over the top of us
DeleteCargolux once a week and an unmarked 747 seem the only flights now
DeleteManston is a disaster just like Thor
ReplyDeleteNow Thor would have been a disaster if you had ever been on the receiving end of one. Not that you would have known much about it. Joking aside, the only real disaster in Thanet is its bunch of whingers who all complain about everything that is ever proposed from airports through greenhouses to art galleries.
DeleteThe 'whingers' about the airport have genuine concerns based on facts about the impact of night flights on health and existing jobs in the tourism sector. Very different from people who resist change for its own sake or think money could be invested in someone more appropriate. The real disaster in Thanet is people who don't question the motivation of corporates wanting to exploit a slack and morally corrupt council.
ReplyDeleteMany of the anti-airport people have proposed alternatives from industrial estates to housing. Is that somehow less polluting. Certainly would mean less open space, more congestion, more risk to the aquifer, more lorries and would probably, ultimately, lead to the closure of the MOD Fire School, there no longer being any airfield capacity, with the loss of even more jobs. Not too worry though because all the whingers could sleep happy in their miserable pits waiting for the next 'NO' campaign.
Deleteyou're right the aquifer would be even more polluted with housing etc and why is the Fire School lighting fires on the aquifer too?
Deletewell said - simply pollution for pollution's sake at Manston and Thor now - or rather to protect the jobs of the councillor and civl servants responsible for these disasters
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you find a nice cave on a desert island where you can live as one with nature.
Deletewhy don't you explain the pollution to your family?
DeleteGet real. The world around us is full of pollution or have you missed out on the green debate. Would not mind betting your concern is centred around Manston and you do not give a stuff about the eroding coral reefs or melting ice caps. Be honest, pollution is just another convenient issue to use against the airport yet ignores the fact that many of the proposed alternatives would be even more damaging to the environment. Like I said, go live in a cave and be at one with nature.
DeleteOf course there's pollution. That's why it needs cleaning up. And Manston is supposed to have pollution monitoring in place. Ice caps? Yes a need for fewer flights, electric vehicles etc.
DeleteYou however seem not to want pollution - except at Manston. How do you explain the pollution to your family? How do you explain 26 extra jobs funded by millions of tax funds? Infratil have led the councillors a merry dance at Manston and now sold it - with less jobs than before.
And you seem to think it's still viable as an airport. How do you explain the pollution, and cancer, to your family?
Of course I do not want pollution, but accept it is the price we pay for our modern life style. Unfortunately there are now too many of us to go back overnight to the simple agriculture based life of our ancestors so, largely, we are stuck with it. I do not need to explain it to my family because they are intelligent enough to have their own views and opinions.
DeleteI see you now bring cancer into the equation. What is the evidence you have to support that statement ot is it juzst another soundbite in your totally bigotted argument. Frankly we are both wasting our time in this debate as we are never going to see eye to eye. Like I said, try going back to the island like they did in Lost!
You do not want pollution yet bend over backwards to support Manston. Cancer at airports and you're surprised? Why do you think there should be air monitoring at Manston? We don't see eye to eye because you seem to disregard all the facts about Manston and rely on childish insults about caves and islands.
DeleteNot childish insults, but a simple statement of the only option if you want a pollution free world. Presumably you enjoy modern energy sources; travel, be that car or plane; food, often produced genetically or by intensive farming techniques and all the trappings of modern life. All I am saying is that to return to the pollution free utopia you seem to crave, then we would have to go back to nature and live in caves. Your best chance on your own is a desert island somewhere, but make sure it is well above sea level.
DeleteOn the cancer issue I simply asked where is your evidence applicable to Manston. If anyone round here is being childish all you have to do to find them is look in a mirror. Oh, and by the way, here after you are also talking to yourself.
Reducing pollution doesn't require a medieval lifestyle. Completely pollution free may be impossible. Desert islands and caves is just childish. Cancer around airports? have a look online.
DeleteWhat do you tell your family about the aquifer and cancer? Infratil won't be rushing to clean it up will they?
Bit limited in our arguments, are we not 14:58? How many times have you said, what do you tell your family? Well my limited correspondent, I don't tell mine anything for they are quite capable of finding out for themselves and drawing their own conclusions. Also, major pollution reduction does require a return to a much more simple lifestyle, massive population reduction worldwide and less travel. Closing one airport here will make no difference as many more are opening up in the developing world all the time. It is not a local issue although that is probably beyond your imagination. You just want to close Manston and that will solve everything. How sweetly simple!
DeleteI'm sure your family will appreciate you keeping quiet about the aquifer etc. Pollution simply requires energy change eg renewables, rather than lifestyles. Renewables don't pollute. That's the point.
DeleteThe rest of your argument is just incoherent and childish insults again - except supporting Manston even with its safety breaches and now closure. I'm sure Infratil, your councillors and your family will be grateful for support of Manston.
One question though, how will it be cleaned up? Or are you happy for it to remian on the aquifer?
Does KIACC not meet anymore on Manston and the pollution and fines? It was a requirement of the 106 operating rules.
ReplyDeleteYes, KIACC meets regularly, but tends to be yet another talking shop divided along pro and anti airport factions.
DeleteThanks, and when and where are meetings and minutes. They were supposed to objectively record flights, fines, pollution etc? Although Infratil removed the complaints process from their website at one point/even now?
DeleteYou should be able to find out on line or via TDC's offices.
DeleteAh - it was TDC that fiddled the monitoring as the monitors were removed...
ReplyDeleteI take it you have proof, eye witness accounts, photographs or maybe DNA samples, to back up that statement 20:05, or is it just something you heard on the jolly old grapevine.
DeleteIf TDC had checked all necessary eqiptment every 3 years as they were supposed to do, Manston would not be in the state it is now, monitoring of pollution and noise ratio's would have been done on a daily basis as instructed, plane safety checks would not have been overlooked either. When you think years ago, Manston was told to stop dumping ecessive fuel and other nasties all over Pegwell/Manston area before they landed, we would not have some of the problems we have today. Our Aquifer would not be as polluted and damage done to our Wild life in the area.
DeleteIf people in Thanet will not even take the minimum wage jobs in Thanet why do people expect the unemployed to travel to Manston to do a minimum wage job.
If I had my way, no one would be able to turn down a minimum wage job, if they did they would lose all benefits.
you're boring Tom as an airport/Tory party enthusiast. Why were the Gang of Four sacked?
ReplyDeleteSo when challenged on a statement the challenger is suddenly boring. Great debating that and speaks volumes about your case. Which gang of four, there have been so many like all the 'gates' so you tell me. I am sure, as ever, it will be some story heavey on hearsay and rumour and very short on facts.
DeleteEye witness accounts/DNA etc - you're boring Tom in trying to minimise the removal of the monitors by requesting ever more ludicrous evidence.
ReplyDeleteRing up your councillors or TDC or Infratil and ask about the monitors removed from Clarendon school etc. It's not in doubt. How does the pollution affect you if its not monitored?
I've never spoken to you on gates or gang of four, your approach is simply to boost the tory party/airport, through random blog comments, regardless.
You might not have mentioned the gang of four, but 02:56, who I was replying to, did. Follow the thread before you jump to conclusions.
DeleteTom, sorry, you're on a loser here. Infratil themselves have admitted removing air monitors and the one removed from Clarendon was not done under any degree of secrecy. One monitor was placed but it's in the garden of an airport worker.
ReplyDeleteIf we Tories ever want to regain lost ground in Ramsgate - and we need Ramsgate if we are to return to power in TDC - then we have to modify our views on night flights. Like it or lump it, we lost Nethercourt because of night flights and by losing Nethercourt we lost TDC.
Tim, only just spotted this so sorry for the delay in responding. In fact, Tim, we only lost Nethercourt by a few votes and it was as much down to our pledges not turniung out as any sizeable increase in the Labour vote. Indeed, a similar siutation happened in other wards in Thanet where night flights are not an issue. Just on many of those we had bigger majorities to play with in the first place.
DeleteTo blame our losses on night flights has the danger of missing the real problem which is the increasing apathy in our core vote. That stems primarily from failures by the government to address the issues many of us thought we were campaigning on. Sadly our hierachy seem to have forgotten the golden rules. When following a Labour administration you start by clearing up the financial mess they have left whilst making sure they do not come back at the next election to screw it all up again. We are failing miserably on the second part.
Did the tories or labour remove the monitors?
DeleteThey probably took it in turns.
DeleteDNA proof on monitors Tom? How will you square this with fanatical airport and party devotion?
DeleteInfratil and TDC removed the monitors and the councilors and civil servanys kept quiet?
ReplyDeleteNo, the absolute bounders! Whatever next one wonders though I was blissfully umnaware that we have civil servants in local government.
Deleteyou seem unconcerned about the required monitoring being removed?
DeleteToo right, mate. The beer will get me first so why worry.
Deleteprobably cancer first, the thanet mortality rate is 20 years lower than the rest of Kent - what's happening with cleaning up the aquifer and Thor?
DeleteGive it a rest, mate, for you are depressing me. In any case your statistics are cobblers. Thanet's cancer death rate is on a par with most of the county and a slightly lesser, not 20 years, life expectancy links in with levels of social deprivation. Instead of asking fool questions on a blog, why don't you go and find out for yourself, or write to your MP or ward councillor.
DeleteNo you're wrong, the mortality rate is much lower than the rest of Kent. Monitoring would highlight that. Unless you have different statistics to justify an airport on the aquifer and on the outskirts of town.
ReplyDeleteYou are clearly blinkered and a total bigot on this issue so farewell. You debate with youself.
Deletemention monitors and cancer and you go silent, and presumably on the cleanup too
ReplyDeleteNot silent, just fed up with your repetitive nonsense. You do not debate but just keep trundling out the same old things over and over until you send everyone else to sleep. Please try not to wake me up again.
Deleteyou're back Tom - blogging as yourself and Anon. You haven't mentioned your views on the removal of monitors by Infratil and TDC, and cancer? Or the cleanup of Manston?
ReplyDeleteWrong again, for there are more folk in the blogging world than just you and I. I have not mentioned monitors or cancer because I think both are over exaggerated by you and others for dubious reasons. Basically, you don't want an airport and bring up all these issues to support your case.
DeleteQuite right Tom. Lets get all those promised jobs in, thousands of them apparently. Best not ask too many questions. Who cares if we're not monitoring noise and air quality. Like Tom, I'm not worried about an airport behaving responsibly or respecting the local environment for future generations. We want those promised thousands of jobs and we want them now. I've only been waiting 10 years. Come on everyone, stop being so negative and push whatever the airport wants through ASAP. They're a big outfit and only want what's best for us. I'm fed up of having WHO reports being used as an excuse for not having these state-of-the-art jumbos flying 24/7 over the people of Ramsgate. They all knew there was an airport built here to defend our shores so stands to reason that 70 years on that same airport should be given over to flying in dates and bananas in a timely fashion. Lets unite against these preposterous dubious reasons and get on with the business of supporting our airport partner.
Deletewhat exactly do you think is exaggerated about Infratil and TDC removing the monitors or jeopardising the aquifer, Tom?
DeleteThe ridiculous figures being given about on Thanet's life expectancy being 20% less than the rest of Kent. When people come up with rubbish like that they destroy the rest of their case.
DeleteCheck the life expectancy figures yourself Tom, they're accurate. With removing the monitors this was mentioned before the life expectancy figures if you scroll up in the thread so wasn't a part of any case.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be ducking the issue: now you know Infratil and TDC removed the monitors what do you think about it? Perhaps more importantly what will you do about it?
Again you seem desperate to support the airport even at the expense of public health - even your own.
I have checked the figures which is why I know that the 20% reduction in life expectancy is pure scaremongering.
DeleteGood for you Tom: do you have a weblink? KCC confirms a 17 year reduction for Thanet ie down to 63 and c.20%. Why is that scaremongering?
ReplyDelete17 years.
Again you seem to be talking rubbish. Doesn't fit with party political policy but important to resolve surely?
Life expectancy in Thanet is 77, marginally down on the Kent average, but on a par with places like Dover and Hastings. Certainly nothing like 20% below the Kent average.
ReplyDeleteAlso I simply fail to see any politics in this subject for life expectancy links into lifestyle choices like diet and smoking as much as anything else though social deprivation plays a part.
Returning to the main thread, Manston airfield, which has been there for nearly a century, has nothing to do with local life expectancy, except back in WWII when it was a dangerous place to be close to, and support for it or against it seems to be more conditionally on where people live than any political leaning.
KCC have life expectancy 17 years lower Tom - you haven't provided a weblink for your opinion.
ReplyDeleteYour view that Manston airport doesn't affect life expectancy is rubbish. Why would the air and noise be monitored?
Support seems based on when it was RAF, jobs, travel flights and not knowing the air and noise and water pollution factors?
Since my view is rubbish and yours is idiotic, let's call it a day. By the way, try Wikipedia for Thanet Life Expectancy.
DeleteAnon, 22:10, check your KCC figures again. What they show is that whilst male life expectancy in Thanet is 76.8 with females slightly higher, the area has 20% of its population with the lowest life expectancy, NOT THAT THANET OVERALL IS 20% LOWER ON AVERAGE. A similar result will be found around many places in the country where there are high levels of social deprivation regardless of proximity to airfields.
DeleteNot exactly Tom/Ben. The KCC figures confirm the 17 year shortfall - and their concern.
ReplyDeleteSo hardly typical. And your figure of a 20% low expectancy would be at best stating the obvious - and at worst would reduce the overall average.
Add a weblink if you've specific information. A 17 year shortfall is horrific.
Tom's earlier view that Manston doesn't affect life expectancy is again simply nonsense.
You haven't mentioned removing monitors at Manston since 2006 or the aquifer and how that would affect pollution and cancer? You'd be concerned at that wouldn't you?
Anon 20:47, you are an exceedingly boring person quite incapable of interpreting the most basic of statistics whether in map, graph or bar chart format. Simply put 'Thanet Life Expectancy' into your search engine and select from a host of sources ranging from NHS, KCC or national statistics. I agree with Tom, you are peddling false information and scaremongering. Why do you think places in Thanet have so many old people's home and retirement flats? Do you really think they come here just to depart years earlier? By the way, how old are you? Well above your own 17 year shortfall I suspect!
ReplyDeleteNot at all Ren, the sources confirm the shortfall. You need to do a little more research than googling wikipedia. Read the point again if you're unclear.
ReplyDeleteTo help you, 77-83 would give the 80 average as a tight cluster. A 17 year shortfall - even for one segment - is horrifying isn't it?
Surprisingly, the proportion of old folks isn't that different from the kent average. It certainly isn;t a retirement ghetto like say Eastbourne. Although politically it looks like it.
You haven't mentioned the airport effect or monitors in increasing cancer and reducing life expectancy? Or is that statistically negligible?
Answer the question, chum, how old are you?
DeleteDon't you talk down to me you patronising chauvinist. I may be a woman, but I am more than capable of researching life expectancy figures and putting a correct interpretation on them which is more than you seem capable of Anon. There is no 17 year shortfall, however much you would like there to be one to suit your argument. I have not memntioned the monitors or aquifer because I never did. That was a debate you were having with somebody else.
DeleteI'm baffled by your weird chauvinist tantrum Ren and previous boring insult. I've no idea you're a woman (Ren could be a name for either sex) so you seem sensitive about it rather than me.
ReplyDeleteYou've done no research other than a quick flick through wikipedia for life expectancy. What do you think about the monitors or aquifer and its effects on life expectancy?
You have no idea how much research I have done, but since you decry anyone who disagrees with you, I suggest you debate with yourself.
DeleteNot much research Ren given your comments. Now claiming I was insulting you after your chauvinist rant is just weird. I wouldn't expect sensible debate from you on the Manston aquifer etc now.
ReplyDeleteMr Anonymous at 20:01, wheras I do not normally comment, I have watched your exchange with various other contributors with mounting annoyance. Not only are you a bigot, but you are an ill informed one at that and then have the audacity to accuse others of not doing much research.
DeleteSo, Mr Wizard, what do you actually know about the Thanet Sands aquifer. Were you aware, for example, that it is unique to Thanet in name only and actually makes up the water-bearing aquifer for the whole of the London Basin. As such, Manston is just one of many sites, including other airfields and industrial estates that feed into the aquifer.
Essentially you are opposed to Manston as an airfield and the aquifer is the key plank in your argument. Unfortunately for you, like your equally ridiculous life expectancy figures, you are spouting utter ill informed nonsense.
Furthermore, you never answer a question thrown back at you and consistently hide behind your annoymous label so you are only recognisable by your style and inbred stupidity. Perhaps, with governments looking into trolling, your days of hiding may be numbered.
Jack, your comments seem a bit random. Calling me a bigot seems without basis. As does defending a Google query for Wiki life expectancy as research.
ReplyDeleteYes I knew of the Manston aquifer points you mention. I presume you know water is piped into Thanet as the Thanet aquifer is one of the most polluted in the South East?
I am opposed to the airport and the aquifer under the runway is a significant point in that - I'm sure you'd agree?
Your other comments are just rude and childish now I'm inbred as well as a chauvinist - and again without any basis and similar to trolling.
there should be more flights day and night to the eu means more jobs for us in thanet thats what we need fed up with peeps moaning all the time about night flights . manstern airport was there befor most of you so let move forward and get peeps into work at the airport
ReplyDeleteExcept there are no jobs Stuart that's why it's gone bust again. And with the pollution problems, why the monitors were removed.
ReplyDeleteThe missing fines, millions of pounds, would have helped create jobs, but these were not collected.
People moan about night flights because they don't want them. And there are no day flights because Heathrow is 5 minutes flytime away.
The towns were here before the airport so obviously the economy - and water supply - managed without it for hundreds of years.
Oh dear, the perpetuation of economic nonsense continues unabated. Before the airport, in another century, the towns were much smaller, we had a fishing fleet, coal mines and the Brits had not discovered Benidorm. Now much of those traditional East Kent industries are no more and new directions need to be found.
DeleteHad you, 22;31, paid more attention, rather than locking yourself away in your little bigotted world, you might have noticed that there is increasing demand for runway capacity in the South East and, to many people, Manston is a preferred option to a new airfield in the Thames Estuary. Hence, although it has not been profitable for Infratil so far they are certainly not going to suddenly sell it off for sheep grazing.
Your efforts at spreading the words of doom are credible, but you are a voice in the wilderness, largely unsupported outside a small enclave in Ramsgate. Ultimately, commercial demand will win regardless of what you or I think or say. Live with it.
Economic nonsense Jack? Manston is bust again. Nobody supports Manston not even Infratil who couldn't manage a profit even by removing the monitoring.
ReplyDeleteInfratil can't sell it as an airport because it's on the aquifer - maybe you'd buy it though?
Lydd went bust too. Both too near Heathrow and too far from London.
Airport capacity in the South East? Don't make me laugh. Airport companies want more airports, gosh. Both Stansted and Gatwick have capacity. As does Heathrow with reordering flights. As does Birmingham, Bristol etc etc.
Boris Island? In 20 years if ever. Strange that most of Kent doesn't want that either.
Tarmacing the South East is the only economic reality - for the construction companies and airline companies. usually funded on the rates.
Tell me something instead of a derelict WW2 airfield of yesteryear for once.
First of all, Manston was and is an airfield long before and continously since WWII. That represents just six years of its near hundred year history. Anyway, you have played that tune before and its boring.
DeleteYou are right that most people do not want Boris Island, or the Ilse of Grain alternative, so that rather leaves Manston the only other option.
Since when was Lydd bust or is that another figment of your over active imagination. How about some figures and facts.
Infratil can sell Manston as an airfield, aquifer or not, and very probably will.
As for making you laugh I very much doubt, from your perpetual whinging, that you ever have.
Oh, and enjoy the rest of your miserable day.
Manston's bust again Jack. You're not listening. It's failed.
ReplyDeleteWhy do the residents of Sheppey not want Boris Island? Manston is no more a choice than say Biggin Hill - if an extra airport is required.
Lydd went bust with the Arab investors and High Court councillor corruption case remember? Even KCC don't mention Lydd now.
Infratil can't sell an airport on an aquifer - nor TDC approve it. As to whether anyone would even consider buying it is a separate issue. You?
Infratil would be proud of you talking it up but you're talking rubbish. Surely you should be asking why you and your family have been polluted?
Cheer up, you do make me laugh though.
Manston's bust again Jack.
Check out Lydd on your search engine. It is a busy local airport so please keep up to date if you are going to debate.
DeleteAnyway, enough of this nonsense, but as a parting question. If Manston is bust, cannot be sold and is a total non starter, why do you waste so much of your life campaigning against it?
Check out the court case on Lydd Jack. The Arab investors went bust, corruption etc etc.
ReplyDeleteManston is bust. You've answered none of the questions on aquifers etc except as blind support. Why are you so keen on it? Why not campaign for a new Asda? Or a new baker? Why Manston when it's bust again.
I add to your comments because most of them are simply wrong - and delay the closure of Manston as a health hazard.
Couple of military jets have just gone roaring over my house low level. Rushed to the window to catch a glimpse as they went over the horizon. Brings back happy memories of RAF days and now really elated that the anonymous whinger actually thinks I can delay the closure of Manston. What power and influence or does it simply prove he is a nutter.
DeleteSelective comments again Jack. I said your comments on Manston were simply wrong. And there was a chance - as in a slim to none chance - that those sorts of (wrong) opinions will delay the inveitable closure.
DeleteI didn't assign any influence to you as such. Indeed you've proven yourself as thick as two short ones so we can safely disregard your opinion. And some sort of childish loon - ooh look at the jets indeed.
Now, put your RAF scrapbook away, don't spill your cocoa, and get yourself off to bed.
What a seriously unpleasant bar steward you are, mon anon ami, but as you feel you can safely disregard my comments please do so in future as I shall yours. PS If you didn't understand that ask a friend, if you have any, to explain!
Delete23:08 seems to have the measure of you Jack, you're the first to resort to insults then moan about getting the same. And your view of Manston simply relates to when it was an RAF base (employing you?) with no credible view on the aquifer or air pollution.
DeleteSneaky little old 18:46 there pretending he is supporting himself at 23:08. He must think we are all as thick as he is.
Delete23:08 referred to the entry and comments. 20:17 seems to be snidey as well as thick. No opinion on the Manston aquifer pollution?
DeleteNo, not one.
DeleteFaux apathy or stupidity from 6:11 given the Manston aquifer is protected but cited as polluted. Maybe they or their children don't drink or wash in which case it doesn't affect them.
DeleteWhere exactly is it cited as polluted. Specific reference, please, not more windbag nonsense.
DeleteSouthern Water. Environment Agency. Get off your backside and find it yourself instead of prattling on blogs. You think it wouldn't be under an airport? But what do you care either way if it is polluted or not, remember?
DeleteTouch ignorant and rude again, but it is you that is stating the aquifer is polluted so you prove it. It is your argument not mine.
Deletei wish easyjet would start useing manstern for day flights why not it will boost jobs in thanet and it would be easy to get to the airport for us lot in thanet insteed we have to go to london what a drain
ReplyDeleteSod the jobs and sod your convenience. What about the aquifer?
DeleteHow is the aquifer being cleaned and protected?
DeleteI don't know. How is the aquifer being cleaned and protected? This is some kind of riddle with a smart repartée answer, isn't it?
Delete