Wednesday, 24 February 2016

Truth will out

SMA seem not to have complete agreement
Bryan obviously wants to make a point about Ann Gloag using Facebook's new Emojis
Seems the rest of the committee doesn't. Shame censorship rears its head and the post gets deleted.

Then we have the farce that is Kevan Konnor Collins, the name that must not be mentioned. Seems Beau has decided that nothing must come between SMA and a defunct airport even the truth. Collins being the leader of the only faction at TDC that has Manston as its only agenda item.
As soon as his farcical life was made a centrespread in The Sun out comes Beau with this proclamation

So remember SMA its not your belief in saving Manston that is important but it is the example you show to the world and if you don't care others will notice

Saturday, 13 February 2016

Who owns Manston?

For a long while the Manston supporters have been saying Ann Gloag is the real owner of the former Manston Airport because that's the conspiracy they believe. The truth of the matter is much more mundane. Here is the current AR01 submitted by the current owners.

As you can see the Ltd Co was incorporated on the 17/9/2014 when it was known as Lothian Shelf (718) Ltd and this was changed on the 18/6/2015. It has currently 3 directors Pauline Bradley, Trevor Cartner and Joseph Christopher Musgrave. and 80 class A and 20 class B shares (these shares have the same voting rights so to all intent they are equal in value).

Pauline Bradley has a history with Ann Gloag so does this mean that its really Ann Gloag sitting in the boardroom. If anyone thinks that its because they misunderstand the different role of Directors and Shareholders.

Shareholders and directors have two completely different roles in a company. The shareholders (also called members) own the company by owning its shares and the directors manage it. Unless the articles say so (and most do not) a director does not need to be a shareholder and a shareholder has no right to be a director.
The separation in law between directors and shareholders can cause confusion in private companies. If two or three people set up a company together they often see themselves as 'partners' in the business. That relationship is often represented in a company by them all being both directors and shareholders. The problem with this is that company law requires some decisions to be made by the directors in board meetings and others to be made by the shareholders by written resolutions or by resolutions passed at general meetings. To complicate matters further, some decisions have to be made by the directors, but only with the shareholders' consent.
Whether a particular decision has to be made by the board meeting or the general meeting, or both, depends on the provisions of the Companies Act and/or the company's articles of association.
Companies Act provisions
Under the Companies Acts some decisions, such as changing the company's articles, can only be made by the shareholders. Many others are decisions for the directors but the directors may need the shareholders' consent, by means of an ordinary or special resolution.
Serious potential liabilities can arise if the directors do not obtain the approval of the general meeting when this is required. The relationship between directors and shareholders is a complex one. The directors are subject to the general fiduciary duty to act in the company's best interests. They are also required to account to the shareholders for their stewardship of the company, in particular by supplying annual accounts and by reporting to them annually..
While the directors are in control of the day to day running of the company, with access to information about its business and effective control over the calling and conduct of meetings, the shareholders have an ultimate source of power: any director can be removed from office by ordinary resolution:

What most people confuse is the ownership of the company which in this case is whoever holds the 80 class A shares and here the AR01 shows this is Invicta Asset Management Ltd.
So who is this Ltd Company. Back to Companies House for an explanation

So this shows that Invicta is another company registered at Discovery Park but is owned by FULS Ltd by virtue of being the legal owner of the 80 shares. So who owns Invicta? The shareholding shows the 1 share owned by FULS Ltd. Back to Companies House to see who owns FULS Ltd.

So back round in circles and the legal owner of FULS Ltd turns out to be Trevor Cartner.

So does Ann Gloag have any say and the short answer is NO. She has 20 class B shares and her representative, Pauline Bradley, on the board of Stone Hill Park Ltd so her voice can be heard but she doesn't own SHP neither does Pauline Bradley. She does however have a legal charge over SHP by virtue of a loan of (allegedly) £7M however that is no different from someone owning their home with a mortgage on it.
So what does Ann Gloag have? Well she does have 20 class B shares however as a shareholder she can be outvoted 80 to 20 so she has little control. So why have 20 shares and the simple answer is she can share in the profits the company makes as well as having her money back.

The next time someone says Ann Gloag controls Stone Hill Park ltd they are showing their lack of knowledge about how business works.

Thursday, 11 February 2016

Manston latest

A new round of public consultations are to take place in March by the owners of Stone Hill Park

Facebook link

Pegwell Bay Hotel 15/3/2016 15:00 to 19:30
Holiday Inn Express Minster 16/3/2016 15:00 to 19:30

Seems SMA is worried however what an idiot

In other news the minutes from the 1st meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and Riveroak have been published.
"Summary of key points discussed and advice given: The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) explained its openness policy and its statutory duty to publish any advice issued under section 51 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) to its website. Any advice issued under s51 would not constitute legal advice upon which the attendees, or others, could rely.
RiverOak provided a brief introduction and background to the scheme. Manston Airport was fully operational up until 15 May 2014, until this date the airport’s operation was covered by the relevant Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) licence. RiverOak indicated that in November 2013, the airport had been purchased by Ann Gloag (co- founder of Stagecoach) and subsequently closed. There had been no operation on site since May 2014.
RiverOak noted that it was their intention to reopen the airfield and redevelop elements that are in a current state of disrepair. RiverOak stated that the revised business strategy for Manston Airport would primarily focus on increased cargo capacity. RiverOak also suggested that there may be potential for alternative aeronautical operations including some passenger capacity at a later stage. RiverOak stated their assertion that the proposals for Manston Airport would constitute a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. RiverOak provided a brief overview of their indicative development proposals which could include: increased parking for aircraft; altering taxiways; construction of a new control tower; facilities for handling cargo and the inspection of the goods coming in and out; construction of office space; runway lighting; radar; and fencing. RiverOak suggested there would be enough physical space on site for these alterations as the site is 680 acres. RiverOak confirmed that the one fixed feature of the site is the 2,750m long runway.
The Inspectorate explored how the indicative development proposal relates to s23 PA2008. In particular the discussion focussed on the provisions of s23(1) and whether the proposal would be considered a construction or alteration project and from what starting point the developer would consider the proposals were having the effect of increasing air transport movements of cargo. RiverOak indicated that the previous capacity of Manston Airport was in the region of 2,000 air transport movements of cargo aircraft per year (approximate 3 planes in and out per day). RiverOak outlined their current calculations whereby proposed air transport movements of cargo would satisfy the threshold requirements outlined in PA2008 (for example in s23(5)(b)).
The reference to ‘capable’ in, for example, PA2008 s23(5) was noted and discussed. The provisions of PA2008 s35 were also noted.
RiverOak discussed the current state of the site and the assets that had been removed since its closure as an operational airport in May 2014, noting for example, runway lighting, instrument landing system and the fire station. RiverOak provided a brief overview of the discussions undertaken with the current owner of the site and subsequently with Thanet District Council with a view to the authority acquiring the site via a Compulsory Purchase Order.
The Inspectorate enquired about the planning history of the site and RiverOak noted some planning applications for change of use by the current owners. RiverOak anticipated that an application for the Stone Hill Park development would be submitted later in 2016.
The Inspectorate enquired about the relevant policy background for such a scheme. RiverOak outlined that whilst the Thanet Local Plan refers to Manston Airport, it recently expired. The Government’s announcement in respect of the drafting of an Aviation National Policy Statement was noted, and its relative timing in respect of an anticipated submission date for this proposal was subsequently discussed.
RiverOak explained that there was an extant s106 agreement dating from 2001 that covered matters such as opening hours and a curfew for aircraft flying from Manston Airport between 2300 until 0700. Under that s106 it was highlighted by RiverOak that there are currently no restrictions on numbers of aircraft flying to and from the airport. The use and relationship of s106 documents with the Development Consent Order (DCO) process and any appropriate requirements included within a DCO was noted by the Inspectorate.
The key highways surrounding the site were discussed, including the A299, the dualling of the route from the M2 to the Channel Tunnel and local B roads. RiverOak indicated that once detailed master planning had taken place this might provide a clearer indication of what road improvements would be incorporated as part of the airport proposals.
An indicative redline boundary was discussed. RiverOak consider the land within such an indicative redline boundary is under single ownership. It was noted that former
RAF housing was located to the north of the scheme. This housing is still occupied and is located just outside the indicative red line boundary.
RiverOak indicated that there was local public support for the proposals and suggested that there had been support from Members of Parliament for the re-opening of Manston Airport. CAA licences were discussed and RiverOak explained that licences are post-holder specific and a formal application would be required. RiverOak confirmed its intention that the Manston Airport scheme would be planned and developed to the satisfaction of CAA standards.
Controlling airspace was discussed. RiverOak noted that Manston Airport is outside of the London airspace boundary (London TMA) and therefore a different management process is used compared to that of London airspace. RiverOak indicated that airspace for Manston Airport is capped by physical slots.
There was discussion regarding the possibility that a s53 application could be needed regarding gaining access to the site. The Inspectorate noted their Advice Note for further information and advice regarding s53 applications.
The future timetable for the scheme was discussed. RiverOak stated it would prioritise a review of its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) data; some of which is available from 2014 when the airport was last open. PINS discussed the likely timescales for submission of an EIA scoping opinion request and the approach to establishing the baseline for assessment. RiverOak confirmed that an EIA would be prepared and that a scoping opinion will be sought. RiverOak stated that the precise timescales would be agreed at a later date and following the appointment of appropriate consultants. However, it was indicated that the request would be made as promptly as possible. PINS did advise careful consideration of the timing of the request in order for the scoping opinion.

RiverOak indicated a likely submission date of Q4 2016. The Inspectorate advised that this was a tight timeframe particularly with regard to environmental survey information and noted the risk that if sufficient preparatory work wasn’t completed during the Pre-application stage (including considering the scheme in sufficient detail) this could impact significantly during both the Acceptance and Examination proceedings if the application was accepted."
Point 1 When did Riveroak discuss the site with Cartner & Musgrave?
" I've just spoken with Ray Mallon. He confirms that there was a meeting with RiverOak and Trevor Cartner & Chris Musgrave about 15/16 months ago. This was the time when they had just taken over ownership of the site. The meeting was very brief - "about nine or ten minutes" according to Ray, and came to an end because RO were "... completely off the wall". About the same time there was an equally short meting with Ann Gloag. Since then, there has been nothing.
So, it seems to me this does not constitute full consultation with the existing owners, as would be required by a CPO or indeed a DCO"
Point 2 Freudmann told the SMA AGM that public consultation would take place in May 2016 however the Planning Inspectorate have stated an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) would invalidate their application if not enough time was given to that and a Public Inquiry.

Monday, 8 February 2016

Sprint revival blog the aftermath

After posting my blog 48 hours ago I was pleasantly surprised at the volume of page views concerning the Sprint Revival. As of 5pm today there had been 200 shares and 1220 page views showing how interested people are at this event being put on the Ramsgate Calendar.
Imagine my surprise then when I was sent this screenshot off of another Facebook site.

Now in my time of being a blogger I'm sure that some of what I post could be misunderstood however in this case Kandy Jones is being extremely childish because no way was I taking personal credit for the Sprint Trophy being sorted and the various posts put on "We Love Ramsgate" by various members of the 4000 strong site did much to raise the profile of the issues involved. This included some of the organisers posting requests to lobby TDC onto the site however the quote Kandy posted from the original blog doesn't claim that I was taking credit. And then the usual suspects joined it and it gets more surreal.

"Toxic little troll" Now is this something I find funny seeing as the same credit was given to Chris Wells and Lin Fairbrass as you give in your posting above. I have only one question for you Can you actually read John? because if you can you certainly have a problem understanding what you read.

Well Clara for someone who has only lived here a short while you have certainly joined a very strange group of people. Jon what is the truth? Is it what comes out of John Davis's mouth especially concerning me, especially as we have never met and never mixed in any circles so I suggest you have a think about where he gets any information about me and who might be embellishing lies.

It seems very strange that those making extravagant claims about my integrity are all supporters of an American Real Estate Investment Company, a group who wish to destroy Ramsgate by bringing 33+ 747 Jumbos a day, a Company that have failed twice to convince TDC they are a reputable group of people to do business with.

To get back to the discussion at hand it seems somewhat ironic that John Davis and friends(?) decide that my comments imply I am taking credit (which I'm not) however they applaud John for working behind the scenes (how would they know unless he is out to big himself up) to get the parties together, however the truth is much more down to earth as Jo intimates above. When asked Chris Wells (the leader of the council and chair of the meeting) was asked this is his response.

Now I see no mention of any work done by John Davis so what reason is there for him to be taking credit. I suspect it may be more to do with his current position of Chairman of "Friends of Ramsgate Seafront" an organisation that lost its way and is desperate to get any form of publicity.

Here is a link back to the original blog Sprint Revival

For those that know I don't need to reiterate the lies being spread but for those that do not they include "Stealing a priceless covenant" and "accepting bribes from the former Labour administration to infiltrate local groups" and also "leaving Ramsgate in a hurry as I was about to be exposed". That last is funny as I made it known I was selling up in August 2014 and moved out in April 2015. My that was fast I hear you laugh.

Saturday, 6 February 2016

Sprint Revival

In 2015 for the 1st time in many years the Westcliff reverberated with the noise of motorcycles andthe Ramsgate Sprint was revived. The crowds were huge and the money bought into Ramsgate was equally massive.

Imagine the surprise then that such a successful event was denied access to Government Acre due to a clash with "Lark in the Park"
Many people signed a petition and representation was made to TDC who had stated 1st come 1st served which caused an outrage. Newspaper reports showed how successful the event was so why not have both events.
"We Love Ramsgate" Facebook page rallied the troops and made the ruling party at TDC aware of how badly this was being handled by the officers and a meeting was convened between the organisers of "The Sprint Revival" and "Lark in the Park" and Councillors Fairbrass and Wells. An offer was made and both parties accepted after some thought.
The Organisers of the "Sprint Revival" made the following announcement

The organisers of Ramsgate Sprint Revival and Lark in the Park are celebrating all that is good in the community.
Ramsgate Sprint Revival and Lark in the Park have joined forces to create a spectacular free event for the community at Government Acre, Ramsgate during August 2016.
Lark in the Park will be open to the public from Thursday 11th August to Sunday 21st,
On the weekend of Saturday 13th August and Sunday 14th August they will be joined by the Ramsgate Sprint Revival. Both will have their own brand of entertainment and fun which will be free to all attending.
Both organisers are excited about this collaboration which will bring communities together."

So let's make both events a success and lets see more of this from last year.
The event last year won this award for a successful event so let's see if they can repeat the exercise.

 To see more please join their Facebook page

 link to next blog The Aftermath

Monday, 1 February 2016

Symptoms of Groupthink mentality

Having written a few times about Groupthink Psychology I thought , after watching the "Save Manston Airport" Annual General meeting, that a brief resume was needed.

“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.”- George Carlin

Watching the speakers (Dan Light, Roger Gale et al) is was fairly obvious there was much Ra Ra but little in the way of facts. The statement by Roger Gale that he wears the epitaph "The MP for Riveroak" as a badge of honour shows just how much he is out of touch with the facts about Riveroak and the needs of his electorate but in the context of the circa 60-80 people in the room just what they wanted to hear.

 That is the main thing about the Herd Mentality prevalent in the Save Manston Campaign, That is the fact that no matter what others say about a freight hub no one will allow themselves to see the reality. Everyone who says otherwise is the enemy and their minders do their best to dehumanise so it becomes easy to vilify anyone who has a different view.
However what is glossed over is what Freudmann and Riveroak propose. These are the 8 tenets

  1. An illusion of invulnerability: Members ignore danger, take extreme risk and are overly optimistic.
  2. Collective rationalization: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.
  3. Belief in inherent morality: Members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.
  4. Stereotyped views of out-groups: The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group.
  5. Direct pressure on dissenters: Members pressure any in the group who expresses arguments against the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
  6. Self-censorship: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments.
  7. Illusion of unanimity: Members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group’s decision; silence is seen as consent.
  8. “Mind guards” are appointed: Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.
So let's look at what Riveroak are proposing and what Residents of Ramsgate need to be mindful of:

To become an Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) link Riveroak have to persuade the Planning authority that Manston will achieve 10,000 extra freight movements than it achieved in its best year. So what does that mean.
based on 360 days a year they will have to land more than 33 747 jumbos every day. now assuming they don't apply for night flights (another possibility) they need to bring in a plane every 20-30 minutes something that would seriously impact in the physical and mental wellbeing of every Ramsgate resident, something that Riveroak, Dan Light, Beau Webber and the rest of the hardliners fail to mention. Here is the flight path over Ramsgate:

However when the herd runs in one direction with no one prepared to look at the alternatives "Manston or bust" is the only game in town and all the rhetoric in the world doesn't matter it will have to be up to the people at the National Planing to set the strictures in place to protect the residents of Ramsgate, such as an Environmental Impact report.
What seems so peculiar about these plans is we seem to be the only place in the UK that wants to bring noise and pollution 800 feet over a Georgian Town of 45,000 people. Anywhere else would be fighting to stop the environmental impact.

Here is a link to a recent article in the guardian link concerning air pollution

The only bright spot in this mess is the fact that Manston has never ever managed to attract the kind of business required to gain acceptance that it will ever prove to be a NSIP and it seems the local council feel the same way as they are continuing to see if another investor will come forward with better financial credentials.
Freudmann did confirm that Riveroak have written to TDC to advise that their soft market exercise is doomed to failure as their application will take precedence. Now I find that funny but I can see a method in their madness as they expect other investors will pull out (or at least they hope that will happen).

One last question for the SMA "How many newspaper reporters did you get at your big event"?