Airport valet parking firm kicked out of base

A PRIVATE firm offering valet parking for Southend Airport passengers has been told it will be kicked out of its base by council chiefs.

Southend Airport Car Park, which only got off the ground in April 2012, has been given three months to move on after failing to secure planning permission.

Southend Council ruled the firm should not be allowed to use a former development site on the Temple Farm industrial estate as its base because the airport already offered enough parking spaces.

But the fledgling company, which employs ten people, has vowed to fight for its future.

Lorraine Larman, financial director, said: “We will appeal this decision and we believe we have a good case.

“To say the airport already has enough spaces is basically saying no one has a right to compete.

“We are creating jobs and surely some jobs are better than none?”

Southend Airport has three long-stay car parks and a short-stay option, with more than 1,000 spaces available.

SACP has 80 spaces in its base off Coopers Way. The company, which originally operated from a base in Progress Road, Southend, moved to its current site last summer to cope with the growing demand.

But council chiefs pointed out the land was not included in the airport’s own transport strategy, which was agreed when it embarked on its £100million expansion programme in 2010.

They also claimed the permanent conversion of an industrial estate site into a commercial car park would lead to a loss of employment land.

Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers.

“We have plenty of space, free set down and pick up, a choice of short and long stay, roll up or pre-book and great offers, such as our free parking offer for January and February.

“There are no off-airport operators endorsed or approved by us, as we feel the airport can offer the most competitive deals for its passengers - therefore we would strongly urge passengers to compare any off site rates with what we can offer before booking.”

Comments (64)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:52am Tue 15 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

In this time of austerity - and when the council has no problem giving itself planning permission to demolish historic buildings to build car parks: York Road Market - deliberately putting a small company out of business and therefore ten people on the dole, seems a tad shortsighted.
In this time of austerity - and when the council has no problem giving itself planning permission to demolish historic buildings to build car parks: York Road Market - deliberately putting a small company out of business and therefore ten people on the dole, seems a tad shortsighted. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

8:53am Tue 15 Jan 13

j-w says...

This is disgusting.
What parking is provided by the airport is irrelevant, locals should be able to piggy back businesses on the airports success.
As for loss of "employment land" Mr Holdcroft and other council chiefs should get off their backsides and see how many empty units there are on the many industrial estates in Southend.

The airport Should remember it is an airport with attached (expensive) parking not a car park with attached airport. Good luck with your appeals.
This is disgusting. What parking is provided by the airport is irrelevant, locals should be able to piggy back businesses on the airports success. As for loss of "employment land" Mr Holdcroft and other council chiefs should get off their backsides and see how many empty units there are on the many industrial estates in Southend. The airport Should remember it is an airport with attached (expensive) parking not a car park with attached airport. Good luck with your appeals. j-w
  • Score: 0

8:56am Tue 15 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

It also shows the lie of the airport making one of their car parks free as a 'gift'. This is quite obviously the airport and council working in tandem to deliberately put this small company out of business.
It also shows the lie of the airport making one of their car parks free as a 'gift'. This is quite obviously the airport and council working in tandem to deliberately put this small company out of business. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

8:58am Tue 15 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced... Max Impact
  • Score: 0

9:07am Tue 15 Jan 13

j-w says...

Planning should be stuck too but using a silly reason to not give planning permission such as loss of employment land does not cut it and I am starting to think that maybe the airport and council are too tightly tied.
I am a very strong supporter of the airport as my posts will show but I am not a complete blinkered fool like you appear to be with all thing airport and council related Max, even I cringe at some of your comments and tend to ignore most of them. A car park on an industrial estate with just a few houses nearby is not a problem for anyone.
Planning should be stuck too but using a silly reason to not give planning permission such as loss of employment land does not cut it and I am starting to think that maybe the airport and council are too tightly tied. I am a very strong supporter of the airport as my posts will show but I am not a complete blinkered fool like you appear to be with all thing airport and council related Max, even I cringe at some of your comments and tend to ignore most of them. A car park on an industrial estate with just a few houses nearby is not a problem for anyone. j-w
  • Score: 0

9:09am Tue 15 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Max Impact wrote:
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.

Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.


Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.

The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.

Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...[/p][/quote]You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities. Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole. Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid. The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later. Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

9:11am Tue 15 Jan 13

artytoit says...

The council will kick them out and probably make it a money-making car park for themselves!
The council will kick them out and probably make it a money-making car park for themselves! artytoit
  • Score: 0

9:13am Tue 15 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Actually I wonder if Southend council are in breech of planning conditions?

That car park where the market used to be was built as a temporary site. I do hope the council has the correct planning permissions to use it as a permanent car park, as they have done for the last three years.
Actually I wonder if Southend council are in breech of planning conditions? That car park where the market used to be was built as a temporary site. I do hope the council has the correct planning permissions to use it as a permanent car park, as they have done for the last three years. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

9:28am Tue 15 Jan 13

j-w says...

can't find anything on that.

http://planning.sout
hend.gov.uk/PublicAc
cess/propdb/property
/property_detailview
.aspx?module=P3&keyv
al=MBKM0PPA03900&pro
pno=010090458822
can't find anything on that. http://planning.sout hend.gov.uk/PublicAc cess/propdb/property /property_detailview .aspx?module=P3&keyv al=MBKM0PPA03900&pro pno=010090458822 j-w
  • Score: 0

9:37am Tue 15 Jan 13

Carnabackable says...

Good job too, we don't want to see the local mob cashing in on the valiant efforts of Stobbart.
Like the early airshows, when you had frank's burgers on sale - for a nice little earner, they were kicked out, as it was realised, that professionals had to be taken on to provide an accountable service.
Likewise the eastern European staffed valeting brigade, should stick to waste lands, supermarkets and stay out from corporate business.
Good job too, we don't want to see the local mob cashing in on the valiant efforts of Stobbart. Like the early airshows, when you had frank's burgers on sale - for a nice little earner, they were kicked out, as it was realised, that professionals had to be taken on to provide an accountable service. Likewise the eastern European staffed valeting brigade, should stick to waste lands, supermarkets and stay out from corporate business. Carnabackable
  • Score: 0

9:38am Tue 15 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Interesting. Here's the original story:

http://www.echo-news
.co.uk/news/local_ne
ws/southend/8626466.
Former_market_site_t
o_become_temporary_C
hristmas_car_park/
Interesting. Here's the original story: http://www.echo-news .co.uk/news/local_ne ws/southend/8626466. Former_market_site_t o_become_temporary_C hristmas_car_park/ Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

9:39am Tue 15 Jan 13

DogsMessInLeigh says...

The whole thing does stink a bit.
maybe the parking company will find another better location.
The whole thing does stink a bit. maybe the parking company will find another better location. DogsMessInLeigh
  • Score: 0

9:40am Tue 15 Jan 13

j-w says...

Some good comments on that story!
Some good comments on that story! j-w
  • Score: 0

10:23am Tue 15 Jan 13

Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd says...

"They (SBC) also claimed the permanent conversion of an industrial estate site into a commercial car park would lead to a loss of employment land."...
But this land already employs 10 people???????
.
More proof (if needed) that Southend Council really dont have the boroughs best interests at heart.
.
Also, as pointed out in comments above SBC mustve hoped we'd all forget about York Road Market!
.
Another day another SBC fail.
"They (SBC) also claimed the permanent conversion of an industrial estate site into a commercial car park would lead to a loss of employment land."... But this land already employs 10 people??????? . More proof (if needed) that Southend Council really dont have the boroughs best interests at heart. . Also, as pointed out in comments above SBC mustve hoped we'd all forget about York Road Market! . Another day another SBC fail. Sir Peter Pantsless the 3rd
  • Score: 0

10:36am Tue 15 Jan 13

Eric Whim says...

this valet parking firm obviously not bunging enough trays of pies and crates of ale the council's way
this valet parking firm obviously not bunging enough trays of pies and crates of ale the council's way Eric Whim
  • Score: 0

10:49am Tue 15 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.

Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.


Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.

The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.

Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?

If no is it legal or illegal?

An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...[/p][/quote]You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities. Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole. Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid. The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later. Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.[/p][/quote]Yes or No was it set up without planning permission? If no is it legal or illegal? An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void? Max Impact
  • Score: 0

11:09am Tue 15 Jan 13

jayman says...

Max Impact wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.

Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.


Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.

The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.

Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?

If no is it legal or illegal?

An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.

the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.

no.

what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...[/p][/quote]You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities. Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole. Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid. The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later. Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.[/p][/quote]Yes or No was it set up without planning permission? If no is it legal or illegal? An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?[/p][/quote]retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses. the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council. no. what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance. jayman
  • Score: 0

11:17am Tue 15 Jan 13

j-w says...

I can't believe I am saying this but I agree with Jayman (probably on this point only).
The guy at the end of Eastwoodbury Lane also failed to get permission for a competing car park.
I can't believe I am saying this but I agree with Jayman (probably on this point only). The guy at the end of Eastwoodbury Lane also failed to get permission for a competing car park. j-w
  • Score: 0

11:31am Tue 15 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.

Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.


Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.

The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.

Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?

If no is it legal or illegal?

An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.

the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.

no.

what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.

Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...[/p][/quote]You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities. Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole. Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid. The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later. Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.[/p][/quote]Yes or No was it set up without planning permission? If no is it legal or illegal? An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?[/p][/quote]retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses. the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council. no. what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.[/p][/quote]So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission. Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Tue 15 Jan 13

jayman says...

Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.

Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.


Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.

The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.

Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?

If no is it legal or illegal?

An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.

the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.

no.

what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.

Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
yes I do and scum they are.

but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'

and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.

then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...[/p][/quote]You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities. Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole. Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid. The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later. Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.[/p][/quote]Yes or No was it set up without planning permission? If no is it legal or illegal? An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?[/p][/quote]retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses. the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council. no. what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.[/p][/quote]So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission. Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.[/p][/quote]yes I do and scum they are. but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time' and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment. then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete.. jayman
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.

Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.


Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.

The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.

Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?

If no is it legal or illegal?

An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.

the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.

no.

what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.

Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
yes I do and scum they are.

but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'

and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.

then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Maxy-waxy's strawman doesn't stand up at all.

He uses an example of chemical waste plant in a residential area.

The story is about parked cars standing still creating no pollution on an industrial estate.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...[/p][/quote]You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities. Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole. Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid. The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later. Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.[/p][/quote]Yes or No was it set up without planning permission? If no is it legal or illegal? An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?[/p][/quote]retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses. the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council. no. what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.[/p][/quote]So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission. Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.[/p][/quote]yes I do and scum they are. but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time' and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment. then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..[/p][/quote]Maxy-waxy's strawman doesn't stand up at all. He uses an example of chemical waste plant in a residential area. The story is about parked cars standing still creating no pollution on an industrial estate. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

2:00pm Tue 15 Jan 13

maxell says...

I see once again that SBC RDC have been told what to do by the stobart gods, this company is run by dictators we need to get this spinless council replaced, before southend is renamed *stobart on sea" and our homes sold out beneath our feet. The a 127 will be the next thing to be privitised. Soon exclusive for stobart traffic and £10 per mile to anybody else
I see once again that SBC RDC have been told what to do by the stobart gods, this company is run by dictators we need to get this spinless council replaced, before southend is renamed *stobart on sea" and our homes sold out beneath our feet. The a 127 will be the next thing to be privitised. Soon exclusive for stobart traffic and £10 per mile to anybody else maxell
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Tue 15 Jan 13

maxell says...

Max Impact wrote:
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
hey lets get some facts straight here you advocate that planning laws should not be ignored, "I agree" and if it were you that built something without conforming to the rules set out the councils would more than likly make and example out of you but that should be the case across the board the airport as many know have put in for an extention terminal (and also 3rd application to further increase the terminal size before ths 2nd is built), They should carry out surveys IE:pre development enquiry that should be submitted with the application with regard to sewage this was not carried out yet the planning app was still passed, it clearly states in the application conditions (12/103/ful ) sec 2/10 that know works should be started utill a workable plan had been agreed this work started six weeks before it was approved and under flood lights at night and the councils even though alerted to this fact did sweet Fa , the councils are once again dictated to by the airport, obviously the airport needed to be on schedule so showed disregard for any council ruling, even though the condition stated otherwise,the airport knows that cash strapped councils will never take them to court to enforce anything they want, so I agree in principal of what you are trying to say but this must be extended out to include anybody that breeches planning conditions,and reported acordinly
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...[/p][/quote]hey lets get some facts straight here you advocate that planning laws should not be ignored, "I agree" and if it were you that built something without conforming to the rules set out the councils would more than likly make and example out of you but that should be the case across the board the airport as many know have put in for an extention terminal (and also 3rd application to further increase the terminal size before ths 2nd is built), They should carry out surveys IE:pre development enquiry that should be submitted with the application with regard to sewage this was not carried out yet the planning app was still passed, it clearly states in the application conditions (12/103/ful ) sec 2/10 that know works should be started utill a workable plan had been agreed this work started six weeks before it was approved and under flood lights at night and the councils even though alerted to this fact did sweet Fa , the councils are once again dictated to by the airport, obviously the airport needed to be on schedule so showed disregard for any council ruling, even though the condition stated otherwise,the airport knows that cash strapped councils will never take them to court to enforce anything they want, so I agree in principal of what you are trying to say but this must be extended out to include anybody that breeches planning conditions,and reported acordinly maxell
  • Score: 0

3:05pm Tue 15 Jan 13

sosad 1 says...

silly firm this car park lot you have not greased the palms of sbc or the airport
silly firm this car park lot you have not greased the palms of sbc or the airport sosad 1
  • Score: 0

3:39pm Tue 15 Jan 13

notinwestcliffanymore says...

As a supporter of the airport i think they have brought good things to the town ....but i do wonder if they now have to much control over the council this story and the axing of the airshow do smack of airport intrest being put first.
As a supporter of the airport i think they have brought good things to the town ....but i do wonder if they now have to much control over the council this story and the axing of the airshow do smack of airport intrest being put first. notinwestcliffanymore
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Broadwaywatch says...

notinwestcliffanymor
e
wrote:
As a supporter of the airport i think they have brought good things to the town ....but i do wonder if they now have to much control over the council this story and the axing of the airshow do smack of airport intrest being put first.
Not just over the SBC but possibly over the Essex County Council as well......as time will tell over the Airports application to close/divert yet another footpath. This time the loss of an ancient footpath, footpath 36 from Eastwood to Rochford. A footpath which has been there long before the airport built a taxiway across it back in the early sixties. However, the airport back then also painted a zebra crossing on the tarmac so that the footpath could continue un-obstructed and un-obstructed it has remained until now. Now the owners of the airport are intent in closing this most often quiet rural walk and diverting it onto a busy main road. The reason they say is because of security . It seems strange that it's taken them all this time to come to this conclusion. However, if this is truly the reason then I propose that such a problem could easily be solved with an electronic gate with a camera either side of the taxiway where it crosses the footpath. I believe it to be a logical, and community minded solution to such a said problem and be possibly cheaper for the Airport than redirecting the footpath which they say they will pay for. However, we will see just how much those Airport owners care for any one or anything but themselves.
[quote][p][bold]notinwestcliffanymor e[/bold] wrote: As a supporter of the airport i think they have brought good things to the town ....but i do wonder if they now have to much control over the council this story and the axing of the airshow do smack of airport intrest being put first.[/p][/quote]Not just over the SBC but possibly over the Essex County Council as well......as time will tell over the Airports application to close/divert yet another footpath. This time the loss of an ancient footpath, footpath 36 from Eastwood to Rochford. A footpath which has been there long before the airport built a taxiway across it back in the early sixties. However, the airport back then also painted a zebra crossing on the tarmac so that the footpath could continue un-obstructed and un-obstructed it has remained until now. Now the owners of the airport are intent in closing this most often quiet rural walk and diverting it onto a busy main road. The reason they say is because of security . It seems strange that it's taken them all this time to come to this conclusion. However, if this is truly the reason then I propose that such a problem could easily be solved with an electronic gate with a camera either side of the taxiway where it crosses the footpath. I believe it to be a logical, and community minded solution to such a said problem and be possibly cheaper for the Airport than redirecting the footpath which they say they will pay for. However, we will see just how much those Airport owners care for any one or anything but themselves. Broadwaywatch
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Tue 15 Jan 13

J_blond says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
It also shows the lie of the airport making one of their car parks free as a 'gift'. This is quite obviously the airport and council working in tandem to deliberately put this small company out of business.
Quite obviously - you often back your comments up with proof, as this is so obvious, could you provide your customary link please?

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with them being kicked out, but that's quite a strong statement to make. I'd have no trouble had the word 'obviously' not been used

It's not obvious to me. I mean of course the airport doesn't want competition, but at 80 spaces, I doubt they're so worried they're knocking the council's door down to get them out. now if it were 800...
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: It also shows the lie of the airport making one of their car parks free as a 'gift'. This is quite obviously the airport and council working in tandem to deliberately put this small company out of business.[/p][/quote]Quite obviously - you often back your comments up with proof, as this is so obvious, could you provide your customary link please? Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with them being kicked out, but that's quite a strong statement to make. I'd have no trouble had the word 'obviously' not been used It's not obvious to me. I mean of course the airport doesn't want competition, but at 80 spaces, I doubt they're so worried they're knocking the council's door down to get them out. now if it were 800... J_blond
  • Score: 0

5:39pm Tue 15 Jan 13

J_blond says...

Oh and Echo, may I also add that the headline is very mis-representative? They haven't been kicked out yet.

So in effect this story could lead people to think that they have already gone, when the reality is they have three months and a fight.

Perhaps - Airport valet parking firm given three-months to close - would have been better? Then again, if one man complaining about buses refusing to accept his free bus pass is an eruption of a row...
Oh and Echo, may I also add that the headline is very mis-representative? They haven't been kicked out yet. So in effect this story could lead people to think that they have already gone, when the reality is they have three months and a fight. Perhaps - Airport valet parking firm given three-months to close - would have been better? Then again, if one man complaining about buses refusing to accept his free bus pass is an eruption of a row... J_blond
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.

Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.


Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.

The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.

Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?

If no is it legal or illegal?

An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.

the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.

no.

what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.

Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
yes I do and scum they are.

but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'

and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.

then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport.

Would you object to me doing it without planning permission?

As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...[/p][/quote]You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities. Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole. Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid. The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later. Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.[/p][/quote]Yes or No was it set up without planning permission? If no is it legal or illegal? An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?[/p][/quote]retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses. the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council. no. what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.[/p][/quote]So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission. Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.[/p][/quote]yes I do and scum they are. but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time' and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment. then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..[/p][/quote]Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport. Would you object to me doing it without planning permission? As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

7:02pm Tue 15 Jan 13

mikepaterson says...

I have used this service. It suited my requirements and wallet better than that offered by the airport. Rather than trying to hound this company, the council should be looking at how to help them provide this great service whilstt in full compliance with the planning laws and the available appropriate land for storing cars.

The Southend Airport spokesman is saying what he is saying because he works for the Airport and so is obviously spouting the company line.

When he states: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers. I guess he means that they work hard with the council to protect their monopoly and to remove the competition which is providing something different (choice) and does provide great value.
I have used this service. It suited my requirements and wallet better than that offered by the airport. Rather than trying to hound this company, the council should be looking at how to help them provide this great service whilstt in full compliance with the planning laws and the available appropriate land for storing cars. The Southend Airport spokesman is saying what he is saying because he works for the Airport and so is obviously spouting the company line. When he states: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers. I guess he means that they work hard with the council to protect their monopoly and to remove the competition which is providing something different (choice) and does provide great value. mikepaterson
  • Score: 0

7:16pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.

Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.


Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.

The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.

Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?

If no is it legal or illegal?

An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.

the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.

no.

what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.

Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
yes I do and scum they are.

but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'

and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.

then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport.

Would you object to me doing it without planning permission?

As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.
It still does not compare. The business in the story is on an industrial estate, not in a residential area.
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...[/p][/quote]You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities. Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole. Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid. The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later. Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.[/p][/quote]Yes or No was it set up without planning permission? If no is it legal or illegal? An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?[/p][/quote]retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses. the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council. no. what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.[/p][/quote]So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission. Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.[/p][/quote]yes I do and scum they are. but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time' and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment. then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..[/p][/quote]Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport. Would you object to me doing it without planning permission? As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.[/p][/quote]It still does not compare. The business in the story is on an industrial estate, not in a residential area. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Shoebury_Cyclist says...

J_blond wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
It also shows the lie of the airport making one of their car parks free as a 'gift'. This is quite obviously the airport and council working in tandem to deliberately put this small company out of business.
Quite obviously - you often back your comments up with proof, as this is so obvious, could you provide your customary link please?

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with them being kicked out, but that's quite a strong statement to make. I'd have no trouble had the word 'obviously' not been used

It's not obvious to me. I mean of course the airport doesn't want competition, but at 80 spaces, I doubt they're so worried they're knocking the council's door down to get them out. now if it were 800...
Last week the airport announced it was making one of its car parks free for two months as a 'gift' to customers. That was clearly an effort to put cheaper competition from local car parking entrepreneurs out of business.

Now this week we have Southend council going after this small company using planning regs to put them out of business.

It isn't hard to see the link.
[quote][p][bold]J_blond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: It also shows the lie of the airport making one of their car parks free as a 'gift'. This is quite obviously the airport and council working in tandem to deliberately put this small company out of business.[/p][/quote]Quite obviously - you often back your comments up with proof, as this is so obvious, could you provide your customary link please? Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with them being kicked out, but that's quite a strong statement to make. I'd have no trouble had the word 'obviously' not been used It's not obvious to me. I mean of course the airport doesn't want competition, but at 80 spaces, I doubt they're so worried they're knocking the council's door down to get them out. now if it were 800...[/p][/quote]Last week the airport announced it was making one of its car parks free for two months as a 'gift' to customers. That was clearly an effort to put cheaper competition from local car parking entrepreneurs out of business. Now this week we have Southend council going after this small company using planning regs to put them out of business. It isn't hard to see the link. Shoebury_Cyclist
  • Score: 0

7:23pm Tue 15 Jan 13

halojump says...

few little porky pies being told by the parking firm here They never left progress road as it wasnt big enough for their needs ( had planning as it was a self drive van hire company on the site)
They left as drive and go ltd on the site has gone into liqudation. Mick Hadley who is involved with the parking firm was the director of that firm.
few little porky pies being told by the parking firm here They never left progress road as it wasnt big enough for their needs ( had planning as it was a self drive van hire company on the site) They left as drive and go ltd on the site has gone into liqudation. Mick Hadley who is involved with the parking firm was the director of that firm. halojump
  • Score: 0

7:25pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Broadwaywatch says...

Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.

Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.


Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.

The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.

Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?

If no is it legal or illegal?

An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.

the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.

no.

what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.

Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
yes I do and scum they are.

but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'

and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.

then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport.

Would you object to me doing it without planning permission?

As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.
What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...[/p][/quote]You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities. Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole. Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid. The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later. Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.[/p][/quote]Yes or No was it set up without planning permission? If no is it legal or illegal? An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?[/p][/quote]retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses. the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council. no. what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.[/p][/quote]So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission. Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.[/p][/quote]yes I do and scum they are. but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time' and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment. then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..[/p][/quote]Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport. Would you object to me doing it without planning permission? As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.[/p][/quote]What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you Broadwaywatch
  • Score: 0

8:23pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

halojump wrote:
few little porky pies being told by the parking firm here They never left progress road as it wasnt big enough for their needs ( had planning as it was a self drive van hire company on the site)
They left as drive and go ltd on the site has gone into liqudation. Mick Hadley who is involved with the parking firm was the director of that firm.
That's intresting to know.
[quote][p][bold]halojump[/bold] wrote: few little porky pies being told by the parking firm here They never left progress road as it wasnt big enough for their needs ( had planning as it was a self drive van hire company on the site) They left as drive and go ltd on the site has gone into liqudation. Mick Hadley who is involved with the parking firm was the director of that firm.[/p][/quote]That's intresting to know. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

Broadwaywatch wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.

Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.


Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.

The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.

Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?

If no is it legal or illegal?

An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.

the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.

no.

what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.

Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
yes I do and scum they are.

but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'

and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.

then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport.

Would you object to me doing it without planning permission?

As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.
What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you
There are the have's and there are the have not's there are the do's and there are the do not's.

I have as I do whilst others have not because they do not.


Who is a better person the man who works hard or the man who sits at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women.

I worked hard (retired for now;-)) never taken recreational drugs never smoked rarely drink, that makes me a far far better person than a junkie a drunk or a scrounger who has never done a days work in.his life.
[quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...[/p][/quote]You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities. Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole. Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid. The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later. Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.[/p][/quote]Yes or No was it set up without planning permission? If no is it legal or illegal? An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?[/p][/quote]retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses. the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council. no. what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.[/p][/quote]So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission. Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.[/p][/quote]yes I do and scum they are. but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time' and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment. then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..[/p][/quote]Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport. Would you object to me doing it without planning permission? As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.[/p][/quote]What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you[/p][/quote]There are the have's and there are the have not's there are the do's and there are the do not's. I have as I do whilst others have not because they do not. Who is a better person the man who works hard or the man who sits at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women. I worked hard (retired for now;-)) never taken recreational drugs never smoked rarely drink, that makes me a far far better person than a junkie a drunk or a scrounger who has never done a days work in.his life. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Tue 15 Jan 13

halojump says...

also what seems strange is Lorraine Larman isnt listed as a director of southend airport car parks but her son and daughter are. Not all as it seems with this company if my previous dealings with drive and go have anything to go by.
also what seems strange is Lorraine Larman isnt listed as a director of southend airport car parks but her son and daughter are. Not all as it seems with this company if my previous dealings with drive and go have anything to go by. halojump
  • Score: 0

9:00pm Tue 15 Jan 13

jayman says...

Max Impact wrote:
Broadwaywatch wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.

Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.


Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.

The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.

Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?

If no is it legal or illegal?

An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.

the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.

no.

what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.

Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
yes I do and scum they are.

but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'

and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.

then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport.

Would you object to me doing it without planning permission?

As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.
What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you
There are the have's and there are the have not's there are the do's and there are the do not's.

I have as I do whilst others have not because they do not.


Who is a better person the man who works hard or the man who sits at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women.

I worked hard (retired for now;-)) never taken recreational drugs never smoked rarely drink, that makes me a far far better person than a junkie a drunk or a scrounger who has never done a days work in.his life.
nice one Max. You have just run straight into the Tory castle keep and shut the door behind you. you have climbed to the highest tower and you have locked yourself away with that comment.

I have worked since i was 17, my first job was in the Army i deployed to northern Ireland and Iraq. I also had a jolly good time down in the Falkland islands at onion ranges and mount pleasant, I thenleft the army once my first son was born and i got a job at Southend hospital as a Health care assistant. I then worked in security for a while to earn a bit more cash. I then had my own business selling army surplus stuff on line and I volunteered at a local school for a while as I was in between jobs, I'm now working and studying in adult mental health, I'm studying for a QCF diploma HSC level three. I say all this because I believe that that max's comment was aimed at me.

I suppose your job history includes doing poke all for anyone else. I could be wrong.
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...[/p][/quote]You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities. Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole. Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid. The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later. Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.[/p][/quote]Yes or No was it set up without planning permission? If no is it legal or illegal? An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?[/p][/quote]retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses. the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council. no. what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.[/p][/quote]So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission. Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.[/p][/quote]yes I do and scum they are. but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time' and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment. then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..[/p][/quote]Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport. Would you object to me doing it without planning permission? As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.[/p][/quote]What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you[/p][/quote]There are the have's and there are the have not's there are the do's and there are the do not's. I have as I do whilst others have not because they do not. Who is a better person the man who works hard or the man who sits at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women. I worked hard (retired for now;-)) never taken recreational drugs never smoked rarely drink, that makes me a far far better person than a junkie a drunk or a scrounger who has never done a days work in.his life.[/p][/quote]nice one Max. You have just run straight into the Tory castle keep and shut the door behind you. you have climbed to the highest tower and you have locked yourself away with that comment. I have worked since i was 17, my first job was in the Army i deployed to northern Ireland and Iraq. I also had a jolly good time down in the Falkland islands at onion ranges and mount pleasant, I thenleft the army once my first son was born and i got a job at Southend hospital as a Health care assistant. I then worked in security for a while to earn a bit more cash. I then had my own business selling army surplus stuff on line and I volunteered at a local school for a while as I was in between jobs, I'm now working and studying in adult mental health, I'm studying for a QCF diploma HSC level three. I say all this because I believe that that max's comment was aimed at me. I suppose your job history includes doing poke all for anyone else. I could be wrong. jayman
  • Score: 0

9:14pm Tue 15 Jan 13

halojump says...

jayman what regiment? from my id you will know mine and my section
jayman what regiment? from my id you will know mine and my section halojump
  • Score: 0

9:55pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Broadwaywatch says...

jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Broadwaywatch wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.

Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.


Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.

The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.

Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?

If no is it legal or illegal?

An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.

the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.

no.

what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.

Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
yes I do and scum they are.

but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'

and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.

then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport.

Would you object to me doing it without planning permission?

As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.
What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you
There are the have's and there are the have not's there are the do's and there are the do not's.

I have as I do whilst others have not because they do not.


Who is a better person the man who works hard or the man who sits at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women.

I worked hard (retired for now;-)) never taken recreational drugs never smoked rarely drink, that makes me a far far better person than a junkie a drunk or a scrounger who has never done a days work in.his life.
nice one Max. You have just run straight into the Tory castle keep and shut the door behind you. you have climbed to the highest tower and you have locked yourself away with that comment.

I have worked since i was 17, my first job was in the Army i deployed to northern Ireland and Iraq. I also had a jolly good time down in the Falkland islands at onion ranges and mount pleasant, I thenleft the army once my first son was born and i got a job at Southend hospital as a Health care assistant. I then worked in security for a while to earn a bit more cash. I then had my own business selling army surplus stuff on line and I volunteered at a local school for a while as I was in between jobs, I'm now working and studying in adult mental health, I'm studying for a QCF diploma HSC level three. I say all this because I believe that that max's comment was aimed at me.

I suppose your job history includes doing poke all for anyone else. I could be wrong.
Max.......my question was what you had against people in rented property. After all by what you have told us in the past it would seem you live it what was once a rented property it once being a council house. Did you not tell us all that you lived in Mendip Crescent and where not all those propertys council owned when first built and for many years after. Not all people who live or have lived in rented property 'sit at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women'. Oh by the way as a child I used to play in the fondations of the house you now live in....small world is'nt it
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...[/p][/quote]You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities. Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole. Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid. The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later. Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.[/p][/quote]Yes or No was it set up without planning permission? If no is it legal or illegal? An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?[/p][/quote]retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses. the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council. no. what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.[/p][/quote]So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission. Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.[/p][/quote]yes I do and scum they are. but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time' and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment. then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..[/p][/quote]Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport. Would you object to me doing it without planning permission? As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.[/p][/quote]What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you[/p][/quote]There are the have's and there are the have not's there are the do's and there are the do not's. I have as I do whilst others have not because they do not. Who is a better person the man who works hard or the man who sits at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women. I worked hard (retired for now;-)) never taken recreational drugs never smoked rarely drink, that makes me a far far better person than a junkie a drunk or a scrounger who has never done a days work in.his life.[/p][/quote]nice one Max. You have just run straight into the Tory castle keep and shut the door behind you. you have climbed to the highest tower and you have locked yourself away with that comment. I have worked since i was 17, my first job was in the Army i deployed to northern Ireland and Iraq. I also had a jolly good time down in the Falkland islands at onion ranges and mount pleasant, I thenleft the army once my first son was born and i got a job at Southend hospital as a Health care assistant. I then worked in security for a while to earn a bit more cash. I then had my own business selling army surplus stuff on line and I volunteered at a local school for a while as I was in between jobs, I'm now working and studying in adult mental health, I'm studying for a QCF diploma HSC level three. I say all this because I believe that that max's comment was aimed at me. I suppose your job history includes doing poke all for anyone else. I could be wrong.[/p][/quote]Max.......my question was what you had against people in rented property. After all by what you have told us in the past it would seem you live it what was once a rented property it once being a council house. Did you not tell us all that you lived in Mendip Crescent and where not all those propertys council owned when first built and for many years after. Not all people who live or have lived in rented property 'sit at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women'. Oh by the way as a child I used to play in the fondations of the house you now live in....small world is'nt it Broadwaywatch
  • Score: 0

10:26pm Tue 15 Jan 13

jayman says...

halojump wrote:
jayman what regiment? from my id you will know mine and my section
very exotic.

I can only guess that you where a 'pathfinder'
[quote][p][bold]halojump[/bold] wrote: jayman what regiment? from my id you will know mine and my section[/p][/quote]very exotic. I can only guess that you where a 'pathfinder' jayman
  • Score: 0

10:32pm Tue 15 Jan 13

halojump says...

there is always a possablity
Jayman its always best not to rise to baiting surely belfast would have taught you that.
what was your trade?
there is always a possablity Jayman its always best not to rise to baiting surely belfast would have taught you that. what was your trade? halojump
  • Score: 0

10:51pm Tue 15 Jan 13

jayman says...

halojump wrote:
there is always a possablity
Jayman its always best not to rise to baiting surely belfast would have taught you that.
what was your trade?
I wasn't a trade and I didn't serve in Belfast though I did fly in through Belfast once. i never did find the door that should have had 'smith air' on it as per my joining instructions. im lucky I didn't ask for a black cab to take me there.

lol.
[quote][p][bold]halojump[/bold] wrote: there is always a possablity Jayman its always best not to rise to baiting surely belfast would have taught you that. what was your trade?[/p][/quote]I wasn't a trade and I didn't serve in Belfast though I did fly in through Belfast once. i never did find the door that should have had 'smith air' on it as per my joining instructions. im lucky I didn't ask for a black cab to take me there. lol. jayman
  • Score: 0

10:55pm Tue 15 Jan 13

halojump says...

smith air good old luton airport lads trying not to look like a soldier with a bergen
smith air good old luton airport lads trying not to look like a soldier with a bergen halojump
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Tue 15 Jan 13

jayman says...

on patrol with a VJ going mental because the traffic lights where changing colour or changing a ton of antler battery down may street or stuck in sangar six looking out as my will to live left my body.

happiest days of my life

lol
on patrol with a VJ going mental because the traffic lights where changing colour or changing a ton of antler battery down may street or stuck in sangar six looking out as my will to live left my body. happiest days of my life lol jayman
  • Score: 0

11:31pm Tue 15 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

Broadwaywatch wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Broadwaywatch wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.

Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.


Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.

The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.

Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?

If no is it legal or illegal?

An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.

the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.

no.

what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.

Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
yes I do and scum they are.

but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'

and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.

then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport.

Would you object to me doing it without planning permission?

As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.
What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you
There are the have's and there are the have not's there are the do's and there are the do not's.

I have as I do whilst others have not because they do not.



Who is a better person the man who works hard or the man who sits at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women.

I worked hard (retired for now;-)) never taken recreational drugs never smoked rarely drink, that makes me a far far better person than a junkie a drunk or a scrounger who has never done a days work in.his life.
nice one Max. You have just run straight into the Tory castle keep and shut the door behind you. you have climbed to the highest tower and you have locked yourself away with that comment.

I have worked since i was 17, my first job was in the Army i deployed to northern Ireland and Iraq. I also had a jolly good time down in the Falkland islands at onion ranges and mount pleasant, I thenleft the army once my first son was born and i got a job at Southend hospital as a Health care assistant. I then worked in security for a while to earn a bit more cash. I then had my own business selling army surplus stuff on line and I volunteered at a local school for a while as I was in between jobs, I'm now working and studying in adult mental health, I'm studying for a QCF diploma HSC level three. I say all this because I believe that that max's comment was aimed at me.

I suppose your job history includes doing poke all for anyone else. I could be wrong.
Max.......my question was what you had against people in rented property. After all by what you have told us in the past it would seem you live it what was once a rented property it once being a council house. Did you not tell us all that you lived in Mendip Crescent and where not all those propertys council owned when first built and for many years after. Not all people who live or have lived in rented property 'sit at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women'. Oh by the way as a child I used to play in the fondations of the house you now live in....small world is'nt it
I bought it off a private seller, not looked through the deeds for about a million years, they are in a storage unit along with about 30 years of my paperwork, recipts and god knows what else probaly Lord Lucan hiding out as well, also got family papers going back to the day god created the earth moon and stars!

yes I'm a hoarder, got every bank statement ever sent to me from the day I had my first account, keep meaning to go through it all but as soon as I open the door I close it again! now I'm retired guess I have the time to start.

Still time comes when you have to do it as you can't leave it for those you leave behind.
[quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...[/p][/quote]You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities. Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole. Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid. The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later. Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.[/p][/quote]Yes or No was it set up without planning permission? If no is it legal or illegal? An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?[/p][/quote]retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses. the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council. no. what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.[/p][/quote]So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission. Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.[/p][/quote]yes I do and scum they are. but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time' and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment. then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..[/p][/quote]Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport. Would you object to me doing it without planning permission? As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.[/p][/quote]What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you[/p][/quote]There are the have's and there are the have not's there are the do's and there are the do not's. I have as I do whilst others have not because they do not. Who is a better person the man who works hard or the man who sits at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women. I worked hard (retired for now;-)) never taken recreational drugs never smoked rarely drink, that makes me a far far better person than a junkie a drunk or a scrounger who has never done a days work in.his life.[/p][/quote]nice one Max. You have just run straight into the Tory castle keep and shut the door behind you. you have climbed to the highest tower and you have locked yourself away with that comment. I have worked since i was 17, my first job was in the Army i deployed to northern Ireland and Iraq. I also had a jolly good time down in the Falkland islands at onion ranges and mount pleasant, I thenleft the army once my first son was born and i got a job at Southend hospital as a Health care assistant. I then worked in security for a while to earn a bit more cash. I then had my own business selling army surplus stuff on line and I volunteered at a local school for a while as I was in between jobs, I'm now working and studying in adult mental health, I'm studying for a QCF diploma HSC level three. I say all this because I believe that that max's comment was aimed at me. I suppose your job history includes doing poke all for anyone else. I could be wrong.[/p][/quote]Max.......my question was what you had against people in rented property. After all by what you have told us in the past it would seem you live it what was once a rented property it once being a council house. Did you not tell us all that you lived in Mendip Crescent and where not all those propertys council owned when first built and for many years after. Not all people who live or have lived in rented property 'sit at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women'. Oh by the way as a child I used to play in the fondations of the house you now live in....small world is'nt it[/p][/quote]I bought it off a private seller, not looked through the deeds for about a million years, they are in a storage unit along with about 30 years of my paperwork, recipts and god knows what else probaly Lord Lucan hiding out as well, also got family papers going back to the day god created the earth moon and stars! yes I'm a hoarder, got every bank statement ever sent to me from the day I had my first account, keep meaning to go through it all but as soon as I open the door I close it again! now I'm retired guess I have the time to start. Still time comes when you have to do it as you can't leave it for those you leave behind. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

7:49am Wed 16 Jan 13

Democrat says...

I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."

The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices.
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers." The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices. Democrat
  • Score: 0

7:49am Wed 16 Jan 13

Democrat says...

I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."

The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices.
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers." The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices. Democrat
  • Score: 0

7:49am Wed 16 Jan 13

Democrat says...

I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."

The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices.
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers." The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices. Democrat
  • Score: 0

7:49am Wed 16 Jan 13

Democrat says...

I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."

The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices.
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers." The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices. Democrat
  • Score: 0

7:51am Wed 16 Jan 13

Democrat says...

Democrat wrote:
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."

The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices.
Blimey! I only pressed 'submit' once and three copies go out. Sorry. Unintended.
[quote][p][bold]Democrat[/bold] wrote: I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers." The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged prices.[/p][/quote]Blimey! I only pressed 'submit' once and three copies go out. Sorry. Unintended. Democrat
  • Score: 0

8:58am Wed 16 Jan 13

rodgdodge says...

"" Democrat wrote:
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."

The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged price ""


Can they ( the airport) offer a service, that may include having a vehicle ,valeted prior to return and even maybe having a MOT test/ service done, during the customers time away?
Services like these ,would be excellent `time savers` for `hard working` travellers to have available!!??
"" Democrat wrote: I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers." The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged price "" Can they ( the airport) offer a service, that may include having a vehicle ,valeted prior to return and even maybe having a MOT test/ service done, during the customers time away? Services like these ,would be excellent `time savers` for `hard working` travellers to have available!!?? rodgdodge
  • Score: 0

9:38am Wed 16 Jan 13

jayman says...

rodgdodge wrote:
"" Democrat wrote:
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."

The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged price ""


Can they ( the airport) offer a service, that may include having a vehicle ,valeted prior to return and even maybe having a MOT test/ service done, during the customers time away?
Services like these ,would be excellent `time savers` for `hard working` travellers to have available!!??
I question your use of the word 'hard working'

what are you implying,

personally I believe that digging a ditch is much more 'hard work' then sitting in an warm office all day pondering over abstract and theoretical, paper based bo11ocks.

Going abroad to do the same function 'as above' is just an enhanced layer of abstract, theoretical paper and spreadsheet based bo11cks.
[quote][p][bold]rodgdodge[/bold] wrote: "" Democrat wrote: I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers." The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged price "" Can they ( the airport) offer a service, that may include having a vehicle ,valeted prior to return and even maybe having a MOT test/ service done, during the customers time away? Services like these ,would be excellent `time savers` for `hard working` travellers to have available!!??[/p][/quote]I question your use of the word 'hard working' what are you implying, personally I believe that digging a ditch is much more 'hard work' then sitting in an warm office all day pondering over abstract and theoretical, paper based bo11ocks. Going abroad to do the same function 'as above' is just an enhanced layer of abstract, theoretical paper and spreadsheet based bo11cks. jayman
  • Score: 0

10:40am Wed 16 Jan 13

J_blond says...

Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
J_blond wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote: It also shows the lie of the airport making one of their car parks free as a 'gift'. This is quite obviously the airport and council working in tandem to deliberately put this small company out of business.
Quite obviously - you often back your comments up with proof, as this is so obvious, could you provide your customary link please? Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with them being kicked out, but that's quite a strong statement to make. I'd have no trouble had the word 'obviously' not been used It's not obvious to me. I mean of course the airport doesn't want competition, but at 80 spaces, I doubt they're so worried they're knocking the council's door down to get them out. now if it were 800...
Last week the airport announced it was making one of its car parks free for two months as a 'gift' to customers. That was clearly an effort to put cheaper competition from local car parking entrepreneurs out of business. Now this week we have Southend council going after this small company using planning regs to put them out of business. It isn't hard to see the link.
That's not a link, that's a coincidence. Unless you can prove a link, it's not obviously a collaboration on the part of both.
[quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J_blond[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: It also shows the lie of the airport making one of their car parks free as a 'gift'. This is quite obviously the airport and council working in tandem to deliberately put this small company out of business.[/p][/quote]Quite obviously - you often back your comments up with proof, as this is so obvious, could you provide your customary link please? Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with them being kicked out, but that's quite a strong statement to make. I'd have no trouble had the word 'obviously' not been used It's not obvious to me. I mean of course the airport doesn't want competition, but at 80 spaces, I doubt they're so worried they're knocking the council's door down to get them out. now if it were 800...[/p][/quote]Last week the airport announced it was making one of its car parks free for two months as a 'gift' to customers. That was clearly an effort to put cheaper competition from local car parking entrepreneurs out of business. Now this week we have Southend council going after this small company using planning regs to put them out of business. It isn't hard to see the link.[/p][/quote]That's not a link, that's a coincidence. Unless you can prove a link, it's not obviously a collaboration on the part of both. J_blond
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

jayman wrote:
rodgdodge wrote:
"" Democrat wrote:
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."

The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged price ""


Can they ( the airport) offer a service, that may include having a vehicle ,valeted prior to return and even maybe having a MOT test/ service done, during the customers time away?
Services like these ,would be excellent `time savers` for `hard working` travellers to have available!!??
I question your use of the word 'hard working'

what are you implying,

personally I believe that digging a ditch is much more 'hard work' then sitting in an warm office all day pondering over abstract and theoretical, paper based bo11ocks.

Going abroad to do the same function 'as above' is just an enhanced layer of abstract, theoretical paper and spreadsheet based bo11cks.
But nothing like the bo11ock5 you spout.

So I take it that you have been hiding the fact that you have the most in depth and intimate knowledge of running an airport, prehaps you should apply to run it as this in depth and intimate knowledge you seem to have acquired should not go to waste.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rodgdodge[/bold] wrote: "" Democrat wrote: I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers." The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged price "" Can they ( the airport) offer a service, that may include having a vehicle ,valeted prior to return and even maybe having a MOT test/ service done, during the customers time away? Services like these ,would be excellent `time savers` for `hard working` travellers to have available!!??[/p][/quote]I question your use of the word 'hard working' what are you implying, personally I believe that digging a ditch is much more 'hard work' then sitting in an warm office all day pondering over abstract and theoretical, paper based bo11ocks. Going abroad to do the same function 'as above' is just an enhanced layer of abstract, theoretical paper and spreadsheet based bo11cks.[/p][/quote]But nothing like the bo11ock5 you spout. So I take it that you have been hiding the fact that you have the most in depth and intimate knowledge of running an airport, prehaps you should apply to run it as this in depth and intimate knowledge you seem to have acquired should not go to waste. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

5:00pm Wed 16 Jan 13

jayman says...

Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
rodgdodge wrote:
"" Democrat wrote:
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."

The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged price ""


Can they ( the airport) offer a service, that may include having a vehicle ,valeted prior to return and even maybe having a MOT test/ service done, during the customers time away?
Services like these ,would be excellent `time savers` for `hard working` travellers to have available!!??
I question your use of the word 'hard working'

what are you implying,

personally I believe that digging a ditch is much more 'hard work' then sitting in an warm office all day pondering over abstract and theoretical, paper based bo11ocks.

Going abroad to do the same function 'as above' is just an enhanced layer of abstract, theoretical paper and spreadsheet based bo11cks.
But nothing like the bo11ock5 you spout.

So I take it that you have been hiding the fact that you have the most in depth and intimate knowledge of running an airport, prehaps you should apply to run it as this in depth and intimate knowledge you seem to have acquired should not go to waste.
what are you on about now.

I was not referring to 'running an airport'

I was drawing issue to the term 'hard working' as if its the preserve of 'suits' and 'abstract sector workers'
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rodgdodge[/bold] wrote: "" Democrat wrote: I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers." The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged price "" Can they ( the airport) offer a service, that may include having a vehicle ,valeted prior to return and even maybe having a MOT test/ service done, during the customers time away? Services like these ,would be excellent `time savers` for `hard working` travellers to have available!!??[/p][/quote]I question your use of the word 'hard working' what are you implying, personally I believe that digging a ditch is much more 'hard work' then sitting in an warm office all day pondering over abstract and theoretical, paper based bo11ocks. Going abroad to do the same function 'as above' is just an enhanced layer of abstract, theoretical paper and spreadsheet based bo11cks.[/p][/quote]But nothing like the bo11ock5 you spout. So I take it that you have been hiding the fact that you have the most in depth and intimate knowledge of running an airport, prehaps you should apply to run it as this in depth and intimate knowledge you seem to have acquired should not go to waste.[/p][/quote]what are you on about now. I was not referring to 'running an airport' I was drawing issue to the term 'hard working' as if its the preserve of 'suits' and 'abstract sector workers' jayman
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Nebs says...

jayman wrote:
rodgdodge wrote:
"" Democrat wrote:
I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers."

The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged price ""


Can they ( the airport) offer a service, that may include having a vehicle ,valeted prior to return and even maybe having a MOT test/ service done, during the customers time away?
Services like these ,would be excellent `time savers` for `hard working` travellers to have available!!??
I question your use of the word 'hard working'

what are you implying,

personally I believe that digging a ditch is much more 'hard work' then sitting in an warm office all day pondering over abstract and theoretical, paper based bo11ocks.

Going abroad to do the same function 'as above' is just an enhanced layer of abstract, theoretical paper and spreadsheet based bo11cks.
Many manual labourers travel abroad to work. Many in such noble professions as drug counselling sit behind a desk all day writing reports and producing spreadsheets full of statistics. It takes all sorts to make a world.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rodgdodge[/bold] wrote: "" Democrat wrote: I am a supporter of the airport, but I find the most worrying thing about this article is the comment by Alastair Welch, the managing director of Southend Airport, said: “At the airport, we work hard to ensure we offer unrivalled choice and value for our customers." The use of the word 'unrivalled' indicates the hope of monopoly over competition and, therefore, higher unchallenged price "" Can they ( the airport) offer a service, that may include having a vehicle ,valeted prior to return and even maybe having a MOT test/ service done, during the customers time away? Services like these ,would be excellent `time savers` for `hard working` travellers to have available!!??[/p][/quote]I question your use of the word 'hard working' what are you implying, personally I believe that digging a ditch is much more 'hard work' then sitting in an warm office all day pondering over abstract and theoretical, paper based bo11ocks. Going abroad to do the same function 'as above' is just an enhanced layer of abstract, theoretical paper and spreadsheet based bo11cks.[/p][/quote]Many manual labourers travel abroad to work. Many in such noble professions as drug counselling sit behind a desk all day writing reports and producing spreadsheets full of statistics. It takes all sorts to make a world. Nebs
  • Score: 0

6:42pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Broadwaywatch says...

Max Impact wrote:
Broadwaywatch wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Broadwaywatch wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
Shoebury_Cyclist wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...
You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities.

Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole.


Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid.

The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later.

Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.
Yes or No was it set up without planning permission?

If no is it legal or illegal?

An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?
retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses.

the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council.

no.

what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.
So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission.

Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.
yes I do and scum they are.

but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time'

and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment.

then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..
Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport.

Would you object to me doing it without planning permission?

As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.
What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you
There are the have's and there are the have not's there are the do's and there are the do not's.

I have as I do whilst others have not because they do not.



Who is a better person the man who works hard or the man who sits at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women.

I worked hard (retired for now;-)) never taken recreational drugs never smoked rarely drink, that makes me a far far better person than a junkie a drunk or a scrounger who has never done a days work in.his life.
nice one Max. You have just run straight into the Tory castle keep and shut the door behind you. you have climbed to the highest tower and you have locked yourself away with that comment.

I have worked since i was 17, my first job was in the Army i deployed to northern Ireland and Iraq. I also had a jolly good time down in the Falkland islands at onion ranges and mount pleasant, I thenleft the army once my first son was born and i got a job at Southend hospital as a Health care assistant. I then worked in security for a while to earn a bit more cash. I then had my own business selling army surplus stuff on line and I volunteered at a local school for a while as I was in between jobs, I'm now working and studying in adult mental health, I'm studying for a QCF diploma HSC level three. I say all this because I believe that that max's comment was aimed at me.

I suppose your job history includes doing poke all for anyone else. I could be wrong.
Max.......my question was what you had against people in rented property. After all by what you have told us in the past it would seem you live it what was once a rented property it once being a council house. Did you not tell us all that you lived in Mendip Crescent and where not all those propertys council owned when first built and for many years after. Not all people who live or have lived in rented property 'sit at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women'. Oh by the way as a child I used to play in the fondations of the house you now live in....small world is'nt it
I bought it off a private seller, not looked through the deeds for about a million years, they are in a storage unit along with about 30 years of my paperwork, recipts and god knows what else probaly Lord Lucan hiding out as well, also got family papers going back to the day god created the earth moon and stars!

yes I'm a hoarder, got every bank statement ever sent to me from the day I had my first account, keep meaning to go through it all but as soon as I open the door I close it again! now I'm retired guess I have the time to start.

Still time comes when you have to do it as you can't leave it for those you leave behind.
Thats all very interesting Max...thankyou and to be quite honest I myself am a bit of a hoarder but not to the extreme you purport to be however you did'nt answer my question as to why you come across of being against all those who are in rented property; after all you claim you yourself rent out property. I can't believe that you purposely avoided my question. I am inclined to think that you became so engrossed in the details of your hoarding that you forgot. So might I be so bold as to ask again 'what is it you have against those of our and others communities that rent their homes instead of having ownership'?
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Broadwaywatch[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoebury_Cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: So I take it the shoebury_cyclist and j-w believe planning laws should be ignored and we can build what we want where we want, let us know your addresses and I buy the surrounding buildings knock them down and have a chemical waste disposal site, it will create jobs if that's ok with you, uf not it's tough as the planning laws can be ignored or is it only when it directly effects you that planning laws should be enforced...[/p][/quote]You hypocrite. I seem to remember you telling us about how the airport expansion wuld be greta for the local economy. Creating jobs and business opportunities. Now this small company has created ten jobs, and the airport and council are working together to put them out of business and those ten people on the dole. Oh I get it, creating jobs is only ok if it's your beloved airport that creates them, right? How dare anyone else want to earn a quid. The council had no problem demolishing York Road Market, and then giving itself planning permission for a TEMPORARY Christmas car park on the site. A TEMPORARY Christmas car park that is still there 3 years later. Southend council = lying hypocrites. Airport owners = lying greedy b*st*rds.[/p][/quote]Yes or No was it set up without planning permission? If no is it legal or illegal? An intresting question pops up now, as it is currently operating without permission will any insurance on the site become null and void?[/p][/quote]retrospective planning permission is a common practice with businesses. the fact that the business was a viable 'rate paying' employer that was operating on land that is designated as commercial land should have been a key consideration for the council. no. what's going on here pretty much confirms what i have been saying all along. the council and Stobarts are behaving like a business cartel, and they decide who gets a slice of the pie. local aspiration and entrepreneurial spirit for anyone who doesn't belong to a large corporate or is not on a 'preferred' list of names has no chance.[/p][/quote]So I could put my chemical waste plant in next door to you, then when people moan I can go for retrospective planning permission. Did you not say on a previous story you rent from a scum land lord.[/p][/quote]yes I do and scum they are. but I'm in the process of holding them all to account 'one thread at a time' and no silly. you could not just whack up a chemical plant, you would need permission from the environment agency and you would need a waste management licence, the health protection agency would need to do an impact and contamination survey and analysis, the department of food, fisheries and rural affairs would need to do an impact analysis on potential contamination to the food chain and water ways. The health and safety executive would need to do an assessment. then you can go for planning permission, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't think the example you have given is comparable to parking a few cars on some concrete..[/p][/quote]Alright then buy the houses alongside the one you rent, knock them down and lay out a car park, ban all those that live in the road from using it open it only to people that are flying from the airport. Would you object to me doing it without planning permission? As it would be creating jobs what about those people jobs or will they not amtter because it is effecting YOU.[/p][/quote]What is this thing with you Max......what is your deep routed problem about those in this country that are in rented property. You seem to keep on about it in quite a few of your posts? Are you saying that they are lesser mortals than yourself? I only ask because because I don't wish to form a wrong impression of you[/p][/quote]There are the have's and there are the have not's there are the do's and there are the do not's. I have as I do whilst others have not because they do not. Who is a better person the man who works hard or the man who sits at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women. I worked hard (retired for now;-)) never taken recreational drugs never smoked rarely drink, that makes me a far far better person than a junkie a drunk or a scrounger who has never done a days work in.his life.[/p][/quote]nice one Max. You have just run straight into the Tory castle keep and shut the door behind you. you have climbed to the highest tower and you have locked yourself away with that comment. I have worked since i was 17, my first job was in the Army i deployed to northern Ireland and Iraq. I also had a jolly good time down in the Falkland islands at onion ranges and mount pleasant, I thenleft the army once my first son was born and i got a job at Southend hospital as a Health care assistant. I then worked in security for a while to earn a bit more cash. I then had my own business selling army surplus stuff on line and I volunteered at a local school for a while as I was in between jobs, I'm now working and studying in adult mental health, I'm studying for a QCF diploma HSC level three. I say all this because I believe that that max's comment was aimed at me. I suppose your job history includes doing poke all for anyone else. I could be wrong.[/p][/quote]Max.......my question was what you had against people in rented property. After all by what you have told us in the past it would seem you live it what was once a rented property it once being a council house. Did you not tell us all that you lived in Mendip Crescent and where not all those propertys council owned when first built and for many years after. Not all people who live or have lived in rented property 'sit at home smoking dope with many kids by as many women'. Oh by the way as a child I used to play in the fondations of the house you now live in....small world is'nt it[/p][/quote]I bought it off a private seller, not looked through the deeds for about a million years, they are in a storage unit along with about 30 years of my paperwork, recipts and god knows what else probaly Lord Lucan hiding out as well, also got family papers going back to the day god created the earth moon and stars! yes I'm a hoarder, got every bank statement ever sent to me from the day I had my first account, keep meaning to go through it all but as soon as I open the door I close it again! now I'm retired guess I have the time to start. Still time comes when you have to do it as you can't leave it for those you leave behind.[/p][/quote]Thats all very interesting Max...thankyou and to be quite honest I myself am a bit of a hoarder but not to the extreme you purport to be however you did'nt answer my question as to why you come across of being against all those who are in rented property; after all you claim you yourself rent out property. I can't believe that you purposely avoided my question. I am inclined to think that you became so engrossed in the details of your hoarding that you forgot. So might I be so bold as to ask again 'what is it you have against those of our and others communities that rent their homes instead of having ownership'? Broadwaywatch
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Thu 17 Jan 13

notinwestcliffanymore says...

Blimey not only was jayman a killing machine for which ever goverment was in power, he has also been on a plane and i presume took off from an airport.
Blimey not only was jayman a killing machine for which ever goverment was in power, he has also been on a plane and i presume took off from an airport. notinwestcliffanymore
  • Score: 0

10:07am Fri 18 Jan 13

jayman says...

notinwestcliffanymor
e
wrote:
Blimey not only was jayman a killing machine for which ever goverment was in power, he has also been on a plane and i presume took off from an airport.
Well, I didn't levitate into theatre. I got commercial flights into NI. Everywhere else I had to suffer the horrors of RAF aircraft. And as for 'killing machine' lol... 99% of any military career is pure boredom.
[quote][p][bold]notinwestcliffanymor e[/bold] wrote: Blimey not only was jayman a killing machine for which ever goverment was in power, he has also been on a plane and i presume took off from an airport.[/p][/quote]Well, I didn't levitate into theatre. I got commercial flights into NI. Everywhere else I had to suffer the horrors of RAF aircraft. And as for 'killing machine' lol... 99% of any military career is pure boredom. jayman
  • Score: 0

9:26pm Fri 18 Jan 13

halojump says...

jayman wrote:
notinwestcliffanymor e wrote: Blimey not only was jayman a killing machine for which ever goverment was in power, he has also been on a plane and i presume took off from an airport.
Well, I didn't levitate into theatre. I got commercial flights into NI. Everywhere else I had to suffer the horrors of RAF aircraft. And as for 'killing machine' lol... 99% of any military career is pure boredom.
speak for yourself jayman i was only bored 98% of the time.
You cant get better service than the RAF tristars, they would put easy jet to shame.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notinwestcliffanymor e[/bold] wrote: Blimey not only was jayman a killing machine for which ever goverment was in power, he has also been on a plane and i presume took off from an airport.[/p][/quote]Well, I didn't levitate into theatre. I got commercial flights into NI. Everywhere else I had to suffer the horrors of RAF aircraft. And as for 'killing machine' lol... 99% of any military career is pure boredom.[/p][/quote]speak for yourself jayman i was only bored 98% of the time. You cant get better service than the RAF tristars, they would put easy jet to shame. halojump
  • Score: 0

11:07pm Fri 18 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

halojump wrote:
jayman wrote:
notinwestcliffanymor e wrote: Blimey not only was jayman a killing machine for which ever goverment was in power, he has also been on a plane and i presume took off from an airport.
Well, I didn't levitate into theatre. I got commercial flights into NI. Everywhere else I had to suffer the horrors of RAF aircraft. And as for 'killing machine' lol... 99% of any military career is pure boredom.
speak for yourself jayman i was only bored 98% of the time.
You cant get better service than the RAF tristars, they would put easy jet to shame.
If you think the RAF aircraft are bad try some of the smaller african country aircraft

Went up in a cargo DC3, they were clearing moss off the aircraft as we walked out, we got on board and saw fuel drums nothing strange there as they fly fuel to remote places so thought nothing more of it until mid flight when they started to pump fuel from the drums to the fuel tanks in the wings!

Apparently the aircraft had not flown for two years before we hired it.
[quote][p][bold]halojump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notinwestcliffanymor e[/bold] wrote: Blimey not only was jayman a killing machine for which ever goverment was in power, he has also been on a plane and i presume took off from an airport.[/p][/quote]Well, I didn't levitate into theatre. I got commercial flights into NI. Everywhere else I had to suffer the horrors of RAF aircraft. And as for 'killing machine' lol... 99% of any military career is pure boredom.[/p][/quote]speak for yourself jayman i was only bored 98% of the time. You cant get better service than the RAF tristars, they would put easy jet to shame.[/p][/quote]If you think the RAF aircraft are bad try some of the smaller african country aircraft Went up in a cargo DC3, they were clearing moss off the aircraft as we walked out, we got on board and saw fuel drums nothing strange there as they fly fuel to remote places so thought nothing more of it until mid flight when they started to pump fuel from the drums to the fuel tanks in the wings! Apparently the aircraft had not flown for two years before we hired it. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

10:50am Sun 20 Jan 13

Alan Jacobs says...

Yep this is typical of the Council being in the pocket of the airport.
Uttllesford Council that has Stansted on its patch has done it's level best to clamp down on private parking offered by people in the local rural community who have a bit of land near the airport and just want to earn a few quid.
I parked on a piece of layby on a private field off of the road to wait for a few minutes and was soon confronted by a uniformed bod in his noddy car threatning to give me a ticket and i wasn't even on the public highway.
Yep this is typical of the Council being in the pocket of the airport. Uttllesford Council that has Stansted on its patch has done it's level best to clamp down on private parking offered by people in the local rural community who have a bit of land near the airport and just want to earn a few quid. I parked on a piece of layby on a private field off of the road to wait for a few minutes and was soon confronted by a uniformed bod in his noddy car threatning to give me a ticket and i wasn't even on the public highway. Alan Jacobs
  • Score: 0

3:13pm Mon 21 Jan 13

Max Impact says...

Alan Jacobs wrote:
Yep this is typical of the Council being in the pocket of the airport.
Uttllesford Council that has Stansted on its patch has done it's level best to clamp down on private parking offered by people in the local rural community who have a bit of land near the airport and just want to earn a few quid.
I parked on a piece of layby on a private field off of the road to wait for a few minutes and was soon confronted by a uniformed bod in his noddy car threatning to give me a ticket and i wasn't even on the public highway.
I have reported you to the echo, the council and the airport fir the comment you have made.
[quote][p][bold]Alan Jacobs[/bold] wrote: Yep this is typical of the Council being in the pocket of the airport. Uttllesford Council that has Stansted on its patch has done it's level best to clamp down on private parking offered by people in the local rural community who have a bit of land near the airport and just want to earn a few quid. I parked on a piece of layby on a private field off of the road to wait for a few minutes and was soon confronted by a uniformed bod in his noddy car threatning to give me a ticket and i wasn't even on the public highway.[/p][/quote]I have reported you to the echo, the council and the airport fir the comment you have made. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree