Saturday, 24 November 2012

Ramsgate Port Hijacked by “Pirates of Caribbean”

Ramsgate Port Hijacked by “Pirates of Caribbean”
Less than 48 hours after foul weather forced it to return to Ramsgate, the live animal export ship Jolene forced it way out of the port amidst scenes described by local Councillor Ian Driver as being like “Pirates of the Caribbean”
Said Driver “according  to inside  information I have received 4 lorries packed with 1,500 sheep arrived at  Ramsgate Harbour on Friday afternoon without giving the normal prior notice. The port authorities refused the ship permission to load because it had not followed procedures and the lorries were ordered to leave.
“It  then appears that the Jolene turned off its radio to avoid receiving orders from the harbour master  and deliberately blockaded  the port, forcing two wind farm vessels to  take emergency avoiding action as they tried to access their berths”.
“I understand that Thanet Council legal officers  arrived at  the Port and overruled the port authorities, allowing the ship to be loaded and to leave. If this is true, I am extremely disappointed  with Thanet Council’s legal officers. They appear to have caved in to the exporters abuse of  proper processes, and their piratical blockade of  the port which recklessly caused  danger to other vessels.
“The question in my mind is who is running  the Port of Ramsgate Thanet Council or a gang of animal exporters, some of whom have criminal records for animal abuse and some of whom are under investigation for potential criminal acts.”
The short notice departure meant that the Police were unable to attend the port and the RSPCA could not get their inspectors to Ramsgate in time to check the animals.
Councillor Driver said that he would be calling for a full investigation into what had gone wrong on Friday and would be checking to see  whether the captain of the Jolene can be prosecuted for his outrageous actions”.


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  2. it cant be TDC RUNNING THE PORT they could not run a p--- up in a brewery just look at royal sands the pavillion manston ect

    1. Why don't me and you run for office, we can do better right?
      Second thoughts I can't be bothered and would prefer to moan about others lol

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  4. Sorry anon you can’t direct adverse comments at an individual, I have removed them for your own protection as I don’t suppose you wish to face a libel action.

    1. It was light hearted humour, not out of keeping with the labels frequently thrown at those who disagree with the TIG view on certain issues, and named no one. Your blog, Michael, so your choice, but, as a long term law man I can tell you there was no chance of a libel action on that comment.

  5. The Harbourmaster has control of the Port until the Police arrive not some TDC bureaucrat. In future no more loadings of animals due to bad weather, late arrival etc etc. Nobody wants this trade and the public own the Port. Manston and Live Exports and Thor show the incomepotence and failure - and danger the public - of the council we fund.

    A council tax strike, shop boycott and school walk-out even a car blockade would remind the councillors and civil servants of that fact.

  6. this is a typical everyday event eu law over rides uk did we win the war or just the fight so the french/german coilition could rule french dont like somthing tractors out stop the ports woring ect

    1. When you say 'we' 0902, do you mean you were involved or just your forefathers. As a nation we long surrendered everything our fathers and grandfathers fought for, even our right to say who can live in our country. Also, I note, ex RAF people have no right to a view on Manston.

    2. no not personaly just parents & grand parents plus toataly agree about surrender. churchill must be turning in his grave at todays shambolick lot.

    3. 10:26 everything you say is Daily Mail nonsense. Britian has control of its borders - its just incompetent at protecting them: look at the banned flights into Manston for example or ships berthed off Margate. Where are Kent Polcie or the Border Agenc yor Customs? Drinking tea with TDC and KCC by the looks of it and thinking what cover-up excuse to come up with.

      The Hillsboro Police would be more capable.

      Ex-RAF people do have a right to a view on Manston - although it does have to be taken with a pinch of salt doesn't it? They seem to have forgotten about the aquifer or the tax-subsidy to run it for the RAF. And the RAF certainly didn't clean the place up when they left - the MOD Fire station is still polluting the place.

    4. 23:21 Presumably you must read the Daily Mail, which is more than I do, if you feel my comments come from there, how else would you know?

      Then you say Britain has control of its borders but is incompetent at protecting them. Does not make sense really, does it? If you don't protect your borders it follows you have no control.

      Then to add to the absurdity of your comments, you claim ex RAF people do have a right to an opinion on Manston but it should be taken with a pinch of salt. You might as well say it is valueless which is so dismissive as to be a denial of said right. Presumably, we can take it that you are more expert on airfields than people who have actually flown from them or worked in them.

      You really do not have a clue and your debating skills would embarrass a chimpanzee so why don't you do us all a favour and get an education before you comment again.

    5. Sounds like ex-RAF whining again. Airfield experts indeed, what self-serving tosh for a polluted and bust airfield.

    6. A very intelligent and well presented argument as ever, 13:25. Apart from insulting people for serving in the RAF what other tricks do you do? If there is any pollution round here it is between your ears.

    7. Well said, 14:23, but I am afraid you are wasting your time with 13:25. He is one of those people who thinks 'bah humbug' is a witty response, insulting your opponent wins you the day and, if all else fails, you scream "what about the aquifer."

    8. 14:23 Are you saying there isn't pollution at Manston? Or indeed with SOuthwern Water? Or Thor?

      The insult as you call it for ex-RAF isn't for serving in the RAF (although some of the views make it seem as though the public should be somehow beholden for their career choice) - but for being stuck in the dim and distant and sentimental past of RAF Manston.

      Although there is the more modern vierw that it's handy for your holidays - although the year-round and day-round cargo and cancer points are ignored.

      Tom pops up every now and then to denigrate the point of the aquifer then slides away failing to detail why it is or isn't important. Occasionally he says the aquifer is important then he disparages it. Very strange. Only a fool, would put an airport on the drinking water wouldn't they? Or keep it open once they knew?

      Maybe he was in charge of water quality at RAF Manston back in the day before becoming a constant blog commentator for his increasingly random views.

      And like you he falls into the drab trap of accusing others of insults - before insulting them.

      Infratil won't thank you when they leave and how will Manston be cleaned up? The monitors were removed in 2006 by Infratil and TDC to downplay any pollution problems and ease expansion weren't they? That's a crime covered over by Infratil and KCC and TDC and KIACC for as long as possible.

      Let's talk about that shall we - you're breathign and drinking the stuff after all? Infratil are in NZ. KCC are in Maidstone. Monthly KIACC reports and TDC monitoring but monitors removed?

    9. Nobody is saying there isn't pollution at Manston but there is pollution most everywhere. For your information, Manston is not the only airfield in the UK sitting over an aquifer. It is also not the only airfield running at a loss. Even farms contaminate because of their use of pesticides. In our modern world most things carry a down side. You also go on about alleged crimes yet you never suggest under which criminal laws police could act. You cannot simply go around arresting people because a plane landed outside the restricted hours or some plane leaked a bit of aviation fuel.

      You want councillors arrested so, if you are sure of your facts, why not make a citizens arrest. We all know you won't because you are just a windbag, spouting unsubstantiated allegations and always calling on someone else to make the enquiries and do the dirty work.

      I have told you before, as have also several others, all this Southern Water, Thor and Infratil pollution is what you write about. Don't expect us to play your game and give views on it for, if we do not agree with yours, you will come back and rubbish any comment we make.

      We do have an interest in Manston, not out of nostalgia, but because it could play a part in a regional development plan and perhaps the point some of us try to make is why single out Manston for your bile or is it simply because of its proximity to where you live.

    10. Phew. Thank goodness you've cleared that up Tom with your random opinions on pollution and what-not.

      How did we ever manage before your blog posts?

      Off to bed and remember Manston in the good old days.

      Someone else will clear up the pollution for you and the grandkids.

    11. 22:39 It is you with one track opinions, never substantiated and never ever responding to points raised by others. It is also you that needs to go off to bed and drift into your pollution free dream world created simply by closing the nearest airfield to where you live.


    12. Infratil and TDC removing the monitors and polluted air and water and cancer are somehow OK by you?

      I think your views are increasingly pointless and without basis. I think you realise it too.

    13. This exchange has yet again become pointless. I realise nothing except you are totally devoid of meaningful debate.

    14. Tom, you claimed that the Manston aquifer is perfectly normal and nothing to worry about, minor pollution etc etc: "For your information, Manston is not the only airfield in the UK sitting over an aquifer" - which airfields?

      I presume it's not the water that Britain sits on - you mentioned the Thames Basin - but the actual aquifer and drinking water supply for East Kent as at Manston? Which airports have an aquifer similar to Manston as you say?

  7. Wrong, 21:09, I never claimed the aquifer was perfectly normal but simply pointed out that an airfield was no more contaminating than many other possible usages of the land, including farming.

    The constant references to the aquifer at Mansyon as a reason for closing the airfield is your case. Hence it is up to you to prove it and all I, and several others, have done is pointed out the flaws in your argument.

    If you really have a case give us some real evidence and stop putting words in other peoples mouths.

    1. Crumbs Tom it's like you're a quibbling lawyer now. Aquiifer not aquifer. Contamination not contamination. Proven not proven. Today not tomorrow. You not me. Water and wet.

      And now an airport (and one the size of Stansted) is no more polluting than fields of wheat. Cobblers.

      You're being silly.

      You're now an aquifer-denier although you said that Manston was one of many airport aquifers. Nobody else has. You're in a group of one. Although with Infratil and Environment Agency and Southern Water.

      Let's pretend you're right and there is no aquifer and no pollution.

      What about the banned overflights and 6x EU pollution?

      The RAF have gone Tom and Manston's bust again.

    2. My goodness, 23:16, you really do have a problem grasping the point don't you? So let's try and spell this out simply for you.

      You are opposed to an airfield at Manston and one of your main criticism of the situation is that such usage pollutes the aquifer. If that is your case it is down to you to prove it. Where is the scientific research into the level of pollution? Apart from the odd scaremongering article I defy you to bring one scrap of credible evidence to back up your claim.

      Until you do that your case is null and void.

    3. Anon 23:16

      There used to be a chap, Rick Card alias Retired, who wrote around the Thanet blogs about illegal rifles ranges and the Deal bombing conspiracy until he drove everyone mad with his constant repetitions of the same old claims. However, at least with Rick he did detailed research and backed up is claims with lots of references to internet sites on the subject.

      You are becoming as repetitive as Rick, but with not a shred of research or evidence to back up your allegation that Manston airfield is polluting the aquifer. You further claim the airfield has gone bust, it hasn't, but the company operating it is doing so at a loss. If you do not understand the difference, look it up.

      Tom is actually quite polite to you, but frankly I long ago recognised you for the boring, selfish Nimby you really are, devoid of a real case, but determined to keep trundling out your unsubstantiated allegations, presumably in the hope that if you say them often enough someone will believe them.

      Please do not come back to me with some nonsense about RAF dream worlds or telling my grandchildren rubbish. You tell your grandchildren whatever you like, but don't expect the rest of us to join your silly games.

    4. Tom, Allan I looked at this some time ago, here are some liked pages of related docs

    5. Michael, debate is not with you, but Anon 23:16, so let him substantiate his own case. He just trundles his stuff out parrot like, having been told it, without a gesture towards self research. It is the same with his ridiculous calls for the police to act when clearly he lacks even a basic understanding of criminal law or the powers of police.

    6. I am beginning to wonder if 23.16 is actually a shareholder in Infratil overstating the case to destroy any argument towards protecting the aquifer, straw man, comes to mind.

    7. Whilst I agree with Allan that 23:16 should be left to prove his own case, I did follow your link, Michael. Interesting though mainly conjecture and questioning who would foot the bill for what in certain circumstances. The example of a crash, like the jumbo in Canada, is posed, but then one could ask the same question about the pollution resulting from a multi-vehicle accident on the now fast road beside the airport, statistically a more likely happening.

      One of the things that gets me with 23:16, and indeed you may have a point in that he is a double agent for Infratil out to discredit the 'No Vote,' is his oft repeated naive suggestion that Manston airfield might go back to farming use. With the housing minister already suggesting that millions of acres of countryside could be taken for housing, there is no way a chance like Manston for redevelopment would be missed. On the other hand, if by some freak chance it was to go back to arable usage, the evidence of water pollution by pesticides is well researched and available. Could be worse than the outside chance of some fuel spillage.

      Mind you, Michael, having said all that I am, allegedly, just some ex RAF type who has visions of Spitfires and Hurricanes flying over Thanet from Manston so we can all take lovely pictures. Who knows, if they dig a few up in Burma, it could happen.

    8. Tom, my points over Manston are that Infratil should make it EA compliant and that any night flights should be linked to activity and economic benefit.

      It is Infratil not me who are exploring alternative uses.

      However regulation for roads, residential use and agriculture has changed, as it has for airports.

      If the use changes I will endeavour to ensure they are EA complient in terms of protecting the aquifer.


    9. So dozens of pages on the Manston aquifer? Makes Tom and Allan seem rather discredited airport fanatics:

      Would they recommend cleaning it up, not cleaning it up, expanding the airprot on it, finding out responsibility to prevent future incidents or randomly denying it as usual?

      And silence on the missing monitors from 2006 and banned overflights and 6x EU air pollution?

      With the only public KIACC meeting today these questions seem to have been igmored for years as Infratil do what they like with TDC's assistance.

    10. Michael, ignoring your visiting idiot for the moment, we were discussing the aquifer and pollutions from varous usages, but I am, nonetheless, happy to come back on your point about night flights. Your suggestion is a reasonable one, once the airport was operating at anything like a regular and steady activity level, but to attract major users they need to know there is a flexibility to accept delayed aircraft without risk of them and their passengers/cargo between diverted miles away. As Simon Moores, who is a bit more expert on aviation matters than us, has pointed out several times, aircraft can be delayed for any one of several reasons and to be diverted from their intended destination as a result can be a major detterent to using a particular field. My impression is that it was just that flexibility the airport were asking for, not, as the scaremongers would have us believe, to receive clapped out old jumbos throughout the night.

      10:35, since you evidently cannot read, let me point out to you that the dozens of pages on the Manston aquifer actually contain not one iota of prove or scientific calculation of actual contamination of the water supply from the airport. It is simply conjecture or questioning who would pay for what in certain circumstances. Mind you, one could not really expect you to take that on board so I will overlook your rather childish chortling on this occasssion.

    11. Tom I think the problem here is that the airport were asking for roughly the same night flights quota as Gatwick and Heathrow get.

      The obvious danger here being that we would get all of the night time disruption of a major airport with none of the economic benefits.

      I still think that my suggestion of offering them double the proportion of night flights to day flights afforded to Gatwick and Heathrow, tapering down to the same if Manson ever got that busy, was one that would have encouraged airlines, without leading to abuse of the allowance.

      Well the Conservative group chose not to listen and lost the election over the issue, misunderstanding the difference between people who are opposed to the airport and people who want sensible environmental regulation.

      Granted there are people in Ramsgate who are totally opposed to the airport, but I don’t think they form a majority, there are also people who would like to see reasonable regulation combined with a successful airport who I think probably do form the majority.

      Incidentally I don't think Simon Moores has any connection whit Manston he certainly does't fly from there.

    12. Michael, I think you are too bright to so obviously miss my points so not sure what you are trying to achieve. I said Simon Moores has stated several times that flights can get delayed, I did not say he was in anyway expert on Manston. From the KIACC meeting records there never appears to have been any request for the same night flight quotas as Heathrow and Gatwick, just some flexibity to accept them occassionally.

      As to the Conservative group not listening, my understanding is that they were opposed to a rigid no night flights stance as adopted by Labour and, no doubt that cost them seats in Nethercourt and Central Harbour in the District elections. Losing, well if taking the largest percentage of the votes is losing, I supposed they did, but, on the other hand, Labour did not win either. Difficult therefore to blame the election result entirely on Manston and I am sure that national issues played a part. Typically, I would have always described myself as pro Tory but, at this time, I would be much more inclined to vote UKIP so disappointed am I with David Cameron's performance.

      Going back to Manston, any night flight agreement would need to be properly monitored to avoid the very situation you suggest of out of hours disruption without major economic benefit. Mind you, bearing in mind other Thanet sagas, do we have a council, of whatever shade, capable of effectively monitoring anything.

    13. In typical Manston fashion their night flying proposals were ambiguous because they were fudging the definition of night time to allow them to increase their quota to an equivalent of what Gatwick and Heathrow currently have, as Michael has indicated. They already have flexibility in that they have plenty of night time activity from the cargo planes that get delayed en route, and having the new KLM flights leaving at 6.30am which falls within the international definition of night time 23.00-07.00. Plus they have the other major loop hole of only having to consult with TDC over their night flying policy. It wasn't Manston's night flight policy which forced Flybe to pull out.

    14. Where exactly is this proposal by the Manston operators documented or did you just make it up to suit your argument, 18:01. It might not have been the airport's night time policy that forced Flybe out, but it could well be the negativity shown by protest groups and local Labour politicians that stops anyone else coming in.

    15. Infratil's policy has been to fly and pollute regardless of the S106 airport rules. And KCC and TDC have quietly and actively assisted them.

      An airport on the water supply is unbelievable-territory. As is the debate to close it down.

      But 6x EU safe emissions and removing the monitors in 2006 are the results of each other - and crimes - and would be far higher if Infratil flew through the night as they've wanted. Or if Manston grew anywhere near the size of Stansted as planned.

      Even with a spineless council Manston has failed. And 3am flights etc are hardly delayed.

      The Police can review the flight logs and fines collected and emissions and take a view on crimes of negligence and corporate manslaughter.

      The illegal overflights continue and the aquifer isn't getting any cleaner. And Infratil have put the lot up for sale - a £7M loss for a company with £2Bn profits, more than KCC's entire budget, is nothing - although who would buy an airport on the aquifer?

      The cancer is anybody's guess as it doesn't always show in the first generation does it?

    16. The proposal was the well-publicised night flying policy submitted to TDC - where have you been the last 12 months 19.09? Or do you not read anything for yourself but rely on the soundbites spoon fed by Infratil?

    17. If this night flights proposal was so well publicised and submitted to TDC, presumably in some written document form, where can it be read? It is not me 23:19 who feeds of Infratuil sound bites but you that clings to every statement made by the 'No to Night Flights' group. If I am wrong direct me to the document.

      Yet again the resident nutter wants flight logs inspected for crimes and seems totally incapable of taking on board that there is absolutely nothing the police can do about an infringement of an agreement between parties.

      What is also interesting is that this airport, which one minute is allegedly bust and had no flights since Flybe left, is suddenly having all kinds of illegal flights in such numbers as to create massive pollution. Which is it, sunshine, no flights or many for you cannot have it both ways.

      I reckon Michael and Tom are right, you are an Infratil plant trying to make to anti case look silly. Well you are certainly succeeeding.

    18. The thing was done as a Thanet District Council Internet Consultation, so far the one with the highest number of responses ever, the link to the consultation pages is still on the council’s website homepage.

    19. Michael, are you not confusing the proposal with the consultation. The allegation was that Infratil proposed getting the OK for flights at the same level as Gatwick and Heathrow at night and I was merely asking where is the written proposal made to TDC. What you are talking about is the on line consultation requesting public views on night flights. It may have attracted a record response but was still miniscal as a percentage of Thanet's population.

    20. If you click on the consultation link you will find the links to the documents submitted by the airport including their submission, which sets out what they were asking for.

      Frankly it is pretty complicated because of the way the factor in the early hours of the morning and late at night differently to the rest of the airports in the UK, all I can say is persevere with the documents and you will get there in the end.

    21. Thanks for that, Michael, I got there in the end although it is not very clear. Nonetheless, as I suspected, it in no way asks for the same level of night flights as major airports as stated by some of your contributors.

      Obviously this saga will drift on but the final decision will all come down to financial viability and the protestations of the pros and antis will have little or no impact. Current indicators are that it will fail as an airport, but it only takes a major player to launch a successful service and it could all change.

      I was amused by your highest number of responses to the TDC consultation when I saw the actual figures. Even less of a mandate than the recent police commissioner elections though it hardly matters. Currently the 'No to Equal Marriage' petition has massive support but in the final analysis the government will do, as it does with hanging, what IT thinks is best for US. Similarly with the Leveson report petition. Sign up if you wish, but it will make SFA difference. Perhaps the biggest failed protest of all time was CND with Wilson, one of its heavy weight supporters in opposition, signing us up to Polaris missiles when in power.


  8. I think the point here is the way the council handles the thing and as far as I can see, unless you an Infratil shareholder where I guess you would want the company to suffer the smallest loss. The local imperative must be, if we are going to have the down side of airport activity, noise at night, then this must be linked to the upside, more jobs.

    For the council to put together any package where there is no linkage between the environmental downside and the economic upside, just suggests incompetence.

    All these things are relative, but the consultation wasn’t asking people to vote but to fill in an online form, which is much more demanding for some of us.

    Showing my age here, but I once heard Wilson give a speech to the Oxford Union and his accent was that of any other Oxbridge Don.

    1. Wilson sounded a bit like Malcolm Muggeridge though not a true blue note, slightly lispy. My point was simply that when holding the office his views on nuclear disarmament changed as, of course, they also did on the EEC.

      Take your point about the council though I really do not think they count for anything in the bigger scheme of things. If say Westminster were to suddenly decide that Manston featured in the greater plan for airport capacity, the views of TDC would be of complete irrelevence. As also, would be those of the dreaded aquifer man.


Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive and anonymous derogatory comments about real people will be deleted. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.