Tobias Hunter's Statement

[taffy]

Does anybody agree that Mr Hunter's statement is desparate? Comments on a postcard please.

Mr Tobias's statement. seems to me to say the following:

1 It's all up for grabs.

2 Local consultation is the way forward. (I'd have thought the result of consultation was fairly obvious now).

3 What on earth is Bob on about then? He's full of plans.

You can help as much as you like as long as it doesn't involve promoting, investing in or helping Dreamland. Some requests to invest in the park have had no response from Wallybridge. What a surprise???? Anybody would think Wakerbridge don't want a travelling fair to work.

There are many people who have lived in, invested in, and continue to promote businesses in Margate. (They can and do put their cases far more eloquently than I).There also seem to be many of us with connections with the town who have in the past invested , and still wish to invest in the town as tourists. This doesn't impress Hunter apparently.




Unless you live in on Margate seafront or Newbury you can't have an opinion.

Long live Waterybridge. Magnanimous to the end. Keep at it lads. The best is yet to come I'm sure.

Taffy.










This latest attempt is quite frankly unbelievably

[Bob]

Does anybody agree that Mr Hunter's statement is desparate? Comments on a postcard please.

Mr Tobias's statement. seems to me to say the following:

1 It's all up for grabs.

2 Local consultation is the way forward. (I'd have thought the result of consultation was fairly obvious now).

3 What on earth is Bob on about then? He's full of plans.

You can help as much as you like as long as it doesn't involve promoting, investing in or helping Dreamland. Some requests to invest in the park have had no response from Wallybridge. What a surprise???? Anybody would think Wakerbridge don't want a travelling fair to work.

There are many people who have lived in, invested in, and continue to promote businesses in Margate. (They can and do put their cases far more eloquently than I).There also seem to be many of us with connections with the town who have in the past invested , and still wish to invest in the town as tourists. This doesn't impress Hunter apparently.




Unless you live in on Margate seafront or Newbury you can't have an opinion.

Long live Waterybridge. Magnanimous to the end. Keep at it lads. The best is yet to come I'm sure.

Taffy.


This latest attempt is quite frankly unbelievably

Philip Miller has been unable to come up with an offer for Dreamland. He is now out of the equation.

There are a number of plans being developed for the Dreamland site. They all involve keeping the Scenic Railway and an amusement park. Various options for the remainder of the site are on the table. A decision on which option to go for has not yet been taken. A key element is that it should bring significant year round quality employment opportunities to Margate and that it should be in keeping with the area.

[Neil]

A decision on which option to go for has not yet been taken.

Then why the dickens did you tell us the site of the burnt down arcade would become private gym and the site would have a museum? Another instance when you were economical with the truth. How many lies are you going to bother us with?

[ricardobugsy]

Toby Hunters statement just demonstrates for me that the Save Dreamland Campaign is working and things are not going as smoothly as he would have liked.

So he has invested 9.5 million in Margate has he? Not got a lot to show for it then. The public debate that he has promised should be interesting.
I take it that he is not interesting in attracting visitors from outside of Margate though. Apparently, their views don't count.

He previously said that he would let the people of Margate have their say.
Now they have spoken and he doesnt like the results, he accuses them of being 'the silent minority'. So what is he gonna do pressgang people into supporting him?

[James]

The public debate that he has promised should be interesting.

Waterbridge have already had the public debate. It was a bit like the save Dreamland one where they found people and asked them for their opinions. Me and Bob were asked. If you weren't asked for your opinion you can't have been in the right place at the right time. If it makes things better I wasn't involved in your one. All 6 people who took part in the Waterbridge public debate want housing. Therefore they will have to built housing as it's what the public want.

[DaveD]

All six? Wow, that really is broad spectrum of public opinion. If it would have been four, I would have said it was a premeditated outcome.

Of course the Public want housing - it's badly needed in the area with every other shop being a ropey looking Estate Agent or Letting Agency.


Dave D

[Zoidstar]

Philip Miller has been unable to come up with an offer for Dreamland. He is now out of the equation.

Is he is he really I dont know where you heard that but I've very recently heard a few jungle drums saying diffrent very diffrent things if you know what I mean...

[vince69619]

All 6 people who took part in the Waterbridge public debate want housing.

James it's really good of you to come on here admitting that you are a spokesperson for Waterbridge and that their public consultation has been fraudulently rigged.

This is very useful infomation and will benefit the campaign tremendously.

One question, did you stop at 6 people because you couldn't count any higher?

Vince.

[David Ellis]

Waterbridge have already had the public debate. It was a bit like the save Dreamland one where they found people and asked them for their opinions. Me and Bob were asked. If you weren't asked for your opinion you can't have been in the right place at the right time. If it makes things better I wasn't involved in your one. All 6 people who took part in the Waterbridge public debate want housing. Therefore they will have to built housing as it's what the public want.

So was that six people interviewed, or six people doing the interviewing?
If the former then frankly that is appalling. I don't think any consultation that only asks six people can be credible proof of anything...600 fine, 60 may be pushing it, but 6?

Please can you clarify what this consultation actually consisted of?

Thanks,
David.

[Neil]

Waterbridge have already had the public debate. It was a bit like the save Dreamland one where they found people and asked them for their opinions. Me and Bob were asked. If you weren't asked for your opinion you can't have been in the right place at the right time. If it makes things better I wasn't involved in your one. All 6 people who took part in the Waterbridge public debate want housing. Therefore they will have to built housing as it's what the public want.

I don't want to say too much about James as he is no longer here to defend himself, so it seems a bit like talking behind ones back. Nevertheless if he is still able to read this forum after being banned he may be interessted in an article in the Adscene:

Majority shareholders of the site, Margate Town Centre Regeneration Company, owned by Waterbridge, will hold a public consultation in April.

It's all a bit of a mystery, but something to keep our ears open for.

p.s. In my daily Bridget Jones style entries still no application for a fence.

[Vince, Charlie and Sam]

I don't want to say too much about James as he is no longer here to defend himself, so it seems a bit like talking behind ones back. Nevertheless if he is still able to read this forum after being banned

Could I just ask why he was banned?

[Nick]

I don't want to say too much about James as he is no longer here to defend himself, so it seems a bit like talking behind ones back. Nevertheless if he is still able to read this forum after being banned

Could I just ask why he was banned?

He was banned because his posts were obviously fake/wind-ups and therefore an attempt to disrupt the board. Quite amusing in places, admittedly, but they did not comply with board rules.

Nick

[Vince, Charlie and Sam]

It was your shout, not mine Nick but for what it's worth I don't think James should have been banned. I don't feel he did the campaign any harm- if anything the opposite.

As you know, I wholeheartedly support the campaign to save Dreamland and the Scenic Railway but I think that those who disagree with me should be allowed to fully express their views here.

If another, similar "battle of wits" was to develop in the future, I would say that we would not need to worry unless our new opponent was considerably better-armed than this one.

[Nick]

It was your shout, not mine Nick but for what it's worth I don't think James should have been banned. I don't feel he did the campaign any harm- if anything the opposite.

As you know, I wholeheartedly support the campaign to save Dreamland and the Scenic Railway but I think that those who disagree with me should be allowed to fully express their views here.

If another, similar "battle of wits" was to develop in the future, I would say that we would not need to worry unless our new opponent was considerably better-armed than this one.

He wasn't banned because of his views. I disagree strongly with almost every post that 'Bob' has ever made on this site, but I have never even considered banning him, as he is remaining within the forum rules. This board is to discuss the future of Dreamland, and is open to anybody, whatever their views on the Save Dreamland Campaign.

James was banned because he was posting fake messages designed to disrupt the board. If you read them again, you will see what I mean. He therefore falls into the same category as that series of 'Bob derivatives' we had a couple of weeks ago, which severely disrupted the board.

Regarding your point about whether James did the campaign any harm, I don't think he had any effect on the campaign, positive or negative. He would, however, have disrupted this forum had he been allowed to continue posting. I discussed this with one of the moderators, and we both agreed his posts were deliberate wind-ups and therefore (we thought) of no interest to anybody.

[Jim Douglas Jr.]

Good for you.
Have had to ban a few on my own site as well.

Opinions are fine, but needles negativity and lies just to cause unrest are unwarranted and u-needed. His poorly written postings should have just been ignored, but these types know thay'll get a rise out of someone..

As for who should stay and who shouldn't,
It's called Save Dreamland for a reason. This should be a place where we can come to post news and ideas for our common goal.
Dissenters can start their own site and campaign and call it Tear Down Dreamland. I doubt they'll leave their computer monitors and junk food long enough to actually do anything, though.