Joyland Books

As we had one or two threads with the names of people who are clearly anti the campaign, I wanted to start one to someone who has exploded onto the forum with already the 55th highest amount of postings!! Thanks for taking the time to put up some very logical, sensible postings when you are over 4000 miles away.

A good 7 days overall proves that wether you are in Cliftonville, Chatham or California, the message is the same.

SAVE DREAMLAND!

Thanks a bunch, Vince.

I'm incredibly active as an administrator on another message baord (16,000+ posts http://p198.ezboard.com/blovebugfans ).
This may begin to demonstrate my resolve once I get involved in something.

Once I got my dismissive letter from the Thanet council, I decided to check out this forum.

I look forward to getting to know each of you. Nick and I have had some contact, but most of what I've done has been directed at the council.
I think as an outsider, I have the balls to call them out on what's been done.

At this point, all I can do is offer suggestions or new angles for you. In the grand scheme, fixing up 16 acres isn't that big of a project. Doesn't the government realize that an investment in Dreamland would pay dividends for decades? I know the area is depressed, but additional shopping won't fix the problem.

Hi, and welcome to the forum. It's great that we have members from all over the world and I think this definately demonstrates how good a thriving amusement park would be for Margate's prestige. No doubt Bob will dismiss all this as interfering out of towners, but it shows how important the place is. Realistically it doesn't feel like victory is around the corner (although we can always hope that durring this consultation the Consevatives will see the light). Nevertheless if we are patient I am confident that we will win, even if it takes us into 2007 and beyond.

Re: Bob.
Whatever.

I have a VERY good friend in Ramsgate I plan to visit eventually, so visiting Dreamland is not at all out of the scope of reality.
Now that I know all of you, maybe we will plan a little meeting when I make it out your way. Won't be until later this year or next year depending on how things go.

Hello, my names is James ($$$bob's_back$$$). I was wondering whether you would give me another chance. I will do the following:
1)You people seemed cross with my bad spelling, and took the mick out of me. I was very hurt, which is why for the last couple of months I have been doing literacy evening classes. I have done so well my employer has given me a promotion. I shall also now type my posts in word first so I can use the spell checker, so hopefully you won't carry on bullying me because of my spelling.
2) I realise that my username wasn't very helpful so I have given you a profile
3) I realise that I was a bit OTT last time so I will tone down my posts. You clearly have good arguments, but I agree with Bob that if Dreamland isn't viable it has to have a change of use. I too can see that the current state isn't ideal and I'm sorry if Waterbridge have been rude. I've discussed this with Bob and will no longer take a cheap house as I agree it makes me look selfish. I just don't think you realise how significant it is that Dreamland isn't viable!

Can you please explain what experience you have personally in running a park such as this, because you see Phillip Miller who IS sucessfully running just such a park in the UK wants to put his money into Dreamland because HE says he can run it at a profit.

If all you have to base your opinion on is the words of Bob, then I am afraid you are being manipulated into thinking the way you are.

Please bear in mind that Bob has not had the decency to tell us who he is, so his statements cannot be backed up. And when we ask him to support his statements he never does. This is a man that keeps trying to say that there will be a tax burden on the people of Thanet if Dreamland is kept as a theme park, when in fact the park has no connection with the council beyond any planning permission that the current owners seek, so Dreamland is not going to be a burden on the tax payers.

The only reason the current owners are trying to say that the park is not viable is because the land goes up in value if it can be used for another purpose. They are trying to make lots of money and don't care if they ruin Margate's future viability.

Do you realise that in joining this forum you have agreed to be counted as a Supporter of the campaign.

If you want some respect on this forum, confirm Bob's true identity.

Vince.

vince69619 wrote:
Please bear in mind that Bob has not had the decency to tell us who he is,

Although we all know anyway.

James wrote:I agree with Bob that if Dreamland isn't viable it has to have a change of use...I just don't think you realise how significant it is that Dreamland isn't viable!

That is precisely the crux of the matter. Waterbridge are claiming it is not viable as the price of the land increases manyfold if this was the case and the site is used for development.

However the Government Inspector wasn't fooled by these claims and found no evidence to support them. On the contrary, the Inspector received plenty of evidence to show it WAS viable, and Phillip Miller wants to invest in the site as a viable business case. If Waterbridge don't think it is viable, let someone who thinks otherwise put his money where his mouth is and give it his best shot. We are not just talking about the loss of a piece of land...it is the future of Margate as a tourist destination that is at stake. This is why we feel so passionate about it.

David.

Oh, boo hoo.
The topic with my name on it's gone sour already.

James wrote:1)You people seemed cross with my bad spelling, and took the mick out of me. I was very hurt,

One or two people may have done that but I can assure you that the vast majority here would not consider that your views held any less weight simply because they were not spelt correctly.

You are welcome here regardless of your opinion of the future of Dreamland, although your opinions will always be given greater consideration if you back them up with some evidence- handwaving is treated much the same way on this forum as any other.

Although it's tough to navigate and a tough read, I suggest everyone review the councils master plan document linked to on the main page.

It just seems pointless to cover 16 lousy acres with shopping. Shopping can be built elsewhere.

Firstly am I right in thinking I'm not going to get banned? Thanks.

Can you please explain what experience you have personally in running a park such as this, because you see Phillip Miller who IS sucessfully running just such a park in the UK wants to put his money into Dreamland because HE says he can run it at a profit.

No, I don't run a supermarket, I am line manager in a supermarket.

Bob tells me that the park has lost money for over twenty years which proves it can't make money.

It just seems pointless to cover 16 lousy acres with shopping. Shopping can be built elsewhere.,

They aren't building shopping on the site, but housing. That is why the Scenic will have to be demolished. It's a shame because it isn't a bad ride, but it doesn't comply with health and safety. Basically Waterbridge had hoped to build a giant housing estate with the Scenic as a centre piece. Unfortunately a woooden roller coaster is flammable and surrounding such a flammable structure with housing would be a recipe for disaster. Regrettably health and safety comes first so the Scenic will be demolished later this year. Me and Bob have talked this one through, it's a shame but has to be done and Bob said the Council are happy with this so it will go through. To compensate they will have some special event in a couple of months for last rides before they demolish it. Again Bob will fill you in on the details.

James wrote:Me and Bob have talked this one through, it's a shame but has to be done and Bob said the Council are happy with this so it will go through.

I doubt it. They have just gone out to consultation on a new Local Plan policy which requires that the Scenic Railway is retained.

And I don't think Waterbridge wanted to build a giant housing estate with the Scenic at its centre. I have seen their original plans, and they did not involve the Scenic at all. Their more recent plans involve some residential, but also a leisure development and the Scenic Railway remaining.

You sound even less convincing than Bob!

Ah well, it's me on the "entertain Bob and his various bogus cronies" rota.

It might be refreshing to throw a little truth in there somewhere Jamesy boy. If you check the News section of this website, you'll see there is a three-season deal in place incorporating the Scenic Railway regardless of any developments. It is listed obviously so it would take a a great deal of time and red tape in the face of serious opposition from the public and members of this campaign to get it delisted.

So Waterbridge had planned to build a giant housing estate with the Scenic as a centrepiece? What an insight into the great minds of this noble company. It could set a trend all over the British Isles; why not have housing around Stonehenge or London Zoo? Open your window to see a couple of Gibbons in the throws of mating rituals. Do I put down a deposit or just give a tatty briefcase full of used Bank Notes to a man in a trenchcoat under the clock, they way ole' J.G. likes it?


Dave D

David Ellis wrote:

James wrote:I agree with Bob that if Dreamland isn't viable it has to have a change of use...I just don't think you realise how significant it is that Dreamland isn't viable!

That is precisely the crux of the matter. Waterbridge are claiming it is not viable as the price of the land increases manyfold if this was the case and the site is used for development.

However the Government Inspector wasn't fooled by these claims and found no evidence to support them. On the contrary, the Inspector received plenty of evidence to show it WAS viable, and Phillip Miller wants to invest in the site as a viable business case. If Waterbridge don't think it is viable, let someone who thinks otherwise put his money where his mouth is and give it his best shot. We are not just talking about the loss of a piece of land...it is the future of Margate as a tourist destination that is at stake. This is why we feel so passionate about it.

David.

The Inspector found no evidence that Dreamland was viable. He made personal coments that he thought it was viable. This is very different to evidence that it is viable. In fact the Inspector had acess to the books for Dreamland that clearly should it was loosing money. He chose not to comment on that though.