Saturday, April 26, 2014

Breakfast thought - What a beautiful place - Cllr Clive Hart's Head

What it must be to have the mind of Labour Leader Clive Hart, where everything is beautiful, a marvellous meander through Thanet is documented in Friday's Gazette where we discover that everything is just tickey-boo.

Not only do we live in a wonderland but according to Clive Hart's recent report to Council, things are pretty much fine and dandy, as far as council matters are concerned.

Presumably when Clive takes a stroll around his manor he does not visit or even enquire how people feel about the decline around the much of Northdown Rd. and particularly the Margate end. Several people I've spoken, with feel intimidated, uncomfortable or threatened, even allowing for the beauty of the place including myself.

Clive doesn't think it necessary to mention bad debts, money for housing diverted to pay legal costs of an illegal ban on exporting animals, or more bad debts being written off another quarter mill, down the pan to join the millions lost to TransEuropa ferries.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had more, reality and less politics.

Lets hope next time Clive gives an opinion, he's fully awake and not just dreaming.


  1. It's called a "glass half-full" attitude. You should try it some time, you might even smile!

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. The country, or to be more precise Thanet where we live, is not so terribly, it is just appallingly badly run. Hart's denial of this fact is what Labour are about. Perpetual political posturing and self praise because they could never stand to be judge by their record. They are, and always have been at every level, incompetent administrators but they have a big drum and a loud trumpet. Hart is just the local trumpeter.

    1. Wow, 11:10 sounds just like Flaigy! Are you related?

    2. No not related, but if you have a point to prove my statement incorrect, make it. Tell us about some successful Labour administration like, maybe Attlee's or Wilson's or even that of dear old Uncle Jim where folk could not even get buried. Most politicians can make the odd cock up, but Labours are both perpetual and monumental.

  4. It seems to be the UKIP way to sell the idea that the electorate's woes are all the fault of immigrants, or any group in society that is in some way different from the majority. It seems, now, to be the UKIP way to talk down an area and dwell on everything that is negative. I don't support the naive "rose tinted spectacles" approach, but the UKIP style is far worse.

    But it works. Push everyone into a corner, tell them if they start blaming and hating foreigners - or whatever other group you line up in your sights - and getting rid of them, all will then be well, and, yes, you get votes.

    There are some important historical precedents to bear in mind, of course…

  5. Not sure where UKIP enters this post, however UKIP are only highlighting a lack of legitimacy of the Euro project, a pretend parliament, powerless MEP's and bent accounting, corrupt to the core, and it seems led by Angela Merkel.

    Dim witted brainwashed politicos such as yourself don't need rose tinted glasses since you seem totally blind to whats going on.

    And stupid as you clearly are, 11:16 you've introduced migration into the debate, the penultimate remark on this post is

    "Wouldn't it be nice if we had more, reality and less politics

    ( I take your on of those typical lefties, a little bit of education and you think you know everything)

    Still your poor cognitive ability in understanding Tony's point, explains your hatred of open minded debate and blind prejudice.

  6. What a shame that you can't express an opinion, Anon 12.07, without being rude and offensive. I hardly think your contribution and manner is conducive to "open-minded debate".

  7. Sorry you bought the race card to the party!

    1. Anon, I did not mention race at all. I referred only to immigrants and foreigners. In his previous post, Tony Flaig drew a distinction between nationalism and racism, suggesting the former is good, the latter maybe not so. If you are supporting Tony's line, then maybe your quarrel is with him not me.

      So again, just try to avoid being rude and offensive. And don't read into others' comments something that isn't there.

    2. 06 29 What is wrong with upholding a national identity, I think most of us with a british passport, have great pride in this countries heritage of tolerance and generally honest legal system.

      The thrust of my posting, is this, the apparent view of Clive Hart, and by association the rest of his gang, appears to be, that there are no significant problems in Thanet.

      It seems Labour, the left such as yourself, are happy to issue racial or nationalist slurs,
      I've removed two such items.

      This post never mentioned migration, or UKIP,it's something that it you introduced. Like many, of limited intellect, you cannot comprehend, that UKIP have a legitimate aim of disengaging us from what is an undemocratic, corrupt organisation the EU..

      UKIP are very popular because 70 out of 100 citizens of this country would like this country to regain sovereignty from Brussels

      Although it may not be you posting offensive comments clearly one sharing your views is, so please don't I think such things would be classed as a hate crime

    3. Why do you and your kind have to resort to insults against those who challenge you? Is this what you interpret as "debate"? You arrogantly claim that, because I disagree with you, I am "of limited intellect". Who the hell do you think you are? Clearly equality is not one of your principles.

      And no, I would never post offensive comments of the kind you removed, so don't even try to link me with those who may have aligned general opinions.

    4. What makes you think "I would never post offensive comments " has any credence given your anon status

    5. PS why not take the advice Duncan Smithson and the I would have some authority. Set up a google account with a name which would still be anon

    6. Surely you should be focussing on the issues and points people raise - whether anonymously or otherwise - especially when they are posted without the rudeness you employ, Mr Flaig. As I have said to you before, if you, supported by the likes of Mr Smithson, are so against anonymous contributions, bar them from your blog. Job done. It seems, though, that your real issue is any challenge to your poorly thought through and poorly argued "case".

  8. Open minded debate, 12:10, being where you accuse others of racism, but then claim the moral high ground when they respond. Immigration is a legitimate issue and one that the whole world needs to formulate policies on as population growth and rising sea levels will increase the movement of peoples to the high (or perceived richer) ground.

    The Left's way of stifling such debate on some PC ground will ultimate lead to increasing violence as people are left with no other way of expressing themselves as their homelands and very ways of life are threatened.

    1. @12:10 Where was 12:10 "stifling debate" and "bringing the race card to the party?"

      I don't think your debating skills are exactly brilliant.and as for "cognitive ability"?!!

      It's appears you're less able to debate and use your so-called cognitive ability than the person you're attacking.

    2. The race card was introduced by 11:16 in the usual manner of leftwing politicians 13:41, a typical sly tactic go nuclear with some offensive accusation but plausible. A bit like Clive Hart and Labour claiming to have done everything possible to help Manston.

    3. Cripes 12:15! You're off your rocker!!

      But that's The Tony Flaig Fan Club for you.

  9. Multiculturalism: A cult based on a concept not entirely revealed to its cult followers. Multiculturalism is a belief system that ALL cultures within one land should be accorded equal merit. For example after World War 2 six thousand members of an SS Division were settled in UK and multiculturalism, if actually lawful, would ensure that their culture (Gassing Jews, exterminating unarmed civilian populations racism) had equal status of the culture of the land of Tommy Atkins which had just defeated said SS.

    So the multiculturalism cult leaders got together. "Best not mention the SS culture the disciples might notice that the cult is mad"

    Then a load of perverts formed a group "Paedophile Information Exchange" with affiliation to Harriet Harman's National Council for Civil Liberties.

    So the Multiculturalism gurus got together and concluded "Best not mention the culture of the paedos"

    Then it was female genital mutilation "Best not mention that aspect of Islam"

    And so the cult followers kept believing as like any cult it works on the OCD bits of the brain and belief gives the cult addict a little brain chemical reward and they stay hooked.

    Then there was the Lozells riot and the cult leaders spoke to a religious fundamentalist (Addicted to a religion) and they told Mr Blair "Multiculturalism has failed but can we keep quiet about it as there is good money in it"

    Really what happened was Synarchy. Rule by a self selected few who consider themselves most able. It was not even really multiculturalism at all

    They had invented a lexicon of words and phrases for disciple ritualistic use

    "Multiculturalism enriches us" (sometimes add a meaningless "On so many levels")

    "We should celebrate diversity" (I wonder if they mean like street parties with jelly and ice cream ? Mind you I do like Ashley Banjo and his team)


    "Hate crime"

    "Institutionalised racism" ( A phrase invented by USA Black Power movement which featured in 1971 in Home Office sociologist research on police recruitsas a red herring to test them for weak personality traits being gullible; to feign belief in it because such a belief might further their careers)

    And how are we manipulated ? Example Nelson Mandela was due to make a State Visit in 1993. In the two weeks before that visit a black youth was murdered in London. Within two weeks someone was quick off the mark the bereaved mother met Nelson Mandela. All hail Doreen Lawrence. Here we are 21 years later and Stephen hasn't had justice yet. The Met know who killed Stephen and so do I. And he aint in nick.

    But we as a nation got institutionalised racism rammed down our throats. Now the MacPherson Inquiry is admitting they knew they were being misled by concealement of the real problem ... corruption, collusion (especially in Kent who provided the police for Lawrence inquiry and naturally never had any intention of investigating themselves)

    Many academics now are waking up to the dangers of multicultiralism how it fuels tribalism and hatred based on imposing group identities. Each tribe called a "Community"

    And we are sleepwalking into chaos. You can have the debate now and seek to lance the boils of multiculturalism or you can keep sleep walking.

    And before you call me "Racist" as your cult programming will compel you to do, who invnted 16 racist labels and cunningly called them "Ethnicities". Multiculturalism is racism.

  10. Forgive me for being slightly off topic Tony, but a quick note on anon bloggers. Brilliant lot that they are. Either dont possess the technical skills to set up a google account or too scared of revealing their identity. A little challenge to you. Set up an account (a couple of new ones have been made recently). Its fairly easy to do. You can even set up multiple accounts. You can also still remain as an anon (no way of checking who you actually are). So I dare you all. Give it a go. Because the flood of anon comments can get very dull. At least if there is some for of identifier, we can evaluate your opinion more clearly. If anyone would like a little link on how to do it, just let me know and I will post one. If not, grow up and stop throwing out mindless comments. Its akin to ringing someone up and withholding your number. And I felt the same thing when I read that Tony. A mixture of "All is well. Nothing to see here" and the ostrich approach. Clive is just not getting it imho

    1. A good point,Duncan, why contribute regularly on blogs and not have your distinct identity even if its bonkers, which judging from many anons would sum me up.

  11. Mr Smithson, many named bloggers - you included - frequently "throw out mindless comments". Many named bloggers post rude, offensive and inappropriate contributions, just as some Anons do. Conversely, many Anons frequently post sensible, constructive and thoughtful comments highly relevant to the debate.

    Named bloggers, in most cases, have simply constructed on-line identities that make them, in reality, no less anonymous than those posting as Anons. The only distinction is that it is easier to identify authorship of a series of comments when a named blogger is involved.

    The usual whine is that Anons are cowardly when they post a comment critical of a "real person". That whine often comes from those with constructed identities. The complaint is therefore starkly hypocritical.

    Your "holier than thou" attitude is therefore way out of line. Your persistent attacks on those who blog without using a real name or an assumed name fail to address the real issue - the standard of debate and behaviour for ALL bloggers. Address that and you may garner more support for yourself.

  12. What you overlook, anon, is that some of us are targeted because of positions we hold, which is fair enough, but often with insulting names and accusations of wrong doing. Some of the latter should be tested in court, but such accusers are invariably anonymous around Thanet blogs. As one of those who has complained about such anonymous attacks let me emphasise that I do use my real name. I also despair the lack of quality of debate that comes from certain anonymous commentators and wonder would they make such comments if they could be identified. That's where the lack of courage of their convictions comes in.

  13. I understand and appreciate your first point Mr Epps. But I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that anonymous contributions in particular are of poor quality. I have seen many, many contributions from named bloggers - and do bear in mind that the majority are clearly just "blogging names" - that are pitched at gutter level. Hence my comment that the real challenge is to see blogging standards overall raised to a higher level.

    1. Not disagreeing 13:44 over blogging standards and the drift of my comment was over my despair at the quality of debate. Anonymous commentators do, nonetheless, say things I am sure they would not if identifiable.

      Whilst agreeing some people use pseudonyms, which at least enables one to follow their thread of comments, I think most of the named contributors on the more popular Thanet blogs are real enough. Many of the regulars like Holyer, Mallinson, Watkins, Wells, Moores, James, Smithson, Checksfield and myself are real enough to name some. Perhaps you would like to list the "blogging names" ones.

      Not all anonymous contributions are worthless in the debate but those from a particular Ramsgate troll, the time for change man, are by far the worst.

    2. William you're just annoyed with Tim because he said Manston will close. Your view is idiotic in that Manston is a great success etc. All you have left now is spite and insult and right wing diatribe. You refuse to discuss the 0% fraud or Thor mercury. Run along.

    3. 20:09, I asked you to name these bloggers using blogging names, seems you can't..

      As for Thor and 0% fraud, these matters date back to well before my time as a town councillor, they are historic TDC issues and, as I have told you before, if you have real questions on them, approach your own district councillor.

      You will not find any councillor, at any level, willing to discuss specifics with an anonymous blogger.

      By the way, where did I mention Tim or suggest I am annoyed with him. I actually feel sorry for the unfortunate fellow.

  14. Mr Epps, there are a number of bloggers whose names appear to have been chosen for blogging purposes only. Their supporting profiles may be inactive, or they may provide little meaningful or defined information to indicate the person's real identity. No problem with that, of course, but it puts them in the same category as Anonymous bloggers. They include:

    William Watkins
    Allan Mallinson
    John Holyer
    Bemused Of Birchington
    Emma 179
    Tim Clark
    Tom Clark
    Tom Clarke
    Lyndon T Palmer
    1o'clock Rob
    Joe Turner.

    I hope that's helpful.

    My response and inclusion of detail is markedly different from your response to my challenge about your proven fearful gossiping about John Worrow's arrest last year. You accused me of lying even though I set out all of the details for you and challenged you to comment. you declined to comment and ran away from ECR's blog at the time.

    Your one response was to tell me to "go f*** myself" which also serves to prove that you are in no position to comment on others' standards if blogging behaviour. You have your own house to put in order.

    1. John Holyer and Allan Mallinson I know, they are real. The Clarks or Clarkes have not commented in ages. Lyndon is Rick who we all know and he is real., In fact, of the list only Bemused and Joe Turner regularly comment these days and, whilst Bemused is obviously a pen name, do you know for sure Joe Turner is not a real person?

      By the way, you never did prove my fearful gossiping about Worrow's arrest, which would imply numerous negative comments. Also, I would never run away from you, indeed, should I wish to escape from you I could walk slowly and you would never waddle fast enough to catch up.

    2. Mr epps, you are a liar.

    3. You seem to be shifting the goalposts in a desperate attempt to prove a point, Mr Epps. It is irrelevant how recently any of those on my list have posted. As for those whom you know personally, fine, I have based my comments on information that is available to the average "blogger on the street" rather than your address book.

      On your being a gossip, all of the relevant information to support my challenge in full is set out on ECR's blog. You may be in denial, but everyone could see the facts and judge you for themselves. I am afraid your latest claim makes you look incredibly silly.

      Having tracked other exchanges, I can piece together your equally silly comments about waddling as a reference to Tim Garbutt, with whom you seem to have an unhealthy obsession. I am not Tim Garbutt, as I have told you before, I do not know him, and I only know of him through blog-watching. Please don't sully your own reputation further by continuing your baseless charge.

    4. Quire bizarre, Anon, that my reference to waddling should somehow in your mind be taken to apply to Tim Garbutt. I think we can all draw our own conclusions from that.

    5. Anon at 12:53, perhaps you could direct me to the relevant posting on Eastcliff Richard where Epps made his remarks about John Worrow as I am compiling a dossier on him. Topic heading and date would be fine, thanks.

    6. Anon 1316, Mr Epps's denials, lies, and misrepresentations relating to John Worrow's arrest are set out in the "Faecebook" strand dated 6 February. They pop up again in the "Ramsgate Prices Soar as Airport Plummets" strand dated 20 March. My comments there refer back to originating postings on the Thanetonline blog. There is a further example of his behaviour - different topic - in the "Randomoanium" strand dated 14 April. I hope that helps.

      Those strands also contain some of his choice language - "mindless twits like you" and "Tim, go f*** yourself" - but there are examples elsewhere. This despite him claiming to want to see blogging standards improve.

    7. Mr Epps, there are pages of exchanges involving you and some of your cronies where your obsessive preoccupation with Tim Garbutt is there for all to see. References to his wife, his business, his political aspirations and his weight are common comments. If your "waddling" reference didn't relate to that and to him, why did you say it? You and I don't know each other _ I take comfort from that - and my build is such that I certainly don't "waddle". And despite your puerile persistence, I am not the object of your fixation, ie Tim Garbutt.

      What a shame that you choose to focus on this rather than the evidence that has been presented against you. Whatever, our exchanges go nowhere, other than to prove unequivocally to anyone honourable that you are far from that. Hopefully, Anon (1316)'s efforts will succeed in bringing you to book.

    8. Thank you, Anon 15:27, but I have looked at those postings, but none of them contain any statement by Epps about Worrow. They do contain allegations of such by an anonymous commentator, which he then denies, but there is no prove there that I can use in my dossier.

      What I want are actual statements by Epps about John Worrow. If those were now on thanetonline as you are saying, can you direct me to those.

    9. Ah, I see, Anon. My challenge to Epps was over his attempt to deny that he had commented on the news reports of Worrow's arrest and had gossiped about it with his political friends. The evidence showed his denial to be blatently incorrect, but he tried to lie his way out of it.

      I have not seen any (negative, actionable) statement from him about Worrow personally.

    10. So, Anon 16:31, you are saying now that you have not actually seen any statements by Epps anywhere gossiping about John Worrow's arrest. If you cannot actually produce any or show me where I can find them, blogsite or local paper, I can quite see why he would deny making them. It also appears that you cannot substantiate your statement that his denial was blatantly incorrect.

      This is a pity because I was hoping for some real evidence I could use in my report to Standards. If you do come up with something concrete please comment on this site for me. You will appreciate at this stage in my enquiries I cannot disclose publicly my identity.

    11. Anon, if you are looking for negative, disparaging and possibly actionable comments by Epps about Worrow - such as "he's a …" then you need to broaden your enquiries. I have not seen any such comments nor have I (ever) said any exist.

      I challenged Epps over his denial that he had ever made any reference to the news reports about Worrow's arrest, that he had gossiped over the telephone with his political associates and had been waiting on "juicy details". His denial WAS blatently incorrect. I challenged his behaviour, and produced all the evidence - which is contained within the strands I have identified for you - to support my challenge. He denied the evidence and "walked away".

      I am not "now saying" anything different from what I have said all along, including to you earlier.

      I hope that clarifies the position for you.

    12. I presume you have other issues and material on which you're basing your report to the Standards Committee and wish you success with that.

    13. Anon 17:32, I am afraid challenges do not amount to evidence, you cannot possibly know about telephone conversations unless you have been phone tapping, which is illegal, and I am hardly surprised Epps denied your accusations. His denial, which I have looked at on the Eastcliff Richard site is proof of nothing.

      As to my report, well clearly that is confidential, and I am merely trying to establish if one councillor made inappropriate comments about another, other than the usual cut and thrust of political differences, in a public domain. Seems you cannot help me for all your personal allegations against Epps seem to be based on things you did not personally witness and your own dislike of the man.

      Having a lot of experience in investigating internet abuse and deformation of character I would advise you to be careful what you say about people in future if you have no evidence to back it up.

    14. Anon 18.51, you initiated our exchange by asking me to identify the threads containing my challenge to Mr Epps, which I have done. My (clear, very precise and tightly drawn) challenge is fully supported by evidence which is set out in the relevant blogging threads. I don’t make unfounded allegations and you are of course right that there are Laws to protect us all from those.

      For the sake of absolute clarity, my challenge is based strictly on contradictions between various public comments Mr Epps has made on blogs. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no reference to, or suggestion of, any “third party” evidence.

      Given your experience as an investigator, I find your comment that “challenges do not amount to evidence” curious. You seem to be confusing two separate elements of the construction. The challenge – or accusation – is based on evidence, or should be. And mine has been throughout. Mr Epps has simply chosen to ignore it. He is, of course, free to do so, but blog readers can then draw their own conclusions - as they have.

      Having asked for my help in connection with a “dossier [you are] compiling on him”, it’s odd that you have chosen to criticise my challenge (in some detail) rather than say simply that none of the material is relevant to whatever it is you are pursuing. Of course your dossier is confidential to you – which is why I’ve asked you nothing about it – but you have now declared your hand and intentions in a way that Mr Epps might find rather threatening and intimidating. You may want to reflect on that.

      Again given your experience as an investigator, I am surprised by your suggestion that I have a “dislike of the man”, without any evidence to support that conclusion. An unusual approach. I don’t know him and have no reason either to like or dislike him personally. My challenge relates solely to conduct and behaviour on the blogs.

      You’ve made it clear that my challenge to him is of no help to your action. Fine. I’m not sure there is much more to say, particularly given the risk of your compromising your own position and dossier by continuing this dialogue.

    15. All of which confirms that your allegations are pure speculation and based on nothing else. Also, do not presume to tell me how to do my job just because you do not like the fact I have pointed out you have no evidence.

      I would suggest you need to be careful with your accusations and do not make the mistake of thinking posting anonymously in anyway protects you. In my work I have the ability to and right to trace comments so I already know who you are. That is of no interest to me as things have turned out, but, if I can do it, so can others.

      I agree with you though that there is no purpose in continuing this dialogue.

    16. I'm afraid, Anon 10.12, that I can't let your last contribution pass without comment.

      In no way have I presumed, or would I presume, to tell you how to do your job. I simply observed that having publicly said you are "compiling a dossier on [Mr Epps]", he might view that as intimidating or threatening. More about him than you, really.

      My challenge of Mr Epps is in no way speculative. It refers (strictly) to contradictions in things that he has said publicly, and which appear on blogs. Enough said on that, though, as it's covering "old" ground.

      You may not be personally impressed with my challenge, but if you are indeed investigating possible Standards infringments, I find your fairly hostile attack on what I have been pursuing - which is far less serious in consequence - strange indeed.

      But I suspect we are boring any readers who are still following this. If, as you say, your checks have revealed my identity to you, then please contact me directly - email or telephone - if there is any more you wish to discuss (privately).

      I hope you have a very pleasant day.

    17. Thank you for your offer of a private contact but we have already established you cannot help me. I can only use hard evidence which you do not have.

      I hope you also have a pleasing day and, in case you should think I was bluffing, but without disclosing your email address publicly, abbreviated it would be tg@y.c.

    18. It never occurred to me that you might be bluffing, but I am afraid that is not an abbreviation of my email address.

    19. Suit yourself, Anon 11:59, but that what I get on the roll back. Hardly matters as I am not going to contact you anyway.

    20. You need to revisit the security protocol settings in the ISP site identifier mechanism in Microsoft Lookout Search and ensure they are all set to "accept". This should allow the mechanism to function. You then need to set your search parameters by reference to the classification code of the blogs you are covering. Take care to input the correct URL and HTTP details. That will give you a range of options against which you can set the read-out from your roll back facility. Job done.

    21. Granny to suck eggs springs to mind!

    22. Or perhaps the "Standards Snoop" - as someone has dubbed him/her on ECR's blog - is having the p*** (rightfully) taken out of them.

    23. But you fell for it Anon and even responded when you gleefully thought you could stir up some mischief. As you have been told before, you are well out of your league around these blog sites.

    24. Just stop and think, Anon 12.22 - and I am assuming, here, that it was you pretending to be compiling a dossier on Mr Epps. Your opening gambit prompted (arguably invited) me to set out the summary details of the proven case against Mr Epps once again. I had left the detail alone for some time, but you reignited the issue for all to see. An odd step for someone who is so obviously an Epps supporter.

      Whatever doubts I had about your overture, I answered politely and fully at each stage - despite your clearly not acting as any real "investigator" would. You showed yourself to be trying desperately to repair the damge that Mr Epps has done to himself through his blogging behaviour - but could only keep pumping out the same single-track message. Not very effective advocacy on your part.

      I then demonstrated my "faith in you" by offering a techincal instruction (18.09 yesterday) that was total rubbish, yet you seemed to take it seriously, given your "Granny…" repsonse.

      Do you really think I "fell for it"?

      I doubt there are real winners and losers in these blog exchanges, but you are CERTAINLY not in the first category.

      Am I out of my league? Well, we have Mr Epps's demonstrated denial of facts proven against him, and his disposition to foul and abusive language. We have you playing silly games and pretending to be something or someone you are not. We have you, and all of the Epps cohort, constantly claiming that all the challenges to the cohort come from just one person, with your collective obsession with, and puerile references to, "Tim". There are your abusive remarks about "Tim" and his business interests. In summary, lies, abuse, obsessive behaviour to draw on just three.

      Am I out of that league? I certainly hope so.

    25. Get real, anon, you responded promptly to the request for details, but, later, had to admit that you had no real evidence against Councillor Epps and even fell back on telephone gossiping with his colleagues, something you clearly could not know about.

      All you succeeded in doing is showing that your allegations were completely false and that the councillor was totally justified in denying them.

      The Granny/Eggs comment was by some other, Anon, thus highlighting the difficulties we anons have over identification, so you have fooled no one. Most people, a term you love to use, will draw there own conclusions, that being that you are a clown.

    26. And finally, you resort to abuse, which is a sure-fire demonstration of the weakness of your argument. Continually repeating your lie about the direction our exchange took, and continually trying to shore up your collapsing attempt at a face-saver for Mr Epps is doing neither you, nor him, any favours. Perhaps you should quit whilst you still have a modicum of dignity left.

      Deep breaths, Babycakes, deep breaths…

    27. Anon, in your comment on 29 April at 17:30 you clearly stated that if I was looking for negative, disparaging and possibly actionable comments by Epps about Worrow I would have to broaden my enquiries as you had never seen any. So what had you seen that amounted to you making a wild allegation against Epps which he denied and which, somehow in your book, proves his guilt. You even made ridiculous allegations about him having telephone conversations with his friends, something you could not possibly know about.

      All in all, even to the most biased observer, Epps comes out of this totally exonerated and you are shown up as the one making malicious, unsubstantiated accusations. If anyone should quit and hang their head in shame it is you.

      No, I am, not a friend of Epps, but one very interested in these allegations of misconduct by our councillors. I am sure there has been inappropriate behaviour by some at times, but you do nothing to expose this by false accusations.

      No where in this exchange, either, have a claimed you are Tim nor made any reference to anyone by that name. Someone, incidentally that you claim not to know yet, for some reason best known to yourself, you throw in an accusation that Epps and his cohorts, of which I presume I am one, make up lies about this person. How would you know they are lies if you do not know him yourself?

      Perhaps you should stop before you dig an even bigger hole for yourself.

    28. How can I best break this to you, Anon 17.31?

      Repeating any lie, but in this case your wide-ranging lie about our exchange, over and over again will not make it magically become true. You are simply trying to distort and deceive, and that is never a good approach in life. Look at the long list of people who have come a cropper doing just what you are doing now. You are simply deluding yourself and losing a grip on what is right and what is wrong.

      If you feel you have exonerated Epps - which must be something of an awakening for a self-proclaimed "investigator" who just two days ago was "compiling a dossier on him" - then go and celebrate your success. I - and others - clearly disagree fundamentally and profoundly with your conclusion.

      You have lied throughout our exchange, even to the point of your rather childish reference to a fictitious email abbreviation - based on the lie that you have a tracking capability. Oh dear, do you really think that will cause people to take you seriously.

      We will not agree here. If there is anyone else still reading this increasingly esoteric - and pointless - dialogue, then they must be relying on some sort of chemical stimulus. We have both suggested each other should stop. Let's do just that.

    29. If anyone is deluded it is you, 19:41, and there are no lies in my statements. It was you that made an allegation but, on given the chance to substantiate it, admitted you could not.

      Who are the others who disagree for not one person has joined in agreeing with you. If anyone makes it up as they go it is you.

      As for the fictitious email abbreviation, how do you know it is fictitious? Don't bother to answer for I agree this should stop.

    30. I'll let you have the last substantive word, Anon. Your need is far greater than mine.

    31. I don't think he does, 20:08, for he has run rings round you and exposed you for the malicious muckraker you really are.

    32. Thank goodness I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory, "Mr Mallinson". But if your conclusion makes you and your wholly biased cronies happy and avoids you bed-wetting, then I'm happy for you. As I have said, I disagree with you profoundly and fundmentally.

    33. Just one further thought, though, "Mr M". The Anon you're defending was "compiling a dossier on Mr Epps". Could well have been some muckraking there, eh? Going to give him a slap, eh?

    34. You poor sap, 20:18, if only you knew who the dossier compiler was, but I will leave you guessing. You have been had for a sucker all the way through that exchange.

    35. Sorry, Anon 20.32, but I don't share the preoccupation - arguably obsession - of the likes of you, Epps and others with the identity of anonymous bloggers. It follows that I don't share your titillation over who claimed - clearly falsely - to be the "investigator…compiling a dossier" on Epps.

      I think it says much about your little gang that you have to resort to such games and to employ such lies and deceptions to try to protect your interests and what is left of certain of your members' reputations, though. If you were capable of standing back and looking at yourselves, you would share my dismay, I feel sure.

      As to whether or not I swallowed the deception, does anyone care? That said, I have already commented on that aspect in some detail. I wouldn't get too excited if I were you - leaving puddles around your ankles is not a good look.

    36. Hilarious, 22.36, for everyone is capable of reading what you wrote before. The hole just keeps on getting bigger.

    37. If holes are your thing, Anon, that's great. Whatever excites you and gets your juices flowing.

    38. The sexual innuendo confirms precisely who you are in case anyone was left in doubt. Some of us have more to do with our lives than worry about our juices all the time.

    39. Spot on 9:34 for he sits at his computer all day playing with himself whilst remembering happy times in the orient with Gary Glitter.

    40. Dear oh dear, is that the best the Epps gang can come up with? In any event, I thought it was several of them who had service experience overseas, including the Far East.

    41. 13:02, you are not slow to accuse others of being Tim obsessives, but aren't you being equally obsessive about Epps. You are into an exchange with one, or possibly more, anonymous persons yet you refer to the Epps gang. How do you know? It could be anybody or are you really Tim?

  15. John Holyer is definitely a real person. I've met him (and you can also see him on FB along with lots of photos of himself).

  16. Replies
    1. Said like the hero we all know you to be. Try calling him that to his face.