Joyland Books

by **Vince, Charlie and Sam** » 28 Jan 2006, 16:49

"Before anything the council has to carry out a six week public consultation to ask what people think of the Thanet Local Plan, including the proposals for Dreamland.

The firm which owns the site, the Margate Town Centre Development Company has also pledged to ask the people what they think before putting forward details proposals.

The Isle of Thanet Gazette wants to know what YOU think should happen to Dreamland so we are giving you the chance to make your views known"

http://ickent.icnetwork.co.uk/debate/

Please click on the link above and let them know what you think!

by **Neil** » 31 Jan 2006, 14:21

If anyone is interessted then I've just read through them all (at the time of writing the most recent entry is 'Alan C from Cliftonville') 37 people would like to see the entire site updated as a modern theme park and 4 want alternative uses (not necessarily housing but things like an ice rink). This statistic speaks for itself. It seems that most members of this forum have now left their comments (but if you haven't please do) so I will try and pursuade people from other sources in the coaster enthusiaste community to vote in favour of Saving Dreamland. Surely the council can't simply ignore all these people.

by **RowBot** » 31 Jan 2006, 14:58

Bah you're joking me TDC ignoring ppl!

What a first that would be. Well hopefully some time in the next 100 years they will listen to the public and stop putting on the "We are doin it for the good of Margate" act.

by **Sarah** » 31 Jan 2006, 21:58

It's an interesting one this questionnaire. Looking through the responses, I don't recognise many names as being active campaign members. These are the people of Thanet having their say, and so far speaking up clearly in favour of Dreamland.

The points you can respond to made me smile ruefully, and reminded me that it was the Gazette that called us "a pathetic bunch of mourners".

Point one: "The council is wrong to consider other options". That's straightforward enough. But Point 2 isn't: "The Save Dreamland campaign is wrong to fight for the retention of an amusement park". Oh no. It's: "Save Dreamland campaigners are living in the past".

A couple of locals, not Campaign members, have mentioned to me that they think the questionnaire is loaded towards the council.

The last point up for discussion really made me laugh. "Dreamworld could rival Alton Towers and Euro Disney". Which proves that there are some truly rubbish proofreaders out there. And that Disneyland Paris's multi-million pound rebranding exercise has failed!

Sarah

by **porf** » 31 Jan 2006, 23:32

I do have a few worries about the quick poll side of things.

The figures seem to swing hugely despite each vote only making a small percentage swing, earlier tonight it was 94% for staying a park and 0% for homes and leisure. Now it's around 50% versus 20%. A similar huge swing happened a day or two ago as well.

It's not the most foolproof of voting systems, there's very little to stop anyone posting multiple votes even from the same machine as long as they space them out.

None of this is a major problem unless lazy journalism then comes into play and the figures get reported as fact in the Gazette.

The comments seem a far more reliable viewpoint than the voting as they require more effort, hopefully the Gazette will take these more seriously than the poll.

by **RowBot** » 31 Jan 2006, 23:55

lol well they will probally filter out the spam results at the end of the day via the ip addy's. But still doesn't stop all spamming since you can just disconnect then connect to the internet again (if ur ip is dynamic) and u get a new ip lol and can post again

. But personally I think that apart from some little kiddies who want to have fun spamming every1 just wants to see the real results.

The real thing that I don't like about the poll is that it does just show percentages not a percentage and who many voted for each.

by **porf** » 01 Feb 2006, 00:11

I'm a lot less worried about bored script kiddies than I am about the sort of people who stand to lose a lot of money.

by **RowBot** » 01 Feb 2006, 00:18

Well I know there can be alot of money lost and even that this is just a news paper poll it is very important that we have the correct results. So all in all we should be worried about these little script kiddies or there will be no point us all posting our views and using the poll when all can be lost.

Its like at college we have this thing called Moddle (an online learning resource) and since a few ppl missuse it they have had to disable it and then it makes alot of us to a disadvantage. Only takes 2/3 ppl to spoil it for everyone else and then all the work everyone else has done is gone to waste.

by **Illinformed** » 01 Feb 2006, 10:03

That whole ickent website is clumsy and painful to use. I wouldnt trust a poll on a website that uses pop up advertising. To whoever set those questions - That cup is definitely half empty isn't it?

Online polls like this worry me as, from what I have gathered, there is no independent observer. As Sarah pointed out (and I'm still pmsl), the 'Dreamworld' incident. Anyone that spent that amount of time putting together that poll is not going to filter out the repeat or anonymous IP addresses. I actually hope that some kiddie script does come along and make a mockery of such a shabby piece of work.

by **Neil** » 01 Feb 2006, 11:44

Well I agree about it being all to easy to confound results on a internet poll and their are certainly people who would be very interessted in doing so. It's also worth pointing out that another flaw is that you can only vote for 1 option.

For example the point "It should be developed as a theme park" and "The council is wrong to consider other options" have a degree of overlap. I'm not saying they are the same thing but someone might agree with both. There's a danger that the paper will then report "Hardly anyone is against the Council considering other options".

It's also worth considering that the ISP thing stops people in the same house hold voting. For example if I got my brother to leave a message it might look like I was the same person cheating.

My final point is that it is all very well for people to say they think they should build things like an ice skating rink but this has never been one of the options. There a several reasons why one would not be viable:
a) They have high running costs because of the amount of electricity they consume
b) Health and Safety requires several members of staff to be on site including one with health and safety qualifications etc
c) Unless some other attractions have closed the site already has a cinema, ten pin bowling, lazar tag and extensive arcades. Realistically in terms of all weather leisure facilities being built on the site it would be very competetive.

Perhaps I could be as bold as to suggest this is why the development company have refrained from revealing solid plans for the site. It's in their interesst to encourage people to delude themselves in this way.

by **Bob** » 07 Feb 2006, 06:53

Neil wrote:Well I agree about it being all to easy to confound results on a internet poll and their are certainly people who would be very interessted in doing so. It's also worth pointing out that another flaw is that you can only vote for 1 option.

For example the point "It should be developed as a theme park" and "The council is wrong to consider other options" have a degree of overlap. I'm not saying they are the same thing but someone might agree with both. There's a danger that the paper will then report "Hardly anyone is against the Council considering other options".

It's also worth considering that the ISP thing stops people in the same house hold voting. For example if I got my brother to leave a message it might look like I was the same person cheating.

My final point is that it is all very well for people to say they think they should build things like an ice skating rink but this has never been one of the options. There a several reasons why one would not be viable:
a) They have high running costs because of the amount of electricity they consume
b) Health and Safety requires several members of staff to be on site including one with health and safety qualifications etc
c) Unless some other attractions have closed the site already has a cinema, ten pin bowling, lazar tag and extensive arcades. Realistically in terms of all weather leisure facilities being built on the site it would be very competetive.

Perhaps I could be as bold as to suggest this is why the development company have refrained from revealing solid plans for the site. It's in their interesst to encourage people to delude themselves in this way.

Health & Safety costs for an Amusement Park are far higher then that of an Ice Rink

Other Leisur facilities are high on the list of alternative uses for some of the site. It is recognised by the council that there is a shortage of leisure facilities in the town. In particular there is an urgent need to provide facilities for those with disabilities

by **porf** » 07 Feb 2006, 10:17

Other Leisur facilities are high on the list of alternative uses for some of the site.

Bob : I take it again you mean - Other Leisur facilities are high on the list of alternative uses the developers or some random forum poster who may or may not represent them wants for some of the site.

It is recognised by the council that there is a shortage of leisure facilities in the town. In particular there is an urgent need to provide facilities for those with disabilities

Not sure quite how that fits with Cllr Ezekiel's desire for "giant wave machines, pot-holing, climbing wall, indoor windsurfing and a range of other ideas."

by **Neil** » 07 Feb 2006, 13:51

Not sure quite how that fits with Cllr Ezekiel's desire for "giant wave machines, pot-holing, climbing wall, indoor windsurfing and a range of other ideas."

Or for an ice rink for that matter, whereas an amusement park can cater for disabled people. Ofcourse it depends what the disability is but there are many rides that are suitable for disabled people such as sceinic rides and even roller coasters can be suitable for many types of disability.

Thanet council leader Sandy Ezekiel said, while the local authority's preference is for an amusement park and leisure use, he would love to see attractions with the wow factor.

That's fodder for debate in itself as he is implying that theme park rides can not have the 'wow' factor. At Blackpool Pleasure Beach there is a climbing wall right next to the Big One! Which has the more 'wow' factor?

I don't really see the point of having wave machienes as an isolated attraction. I may have mis-understood this suggestion but it is basically proposing a single attraction water park.

by **vince69619** » 07 Feb 2006, 16:57

Isn't the fact that the first time I saw the Looping Star I refused point blank to go on it, isn't that enough WoW factor for anyone?

Next visit to the park I tried it, and like most ran round for another go!

There's much more WoW in a ride like that than there is in a climing wall or wave machine.

Vince.

by **Bob** » 07 Feb 2006, 18:22

porf wrote:
Other Leisur facilities are high on the list of alternative uses for some of the site.

Bob : I take it again you mean - Other Leisur facilities are high on the list of alternative uses the developers or some random forum poster who may or may not represent them wants for some of the site.

It is recognised by the council that there is a shortage of leisure facilities in the town. In particular there is an urgent need to provide facilities for those with disabilities

Not sure quite how that fits with Cllr Ezekiel's desire for "giant wave machines, pot-holing, climbing wall, indoor windsurfing and a range of other ideas."

It fits in exactly we are keen to ensure that the modern leisure facilties to be provided on the Dreamland site are inclusive and accessable to all.

Joyland Books

Having Your Say.

Having Your Say.

Who is online