Pages

Monday, 15 September 2014

Thanet Labour Hopelessly Split and Deceitful Over Maston CPO


Thanet South  Green Party Parliamentary Candidate , Ian Driver, claims that TDCs ruling Labour group are “hopelessly split and acting deceitfully” over plans  to secure a Compulsory  Purchase Order (CPO) for the recently closed Manston Airport.


Jawdropping Deceit


Driver made his claim after  receiving copies of secret  Labour Party  e-mails (published below) which show  sharp differences  between senior Thanet  Labour Councillors about the CPO.  In an e-mail  to Council Leader, Iris Johnston, former Deputy Leader, Allan Poole, criticises her public support for the CPO saying   "the CPO will lose us the election as opposed to opposing night flights last time winning us the election. There is more than enough evidence already to show the airport is not viable and the CPO proposal is merely 'show boating'........it will 'bite us on the butt' if we don't start being honest with the voters".
In reply to Poole, Johnston appears to say that her commitment to the CPO is not as genuine as her high profile public statements on this matter suggest "I am afraid you are the only person who is consistently saying I am in favour of CPO's! I was never happy with any I have ever seen before including Dreamland. They are fraught with difficulties".
Poole replies "Sorry to contradict you Iris but I distinctly remember at the Group Meeting before the last Cabinet Meeting you said you were in favour of the Manston CPO and seemed very happy wearing a SMA T-shirt...And Peter (Campbell) got rather cross with you".
The communications also reveal that Cabinet member Mike Harrison, was extremely critical of No Night Flight campaigners who oppose the CPO saying "they are really not representative of our electorate, especially in Ramsgate. They are basically a rabble using intimidation to get their views across......their arguments are emotional and simply do not hold water. The NNF  leadership, in the main, are not Thanet voters and certainly have their own agenda."
Driver has pointed to comments made by Cabinet Member David Green on social media saying that  “TDC will not agree to any solution to the airport that is detrimental to Ramsgate's environment”, and “in my opinion an airport CPO is not economically viable” as further evidence  of division amongst Labour Councillors.  He also  highlighted  Labour controlled Ramsgate Town Council’s condemnation of  “proposals for the development of Manston Airport into a major freight hub”;  and Labour Chief Whip, Steve Alexandrou’s  letter to the Thanet Gazette saying that he will not vote for a CPO, as proof that Thanet Labour Party is at war with itself over Manston Airport and the CPO.
Said Driver “Council Leader Iris Johnston has shamefully misled and deceived residents  into believing that Thanet Labour Councillors were united in supporting a CPO for Manston Airport, when she knew this was not true and that many of her councillors opposed it. This was a cynical political manoeuvre by Johnston aimed at securing votes for Labour in the 2015 elections. To deceive the public like this is unforgivable. But it’s now likely to blow up in her face”.
“I understand that several of the newly selected  Labour candidates for the 2015 Council elections are  very much opposed to the CPO and are asking questions about how much  the Council is spending on this process. I also understand from reliable sources that investment company RiverOak who are rumoured to have been selected  as the Council’s CPO Partner and who are likely to meeting Iris Johnston soon, are worried about doing business with a Council whose leadership is split on supporting the CPO. Quite naturally, an investment company like RiverOak would be worried about doing a potentially expensive  deal  with a partner who has deep internal divisions. If I was in this position I would walk away from the deal rather than risk my money. Personally I believe that the CPO game is well and truly  over. Johnston has been exposed by her own people for political game playing. She has lost credibility with the public, her own party members and probably with RiverOak, if indeed they are the  CPO partner. The funding, several months ago,  of the Parkway station as a rail link to support housing and employment, rather than an airport also suggests to me that the South East England Local Economic Partnership has given up the ghost on Manstom. If this is true then it must be game over for Manston”.
“Thanet Green Party has been arguing for a while that the CPO would not succeed and the evidence appears  to confirm our view.. We have been saying that’s it’s  time to start  talking about Plan B and the alternative uses  of the site.  From a Green prospective we are opposed to large scale housing developments on the former airport site. There is  sufficient  previously used land and long term empty residential property within Thanet’s urban boundaries to meet most of our housing need. We would be  supportive of leisure, health, education and employment based developments provided that they have small carbon footprints, are sustainable, environmentally friendly and create well rewarded jobs. We would also wish to explore using some of the land for the generation of renewable energy, growing crops and providing a habitat for our wild animals and plants. We also believe that the Council should launch an extensive public consultation with residents about future uses for the airport site and we support the opening of dialogue with the airport owner, Anne Gloag, about future use of the site”.
 
The e-mails
Dear John
Add more humour please the CPO JOKE is running thin

Peter C

> On 10 Aug 2014, at 16:22, cllr-John Worrow
<cllr-John.Worrow@THANET.GOV.UK> wrote:
>
> I respect everyone's views; however, the outcome is in the hands of the gods now.> FARAGE is our real problem, NOT the airport (or possibly personal differences?) We all have views, and by the nature of politics someone will always be offended by our views.

> I actually think you have all made some very good points... (I'm am tempted to add a bit of humour, but I won't in case it offends someone) time for good thoughts darlings!
>
> John xxx
>
> On 10 Aug 2014, at 15:42, "cllr-Steve Alexandrou"
<cllr-Steve.Alexandrou@THANET.GOV.UKcllr-Steve.Alexandrou@THANET.GOV


.UK>> wrote:
>
> No airport equals no night flights, equals no manifesto commitment to support something which does not exist, you move on.
 
> On 10 Aug 2014, at 14:55, "cllr-Iris Johnston"
<cllr-Iris.Johnston@THANET.GOV.UKcllr-Iris.Johnston@THANET.GOV.UK>>
wrote:
>
> No Alan I mentioned our manifesto commitment to 'support the airport but not night flights'. Support the airport means to look at all options and one they are exhausted move on!

> On 10 Aug 2014, at 14:49, "Alan Poole"
<poole@btinternet.compoole@btinternet.com
>> wrote:
>
> Hi Iris,
> Sorry to contradict you Iris but I distinctly remember at the Group Meeting before the last Cabinet Meeting you said you were in favour of the Manston CPO and seemed very happy wearing a SMA T-shirt...And Peter got rather cross with you.....
>
> Alan

> On 10 Aug 2014, at 14:30, cllr-Iris Johnston
<cllr-Iris.Johnston@THANET.GOV.UKcllr-Iris.Johnston@THANET.GOV.UK
>>
wrote:
>
> Alan,
> I am afraid you are the only person who is consistently saying I am in favour of CPO's! I was never happy with any I have ever seen before including Dreamland. They are fraught with difficulties and it seems no matter how often I say it you miss the point,
>
> We must consider all options for Manston and also await Sir Howard Davies updated report and the Select Committees smaller airport deliberations, Cabinet ,are with group support , following the usual processes on the petition for a CPO and bond scheme. We have made it clear we cannot do either on our own.
>
> I wish you had attended the public meeting at the Marlowe where my support for the airport was clear but where I reiterated the problems of a CPO yet again.
>
> A CPO is only possible if we have strict guarantees and a massive amount of money banked that supports a probable twenty year plan.
>
> I also reminded those present I was opposed to night flights and the Liberal candidate asked for a show of hands that was overwhelmingly in support of them  24/7.
>
> Now let's all enjoy the sunshine and check if there is any sewage on the
beaches,
>
> Regards,
>
> Iris
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 10 Aug 2014, at 14:06, "Alan Poole"
<poole@btinternet.compoole@btinternet.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike,
> The difference this time is the CPO will lose us the election as opposed to opposing night flights last time winning us the election.....
> There is more than enough evidence already to show the airport is not viable and the CPO proposal is merely 'show boating'........it will 'bite us on the butt' if we don't start being honest with the voters.
Alan
 
> On 10 Aug 2014, at 12:02, cllr-Mike Harrison
<cllr-Mike.Harrison@THANET.GOV.UKcllr-Mike.Harrison@THANET.GOV.UK>>
wrote:
>
> I could of course write that "
> The  NNF may be (or maybe not) a properly constituted group but they are really not representative of our electorate, especially in Ramsgate. They are basically a rabble using intimidation to get their views across......their arguments are emotional and simply do not hold water. The NNF  leadership, in the main, are not Thanet voters and certainly have their own agenda"
>
> I for one will not decide on whether or not to support a CPO until we have all the facts, legal advice and other information. I would like to think that comrades would do the same and not base their decision on emotion or perceived threats from pressure groups.
> Mike Harrison.
> Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Operational Services.
 
 
 
 

40 comments:

  1. These emails do confirm Iris as playing games with Manston and Cpo. She had made it very clear she supported both and these emails say otherwise. We need a change especially elderly Comrade Harrison a fairly typical trade union communist. Why does he accuse NNF of being a rabble and not from Thanet? He seems to have forgotten the packed NNF meetings before the night flights were scrapped. Useless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's nothing TU or socialist about Mike. And mysogyny is rife in all parties.

      Delete
    2. At least he is not standing now. If only we could be rid of Everitt and Gregory too

      Delete
  2. And this is why I'm voting TORY at the next election (or UKIP!).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You may as well kiss goodbye to civilisation if you vote Tory or UKIP...they'll deprive you of every last vestige of a cared for society and public amenities...it will get much worse very quickly!

      Delete
  3. My Plan B.

    Split the site into 3 : Runway for small planes, Northern Grass as a heliport, The rest as warehouses and go kart track. But leave the blueprint for an airport.

    The problem I have is that Thanet will need an airport in the future as the sea levels rises, this is not a myth (the reasons why the sea levels are rising is the myth)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Ian, I note that the number of people you quote as being against the CPO process seems to have dropped from the 4 you listed previously.

    Iris, when she spoke as one of the eleven top table speakers at the Save Manston Airport group Special General Meeting was quite clear that she supported the CPO process and Manston Airport re-opening, but also supports no night flights as per her manifesto commitment - SMA are quite happy with that - RiverOak to the best of our understanding has no need for scheduled night flights. So we are puzzled by the continual stress on the NNF issue.

    We note that RiverOak have not only said they will fully pick up the tab for the CPO process, but even for the expenses before the CPO process : "RiverOak will pay the Council’s reasonable legal costs incurred in the preparation, negotiation and completion of the Agreement." So no danger of TDC or taxpayers losing any money

    I can say with assurance that the pro-Manston Airport groups, with a total membership currently over 20,500 and rising rapidly, are 100% behind Iris Johnston and have full confidence in her ability to deliver a successful CPO, fully financially backed by one of the number of potential investors who appear to be happy that Manston can be a commercial success. So why keep claiming other wise ?
    Dr. Beau Webber
    Chairman Save Manston Airport group

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Beau, Are these the members supporting your aims who have been lied to by the petitioners who have been scaremongering the public into signing? You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the bum!

      Delete
    2. BTW it is normal for councils to charge for their costs in any such deal. It's not RO doing the public a favour. Much money has already been spent and officers time lost to fulfill your selfish ambition. All your supporters should be charged for wasting public money and time.

      Delete
    3. Beau
      If you have so many supporters then why don't they go to your protests???
      Is it because that most of your fb numbers have been invited but have not confirmed.
      You and you group are telling everybody in the street a load of lies and we have it on video.
      I was so glad when you were made leader of SMA knowing you were leading them, I was sure you were going to fail :) :) :)

      Delete
    4. Beau. Elsewhere you display an open letter 'from the various groups'. In this letter you make much of what you perceive to be AG's failure to comply with her obligations under s.35 Civil Aviation Act 1986 in respect of consultation with affected persons. I am sure that the irony of your resort to this argument will not be lost on you, indeed you site the 'model' consultation processes as the Heathrow villages. You will recognise that the purpose of the section is to ensure that those affected by airport expansion etc including the 'local community' are consulted about these plans. The type of airport envisaged in the Falcon report is of course one very different from the 'old Manston'. Do you not thus feel a little hypocritical that you and your vociferous band have charged forth and persuaded TDC to embark on this process without any public consultation whatsoever. The fact that very few understand what the 'Falcon model' would actually look like is evidenced by many of the SMA followers who romanticise about the return of Airshows. On the one hand the SMA street preachers are telling people that the airport will employ 6500 people, 500 more than the East Midlands Freight hub lay claim to and the other they paint pictures of Red Arrows on the runway. Don't you think that before this thing goes any further the people of Thanet should be consulted and that the TRUE nature of the envisaged hub airport should be explained and demonstrated. How can this process have any legitimacy if the people most effected have no real conception of what this airport will look like and the implications thereof. Apart from any moral arguments in respect of the people of Thanet being hoodwinked by your groups, do you really think the process thus far would survive scrutiny were it to be judicially reviewed?

      Delete
    5. Good point why isn't there a consultation on whether we want a cpo? I bet 90% would be opposed to public funding or a reopened airport

      Delete
    6. Matthew, This is exactly right, and my thoughts exactly.
      How can ThanetDC be so arrogant as to seek to impose a huge Airport City with associated car assembly plant and retail park on the people of Thanet!
      Also for Iris to claim that only a couple of dozen people in Thanet are opposed to it, and yet the plans have been kept secret from them.
      I am sure that other people in Thanet wake up and find out about this, they will be up in arms. Let's hope that they do not find out too late.
      I have never heard of anything so evil as to seek to destroy and area and to deliberately keep the info from people.

      Delete
    7. Matthew, you obviously don't understand the purpose of the Falcon report. It was drawn up from limited information supplied by the current and previous owners, and had little new information, as it followed the brief that was given to it by TDC. It cannot be considered to be representative of any of the current prospective business partners. All Business Plans will be confidential at this stage, and I suspect they will vary from the Falcon report, which was not meant to project the future of the airport nor would the plans get forced on the CPO in any way.

      Delete
    8. Anon 19:44 - Do you still believe the council is going to fund the CPO after all this time? They and everyone else has said it will have to be financed. I am happy to take the bet about 90% being against the airport re-opening though - how much shall we say?

      Delete
  5. Beau,
    If you are claiming a membership of 20,500+, can you explain why you had such an embarrassingly small turnout at your event last weekend and even at your SGM? Even given a little apathy that creeps into campaigns such as yours, one would surely have expected a greater turnout at one or both events than fractions of a percent from the a membership as large as you claim.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why should we believe any of the above when your claimed total membership is founded on a vociferous campaign of misinformation. Assuming, of course, that megaphone man is one of yours. He certainly speaks very highly of you, Mr Webber.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh my god LIAR LIAR Iris! When will SMA group wake up and realise they are being played!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Interesting how are these so called members being added up. Any organisation who hold a membership have to by law hold a written membership list for Data Protection Law needs. Can you confirm you have acted within the law and have a registered Data Contoller and can you supply, within your constitution, how you verify that no duplicates exist and that every address has been verified for its veracity. Also can you provide details of your money laundering policy and who ensures the correct use of any monies collected. When will your accounts be submitted for their veracity and have you ensured that any trustees have signed a declaration to ensure they are "fit and proper" persons under the terms of your constitution assuming of course that you have one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rather than stirring, Barry, why don't you offer to help, as I am sure you know all about the exemptions in Data Protection and Money Laundering for voluntary organisations?

      Delete
  9. Beau Jests! He claims Iris supports the Cpo yet misses the point that the emails show she doesn't...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, today marks a truly unique experience! Finally Cllr Driver has inflicted himself on a subject, on which I happen to agree with him (albeit with him changing his mind to match the greatest media coverage available)! This is truly momentous, and certainly unlikely to ever be repeated.

    I have made a note in my diary.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Barry, no matter how many supporters Manston really has, it's obviously enough for Labour to tell us one thing while doing another. Believe me, if the cpo doesn't happen (for any reason) then it's the end of Labour in Thanet for several years.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ian. That is an amazing glimpse into the crazy world of being in power! It really feels like a Roman dynasty coming to an end.

    And - there certainly seems to be a lot that Iris has to answer to. I feel sure she will never consider herself a liar and she always had the best interests of Thanet in her heart. But I think a lot of very polite and respectfull SMA supporters will be massivly pissed off. And oddly I found myself agreeing with Pool the Fool at one point! The world has gone mad!!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. You do also realise you may have swayed votes onto supporting the CPO at Council? There will be certain members of the Labour party that would rather go against their beliefs than vote with you ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps Ian is really a double agent, still secretly all for the airport as he was before?

      Delete
  14. Can I just point out that the "Peter C" in the reprinted email is NOT me (just in case anyone thinks it is)... and I agree with others, Barry (and Michael) love stirring things up against the Manston supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Funny how Barry who opposes manston so much will be after the labour Yes when The Pleasureama site is discussed.Come on Cardy. houses, hotels, and a corner for Barry to sulk in

    ReplyDelete
  16. Where were the 20,500 when companies like KLM and Flybe needed them as passengers? Using any airport but Mansion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I note, that for all the sound and fury, no one has denied the emails are real, only claimed the editing has changed the meaning. Perhaps someone should display the whole emails and thus demonstrate how editing has changed their meaning. Transparency and all that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like a creative writing challenge to me....the statements are perfectly clear, unless for instance Mike Harrison said something like:-

      The NNF may be (or maybe not) a properly constituted group but they are really not representative of our electorate, especially in Ramsgate. However SMA who represent the whole of the UK, including Scotland are a different matter entirely. They are basically a rabble using intimidation to get their views across, and with Sir Roger and Laura their arguments are emotional and simply do not hold water.

      And Hi Iris,
      > Sorry to contradict you Iris but I distinctly remember at the Group Meeting before the last Cabinet Meeting you said you were in favour of the Manston CPO and seemed very happy wearing a SMA T-shirt even though it doesn't look as good as that Jacques Verte two piece you wear...And Peter got rather cross with you - because he wanted an SMA t shirt too and for other members of the Cabinet if they came in XXXXL.....
      >
      > Alan

      Fiction is TDC's standard trope.

      Delete
  18. It is ridiculous if Labour led by Iris do inflict a CPO on Thanet, which would lead to an Airport City, dominating Thanet and destroying the quality of life,
    All this with most of the people of Thanet remaining ignorant that the plans have changed from reviving the former regional airport, which is not surprising as they are
    being lied to. How dare Iris state that only a couple of dozen people in Thanet are opposed. If people knew what the plans contain, there would be huge opposition.
    How can we allow her to get away with this?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Ian your Pleasurama standards complaint against yourself. It made me laugh. But I have been since June getting to the point where Mr Boyle has been asked for advice re TDC introducing policy for compliance with the statutory reporting duties of Terrorism Law. There is a history of individual compliance (3 Labour cllrs and one former Chief Executive).

    My Boyle was approached for advice on this by Cllr Iris Johnson on 15th Sept 2014. I did suggest that a way to proceed might be to add to the current Standards Code and the current compliance policy for reporting duties in money laundering law. And I suggested, in case it is helpful, that when Mr Boyle examines the existing compliance policy he might consider the contractual obligation, the law and the professional standards requirements on the other party and their lenders and legal advisors. I mean that at every stage of the contract so far that Money Laundering rules also applied to the Developer. And any solicitor advising them or their financial backing has to be satisfied there is no cause for a report of suspicion. If they cannot reach that standard of assurance their professional body requires them to withdraw representation.

    From the little I know "Good will" varies in its legal requirement from sort of nil on the body of the contract to absolute requirement for insurance and bond aspects.

    Perhaps you would do another photo shoot at Pleasurama with a placard saying "Mr Boyle Don't forget to read Sections 38B 54 and 55 of Terrorism Act 2000 and advice you are supposed to be giving to Our Iris" I don't want his campaign to nail you diverting his attention from his proper work. Richard

    ReplyDelete
  20. The auction of the control tower and buildings and remaining junk this week ends any pretence of Manston as an airport. What's happening with the contamination there?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Contamination at Manston would have to be assessed as part of future planning process.

    The more immediate Thanet contamination concern is here

    That is part of the considerations put to Mr Boyle, TDC legal officer, on 15th Sept for advice about updating TDC policy for statutory reporting (to include the reporting duties imposed by Terrorism Act 2000).

    From Environment Agency replies we do know that inquiry was raised at Sericol in 92/93 because of suspicion of stock losses. It was this theft inquiry that stumbled on the scale of Sericol contamination of water supply in 1993. There is no certainty that the loss had been continuous since 1963 although that may be the most likely explanation. In the first 12 years of secret remediation the process drew back and treated 470 tonnes of cyclohexanone from the "Plume" below Sericol Poorhole Lane. it is of course possible the loss occurred over a shorter period. The site maintenance engineer in 93 had worked for Sericol five years and was a local tory cllr.

    Rumfields Drinking water abstraction was immediately turned off upon the discovery of the nearby Sericol problem. But only up the way from Sericol was Thor. Purportedly its processing shut down after Health and Safety Executive action in the 80s There was also a then secret remediation process at Thor. We have no figures or solvent details about Thor other than remediation is for mercury and mixed solvents.

    We also do not know why the Sericol inquiry was raised 92/93. Was it a consequence of the Met arrests of UDA hit men and drugs importers at the UDA Margate base of operations 1992 ?

    Arrests of loyalist terrorist Margate 1992

    IF (as would seem likely) the counter terrorism inquiry proceeded to investigate paramilitary collusion and support in Thanet then raising inquiries about sources of back street drugs factory chemicals would be an obvious thing for the Met to do. And since the tory Cllr working for Sericol had a history of having been arrested in Territorial Army for paramilitary collusion activity that would logically explain stock loss inquiry at Sericol.

    The inquiry that stumbled across the water supply contamination disaster. There was a tory council at the time and perhaps they would care to belatedly explain why they kept the facts secret from their electorate ?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Two things are happening today: The minister for aviation is visiting Manston, and Riveroak are visiting TDC! So it's not over just yet (and hopefully Ian will give both his full support).

    ReplyDelete
  23. What happened at the Manston auction then

    ReplyDelete
  24. The contamination is some of the worst in theSouth East aaccording to the Environment Agency. There is no cleanup

    ReplyDelete