Sunday, 7 December 2008


The night-time pics of Commercial Property Group's 'first' development in Thanet did not show the full splendour of their tatty, petty fencing job to prevent Thanet residents at Pouces Cottages from parking on the verge near their cottages. The pic above shows clearly the intent behind it.

I am reliably informed that angry readers have already been in contact with KCC Councillors and MP Steve Ladyman. An interesting snippet that I have been unable to confirm with CGP yet, is that the contractor responsible for the professional fencing that was already in place and that has fenced off paddocks that are now not accessible from the road, has not been paid for his fencing work and has claimed that if he is not paid he intends to remove his work.

If this is true, then Andy and Rob and the CGP team will have a lot more fencing to do in due course!


Rick said...

I see they did not go in for stock proof fencing.

There is a joke in there somewhere Bertie.

If it was me living there I regret to say that I would have seen nothing when the fence got ripped down ... wire gone to the scrappie and posts uncannily similar to the logs I'd be burning.

And if the fencer gets paid I would be expecting a bit of kick back for the amount of rework he would be getting !

My model for such behaviour is, of course, solicitors.

What happens when one party's solicitor takes a position ? He charges his client to write to the other party to advise them to get a solicitor.

If they daft enough to do that what does the other solicitor do ?

He charges the other party for writing a letter back to the first solicitor seeking clarification (which he ain't gonna quite understand the first time and will require further clarification at his client's expense and so on)

Then they get into replying "Seriatim" to each other. They work it between them. Put the position in numbered paragraphs so the oppo solicitor can reply not understanding about half of them. Setting out his reasons for not understanding in a greater number of paragraphs.

All I am saying is cut out the solicitor and work the same modus operandum with the fencing contractor.

To whit "I will flog you back your posts and wire for cash and then you charge CGP for putting those mothers up seriatim again ow son"

A Thanet solution to a Thanet problem. I move.

Bertie Biggles said...

I tend to agree, Rick, however the cottagers do not want to give CGP the satisfaction of accusing them of criminal damage etc! We will see what KCC Highways has to say tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

an unfortunate choice of term there Bertie !
Google 'cottagers' and see what comes up if you will excuse the pun.

Bertie Biggles said...

Thanks 10.06. I stopped at the medieval use of the term and Fulham FC supporters. I assume that modern use of this term is not quiet so quaintly rural!

Rick said...

I suppose taking the fence down and placing it on CGP property would constitute neither criminal damage nor theft.

No damage and no intention to permanently deprive the owner of his property.

Then some old caravans on the field and claim squatters rights finding the field unfenced.

I am wondering if I could get an iffy licence for that field as a contaminated land tip. I am thinking about the imminent contract for removing the contaminated land at Thor ....

Anonymous said...

Ah, and now the personality has to come into play. I'm wondering how well the alleged fence owners will do. 've just witnessed a businessman make take his own business brand down so hard over a non issue that he refuses to have anything more to do with the project.

I wonder if we'll see the same here? I'll be watching this space.

If you get a moment, Bertie, drop me an email.