Manston 2017     |     home
Manston 2017   |   sma   |   lhb   |   blog   |   tdc   |   nnf   |   shp   |   RTC   |   CPRE   |   Ramsgate Soc.   |   Michael Child


Jimmy BeaumontJuly 21, 2017 10:27 pm
Your comments should be compulsory reading for our MPs and councillors. Unfortunately, we are dealing with closed minds. I read only today that a councillor has quit the ruling party, because it has not reopened the airport. She does not mention the many wholly justifiable reasons why it did not rush headlong into supporting a project which could have catastrophic results for Ramsgate and Herne Bay. This is the calibre of person now representing us. I am worried that a decision could be based on who shouts loudest, not on the facts.


CheggersJuly 22, 2017 10:36 am
You are quite right to question the calibre of the people representing Ramsgate. The aforementioned councillor had already left UKIP, shortly after being elected, to form an independent party along with two other councillors one of whom turned out to be a bigamist and both of whom eventually had to resign after it emerged that they were due in court on charges of theft. She then rejoined UKIP and has now jumped ship to the Tories. At no point has she considered whether the electorate ought to have a say over whether they want her to continue representing them. UKIP have made their bed and they must now lie in it. They made a stupid promise during the election and it is one they cannot keep. At the point where the airport was sold to the private sector, way back in 1999, the council's scope for influencing what happened there was limited. You can't force people to keep running an airport at a loss and, if they own the land, you can't force them to sell to someone else at anything less than the market rate. As it stands, the site has lain fallow for three years and unless the never-ending, but futile, campaign to reopen it is halted the site will lie dormant and unused for the foreseeable future. We are looking at another Pleasurama in the making but, this time, it is the pro-Manston campaign groups who are directly responsible for preventing the legal owners from creating much-needed jobs for this corner of Kent. Are there enough sensible UKIP councillors to see the damage that is being caused and to do the sensible thing? I don't know. It seems unlikely as they now seem to have got themselves involved in negotiating some kind of back-door deal with a mysterious character from Germany, who claims to have well endowed clients. As with RSP, the actual source of funds, if they exist at all, is being kept a closely guarded secret. Meanwhile,Carter and Musgrave, who own Stone Hill Park are being frustrated in their attempts to get planning permission for a mixed development which will create 2000 jobs. Let's be absolutely clear about this. That's ten times more jobs than the airport ever created. Cartner and Musgrave have a well-established track-record of redevelopment and job creation. Most recently they were responsible for rescuing the site vacated by Pfizer. That site is now thriving and is rapidly filling the economic void which was left when Pfizer departed. Why would you not trust people who have demonstrated that they can do the job to get on with it? They are British. The source of their finance is transparent. They have well-defined plans. They own the site, lock-stock and barrel. Sensible councillors would see that they have no choice. They have to work with the legal owners rather than constantly trying to frustrate them. The other way stagnation lies.


John HolyerJuly 22, 2017 11:17 pm

Your submission is far too long. The thrust of your argument is lost among all those words; many of them extraneous. You should have spent a few more hours to make your submission shorter.

Your plug for SHP is overstated. This may lead your reader to conclude that you have an axe to grind. This can damage your credibility in their eyes.

You should not have implied that RSP's finances are wrongly arcane. You are not an expert on international finance. Whereas your reader will be. Once again your credibility could be damaged.

There is more but you will not want to hear it. In your favour you have done something about substantial according to your own beliefs.


John HolyerJuly 23, 2017 12:36 pm

It is clear that would never be guided by me and why should you be. In these circumstances I commend to you the following book.

'The Complete Plain Words' by Sir Ernest Gowers revised by Sidney Greenbaum and Janet Whitcut.

The book is available from all good bookshops. The Penguin edition retails at £9.99 from Amazon. It is worth every penny if you do a lot of writing.


John HolyerJuly 23, 2017 1:04 pm
Michael Here is a blurb from the book that explains it all far better than I can.

"The Complete Plain Words is the essential guide for anyone who needs to express themselves, clearly, fluently and accurately in writing. Whether you are working on paper or on a computer, this invaluable reference work will lead you through the intricacies, problems and pleasures of the English language with wit, common sense and authority.

It goes on to say that it:

Deals with the dangers of jargon, cliché and superfluous words
Lays out the ground rules of grammar and punctuation and shows how to avoid the pitfalls
Discusses the influence of science and technology and other cultures
Gives suggestions for drafting letters
Provides a checklist of words to use with care. "


Jimmy BeaumontJuly 23, 2017 2:27 pm
Mr Holyer, does it include anything about pompous, patronising responses?


John HolyerJuly 23, 2017 5:03 pm
No Jimmy Beaumont it does not mention you at all.


John HolyerJuly 23, 2017 5:08 pm
No, Jimmy Beaumont, it does not mention it does not mention you at all.


cranfordukJuly 23, 2017 2:43 pm
I am the reader that is an expert in international finance.
The only issue i have withg you repsonse in that on of your dates has been miss typed|
"my first email 10.7.7017 also sent to pins."


John HolyerJuly 23, 2017 5:06 pm
cranforduk, Then I imagine that PINS will study your email with the care and attention you hope for.


John HolyerJuly 23, 2017 6:48 pm
Michael, Are you going to publish my response to Jimmy Beaumont or not?


Michael ChildJuly 23, 2017 7:28 pm
Sorry John I was busy publishing a few hundred pictures of Ramsgate Carnival and my phone seems to have stopped beeping for blogger notifications.


John HolyerJuly 23, 2017 10:08 pm

My sincere apologies for being over hasty. I shall go now to have a look at your carnival pictures, but I may have to restrict myself to the first hundred. I did not realise that the carnival was on and that is my fault and no one else's. I must rely on your pictures.


Michael ChildJuly 23, 2017 6:57 pm
Sorry about the delay replying with this one, busy weekend, I think the big problem here is that during the period of time that has elapsed between the airport closing and this consultation the whole way in which we view engine emissions has changed.

Moving from the most fuel efficient, which is sort of a long-term objective still, to this situation over particulates. I have stuck with public domain information but current research is suggesting that it is particulates produced by internal combustion engines that is primarily responsible for the various memory loss diseases, alzheimer's disease topping the list with about a million people in the uk suffering from it.

What is pretty much cast iron is that the proposed airfreight hub at Manston would kill several thousand local people and the argument that there are other major airports with concentration of population upwind from them can only be reasonably countered by. The people are already dead and dying, personally I find this very difficult to even think about and as I went to Lord Mayor Treloar College where the NHS decided that chimpanzees were too expensive to experiment on, so experimented on my fellow pupils killing them in the process so I am pretty hardened to economic expediency resulting in genocide.

Economically speaking I don’t think the government could or would do anything drastic in the short term, but the build up of scientific evidence means that it is unlikely that anything avoidable will be done to add to the problem, if only because of the fear of future litigation.

The IARC and WHO designate airborne particulates a Group 1 carcinogen. Particulates are the deadliest form of air pollution due to their ability to penetrate deep into the lungs and blood streams unfiltered, causing permanent DNA mutations, heart attacks, and premature death. In 2013, a study involving 312,944 people in nine European countries revealed that there was no safe level of particulates and that for every increase of 10 µg/m3 in PM10, the lung cancer rate rose 22%. The smaller PM2.5 were particularly deadly, with a 36% increase in lung cancer per 10 µg/m3 as it can penetrate deeper into the lungs.

I fully understand that this leaves people who have been supporting the freight hub in something of a difficult position, also that it takes some time for the information to sink in and for individuals to realign their views.

So all I can really say is I expect there to be some rather peculiar comment associated with this one.

Sorry about being years out with the date, I wonder what pins and rsp will make of that.


John HolyerJuly 24, 2017 11:40 am

I found your latest comment interesting and easy to read.

You have highlighted the danger of pollution. I do not have the necessary scientific knowledge that would allow me reach a definitive conclusion one way or the other. However, I accept that the danger is serious and present. It lies everywhere, especially in the developed world.

Life is a balance. I know you would agree that we cannot overnight ban cars, planes and the like. We need them. I am confident that science will come to our rescue. Cars, planes indeed all machines are becoming cleaner year upon year.

You have made a strong case and I accept that you are sincere in your objections to a cargo hub. Life is a balance. Thanet needs the jobs that RSP Manston will bring. I cannot see any other way that our town can be raised from the depressed state in which it has languished for decades.

No Council of any political persuasion has been able to rescue us. Some would say that TDC cannot solve the problem because TDC is the problem. Whatever the truth may be, RSP is the only game in town. Importantly, RSP are not asking for public funding in the form of grants as housebuilders would do. They will use private capital. This suits me.

I have long believed that the solution to all our energy problems is Nuclear Fusion. Scientists are getting there but the end remains decades away.


Michael ChildJuly 24, 2017 8:05 pm
I think I see where you are coming from John, jobs at the expense of the lives of people living upwind of the runway, a bit harsh, particularly on the older people in Cliftonville and Broadstairs, I don't think that sort of thing knowingly is really viable unless you have some sort of dictatorship.

I’ve just been surfing the web looking for and reading responses to the rsp DCO consultation, as the deadline for submission has now passed. What I haven’t been able to find is any submissions supporting the DCO. I assume this is down to my ITC skills and not because there aren’t any, so where are they?


John HolyerJuly 25, 2017 9:47 am
Good Morning Michael

No, Michael, you do not see where I am coming from.

You are begging the question in your conclusion on pollution. In the light of this I cannot accept your premise that a Manston Cargo Hub would be the direct cause of countless future deaths.

You speak as a harbinger of doom. I remain unconvinced.

I do not know why you have been unable to find any submissions supporting the DCO. Nether can I say what your lack of success may signify, if anything.

I do not understand your remark about a dictatorship.

The DCO will run its course. The Inspector will consider the totality of the evidence in the round and reach a balanced decision.

[Here we go: at the risk of my upsetting a couple of your fans, Michael, I offer the following anecdote].

I once asked a Court Adjudicator for advice on writing my explanatory statements. She made several points but emphasised one. This was that if you believe you have a pivotal point to make then introduce it several times at various places in your statement. This to ensure that the adjudicator takes it into account, and does not skip over it. This proved sound advice in my experience. Michael, you will make of this what you will in your future submissions to the Inspector.


Michael ChildJuly 25, 2017 2:00 pm
John, the volume and location of the fuel burn is taken from the information in rsp’s PEIR document, mechanics types use grid references and grams of fuel per second-kilonewton tupe of kidney, I turned this into amounts that I thought people could understand.

The rsp website says 6.4.35 table 6.7

“The health effects of particles are difficult to assess, and evidence is mainly based on epidemiological studies. Evidence suggests that there may be associations between increased PM10 concentrations and increased mortality and morbidity rates, changes in symptoms or lung function, episodes of hospitalisation or doctors consultations. Recent reviews by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) have suggested exposure to a finer fraction of particles (PM2.5) give a stronger association with the observed health effects. PM2.5 typically makes up around two-thirds of PM10 emissions and concentrations.”

rsp have old info on wiki before the results of the 1013 study were published, the new info is in my comment above.

In laymen’s terms the rsp website says they have no idea how many people the PM2.5s will kill “concentrations and increased mortality and morbidity rates”, the updated info has figures which seem to suggest that the Thanet pollution for a cargo hub at Manston is in the thousand a year ballpark.

So as rsp say on their website that a Manston Cargo Hub “would be the direct cause of countless future deaths” I rather think it’s them you are disagreeing with, to disagree with me into needs to be “would be the direct cause of counted future deaths”


John HolyerJuly 25, 2017 4:44 pm
Michael, You say to me, "the volume and location of the fuel burn is taken from the information in rsp’s PEIR document, mechanics types use grid references and grams of fuel per second-kilonewton tupe of kidney, I turned this into amounts that I thought people could understand." What the hell does that mean?

Once again I do not accept your conclusion.

So if RSP are saying, as you claim they are, that their Cargo Hub would be the direct cause of countless future deaths. Should this be true than they will be caught out during the DCO process.

As for me I refuse to cast as the baddie to your Theodore Honey.


Michael ChildJuly 25, 2017 5:15 pm
John in layman’s terms it means that rsp have stated clearly on their website in scientific and technical terms that they intend to burn well over ten thousand tons of jet fuel on the ground at Manston every year and that doing so will kill an unspecified number of people who breath the fumes in.

I have just expanded this by looking at:- The direction the fumes will go in. The distance the fumes will travel. The number of people likely to be killed per year.

What I haven’t done is disagree with what they say in their consultation document.

If you focus on them saying “increased mortality and morbidity rates” and try to think how this could mean anything other than killing people, you won’t go far wrong.

They can’t be caught out because they have clearly stated both cause and effect.


John HolyerJuly 25, 2017 5:34 pm

You are free to focus on what so ever you selectively choose. Whatever you choose do please feel free to leave me out of it.

I admire your tenacity. Even when the planes are once again flying from Manston I can imagine how you will be harping on about corporate manslaughter by pollution. Probably this time with the technology companies. Or maybe you will have moved your shop to, say Hatton Cross, from where you will have launched your attack on LHR.