Captain Haddock
- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,892
Keep,
You've done it again!
So will who risk taking whom on about what?
"Shall we go, you and I, while we can? Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
I have hunted high and low and we don't have a member called Keep, maybe it is an important part of our castle that has taken human form?
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,845
Quite clear Bob I wonder if this is a bit of a red herring.
But Charlie must be miffed over the way it has been handled.
I'v been called far worse Howard lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,892
Captain Haddock wrote:N.B. NOT in Blue Helmet - keep that for New Year me helping finish of St James site for big opening!
And here's Charlie's Twitter feed for today:-
Very funny Phil. Nice one!
"Shall we go, you and I, while we can? Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
So DAFC Davy thinks that Charlie owns the town centre and should reduce the rent in all the shops.
Neil Moors- Registered: 3 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,295
Potential for a big vote in the house tonight, Charlie's vote could be vital. For a brief window, he has huge bargaining power - if he doesn't find out what is going on with the allegations relating to him tonight, he never will.
As an independent MP right now, in theory, he should vote against the Government to give Parliament, and by extension himself, a more meaningful say.
Ross Miller likes this
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Latest epistle from Charlie.
Everyone knows we need to build more homes. It is the only way we can truly ensure the dream of owning your own home is kept alive for young people. Yes, the Help to Buy scheme and cutting stamp duty help more people get on the housing ladder. Yet it is the building of more quality and affordable homes which is most vital of all. In Dover and Deal our hard work has been paying off. A total of 150 homes were registered in the first quarter of 2017, compared to the UK average of 60. Meanwhile, the number of new builds started last year was 434 – almost twice the national average.
Increasing supply means homes become more affordable. That is crucial, because people in Dover and Deal work hard and deserve to be able to lay down roots and secure a future for their family.
That’s why I was so deeply disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court last week to uphold an appeal which stops hundreds of new homes being built on brownfield land at Farthingloe.
Of course, we all want to protect our beautiful countryside. Yet the truth is that this case focussed on a technicality over planning process – not any genuine threat to wildlife or the environment. It’s taken four years and hundreds of thousands of pounds to reach this point. Time and money which could have been invested in Dover, not wasted on legal wrangles. Moreover, it wasn’t just the councillors who supported this development. The people of Dover supported it too in a consultation process. Sadly, campaign groups like the CPRE are determined to do all they can to stop the homes we need getting built. From their comfortable homes in leafy West Kent, they think they know what’s best for Dover and Deal. They think their views matter more than the people of Dover and their elected councillors. They don’t care how hard we have to fight in East Kent for every single penny of investment. The Farthingloe project would have brought investment for what could be an outstanding tourist attraction at the Drop Redoubt and Western Heights. It would have given visitors even more reason to come to our corner of Kent – and it would have created more jobs.
We must put the future of Dover and our young people ahead of unelected, anti-democratic campaign groups.
We are leaving the European Union and have the opportunity to take back control of our laws and make Britain work for our young people. We cannot allow greenies and grumblers to hold us back. We need to face down the voices of the past who have let our country down time and time again.
It’s time to focus on building the future. A Britain that works for our young people.
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,892
Yeah right Charlie! And exactly how do you think the latest edict from he High Court is going to affect this?
'violated European law' apparently!
Brexit? Bring it on!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/homeless-eu-citizens-deporting-illegal-policy-home-office-high-court-ruling-brexit-stop-a8110001.html"Shall we go, you and I, while we can? Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds"
Guest 2388- Registered: 12 Nov 2017
- Posts: 60
disappointed that Elphicke didn't vote last night against the Remainers, his abstention let the side down, thought he was a good Leaver too!
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,892
Martina wrote:disappointed that Elphicke didn't vote last night against the Remainers, his abstention let the side down, thought he was a good Leaver too!
Bad call by Charlie. We vote for MPs to make decisions on our behalf NOT to 'sit on fence' in fear of alienating part of their electorate.
"Shall we go, you and I, while we can? Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds"
Guest 2388- Registered: 12 Nov 2017
- Posts: 60
surely he was a Leaver, but is he allowed to vote right now anyway seeing as he's suspended for looking at a woman or something?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Charlie campaigned to stay in during the run up to the Referendum and then accepted the result graciously. He is still an MP but not the Tory Whip Mart.
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,892
Nah. Charlie WAS a Remainer but having had a sudden conversion (on hearing the result of the referendum, and mindful of the way 'Dover' voted!
) is now an evangelising born again Brexiteer.
"Shall we go, you and I, while we can? Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds"
John Buckley
- Registered: 6 Oct 2013
- Posts: 615
Martina wrote:surely he was a Leaver, but is he allowed to vote right now anyway seeing as he's suspended for looking at a woman or something?
Good grief! I didn’t realise it was as serious as that, he deserves everything he gets, the dirty dog!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Captain Haddock wrote:Nah. Charlie WAS a Remainer but having had a sudden conversion (on hearing the result of the referendum, and mindful of the way 'Dover' voted!
) is now an evangelising born again Brexiteer.
Just for clarification Charlie was a Eurosceptic when grubbing around for votes and only changed in the lead up to the Referendum.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
John Buckley wrote:Good grief! I didn’t realise it was as serious as that, he deserves everything he gets, the dirty dog!
Worse than that John he had lewd thoughts about the ones showing their ankles contrary to Sharia law.
Guest 2388- Registered: 12 Nov 2017
- Posts: 60
so why did he abstain?
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,790
Charlie must have made some very influential enemies at Westminster.
After all this time the electorate should be told what awful crime he is supposed to have committed, that is if they can actually think of something.
Guest 1881 likes this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,693
Yes it did hinge on a technicality, one that blights our planning process in this country, namely councillors ignoring the advice and recommendation of their own in house experts...
Seriously why have a dog and bark yourself...
If only this judgement would lead to an overhaul of the planning system, vesting much greater power in the in-house experts to approve non contentious schemes without councillor interference; leaving only cases where officers recommend rejection or significant planning conditions to be discussed by councillors. Of course in this latter case the presumption must be to approve the officers recommendation unless they have missed something or the applicant can provide additional evidence; in which case a decision must be deferred until the new information is considered.
Captain Haddock likes this
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,225
Not quite as it seems Ross.
The matter in question was to do with the minutes of the meeting not demonstrating that the cllrs took the officers report into consideration when arriving at their decision-which they did.
It is also a landmark decision for the way planning decisions are recorded & minutes writtten.
Local authorities across the England will be reviewing their procedures .