Comments
DAMESATHOME@GMAIL.COM
send the Dame your information, discretion assured.
Comments are welcome but do not necessarily reflect the view of the Dame.
Offensive/inappropriate comments will be deleted and the poster banned.
CRATUS DIRECTORS GET CHINESE TORTURE OVER HOLIDAY INN DISASTER
Jason Kow of Queensgate Investments likes a lot of kowtowing so when he called in Lil' Bob Neill MP and Sir Pooter Cockell into his 295 storey penthouse office he made them crawl on hands and knees to his 20 sq. metre Quang dynasty desk.
 |
| Wobbling chins |
" you couple of dimwits; you promised me that getting permission would be a walk in the park and that between you both you could fix anything".
 |
| Blubbing Pooter |
By this time Pooter was blubbing copiously and Lil' Bob's many chins were wobbling with emotion as the bollocking continued.
It seems that Lil' Bob had boasted too much that his old job as a local government junior minister and Pooter's, as ex RBKC leader, would mean that the Planning Committee would wave it through and Cratus collect a fat fee.
" I pay you lying dogs nothing..... now get out of my office!"
I had no idea that Robert Neill MP would be a consultant to a little company like Cratus. Very dodgy.
ReplyDeleteNeil got Pooter the CRATUS crapper job. Probably gets paid more than Pooter too. Its called the "back scratch".
DeleteCan you imagine the selfies to the East when Pooter takes the Beijing runt to the House of Lords for tea? This was supposed to be the treat/reward for disgraced ex Cllr Phelps - but his fall from grace created space for Chinaman
20.01 is incorrect. Pooter never made it to the House of Lords. The Dame fixed that. So the best the Neil/Pooter pair can do is tea at the House of Commons. Jason Cow is unlikely to know the difference between the Lords and the Commons so will get the thrill anyway.
DeleteHow rude 21.24. It is Mr Kow, not Mr "Cow"
DeleteThis should be reported to the Race Relations Board
mooooooo......
Delete@hawkeye I don't think a play on words as a joke is worthy of a report for a criminal offence do you seriously ? the man concerned is behaving like a stubborn cow . I see no outrage from you at the name changing for a joke of anyone else ?
Deletebooo what a load of crap .. boo or moo is irrelevant - they all misjudged our dearest Dame
DeleteCapitalism at work. Get the result and get a bonus. Lose and get a bollocking.
ReplyDeleteThis is a tough world that produces results. Probably too rough and tough for the toothless Dame.
What a pompous looking little Chinese man. Must be awful to have to do business with little runts like this. But then it is all about the money.
Deleteuhhhhh...18:37 is our local hard nosed tycoon....zip it up fatso
DeleteWell said 19.48. I was disgusted to see "fatso" Cllr Palmer at the the local doctor's surgery last week. Shambolic, filthy clothes, and a beer belly hanging out. And doing a "sheep chew', just like ex Cllr Moylan. Interesting how close these two lads seem to be.
Delete21:40 a result of good fast life, I guess. The beer guts are ubiquitous at Horton Street Beehive.
DeleteThe mind boggles, 21.40
ReplyDeleteNeil and Cockell now need to get to work on City Hall and try to influence Mayor Khan who does not like the proposal. But of course Pooter has fingers everywhere.
ReplyDeleteCow has already borrowed £280m to help pay the building costs after paying £400m for the Holiday Inn site. That's £700m already!
http://www.queensgateinv.com/media/queensgate-investments-has-agreed-a-ps280m-refinancing-deal-with-societe-generale-corporate-investment-banking-for-one-of-the-largest-hotels-in-central-london?year=2018
With this king of financial exposure some really big brown envelopes will be floating around.
Individuals need to be careful and make sure they shout with the crowd. Or they may end up inside some concrete piling.
DeleteOut of sight and out of mind is the rule for resisting the mafia. A tap on the front door from a Hong Kong hong is never a nice experience
Tangling with Chinese who are up to their ears in debt is VERY, VERY dangerous
ReplyDeleteChinese business people push things to the limit and beyond. They are nearly always over the edge. It takes very little to make them run amok.
DeleteDo you think the chinese businessman know a chinese mafia boss or two? The business over there has to pay protection money so that they will be left alone? Pooter et al shouldn't have messed with them.
DeleteHead of a crime syndicate prowls for victims to extort scritches from
Deletehttps://imgur.com/gallery/tE2qOdk
Jason Kow should reflect - very hard. What a load of crappy guys he has got involved with. You may say, gullible?
ReplyDeleteIn my judgement this is the "Big One" for Mr Kow. If he pulls it off it will mean enormous wealth for him. If it bombs, he will be wrecked. Probably finished. He may be about to "go reckless"
ReplyDeleteLondon does not need people like Kow running around. Just the type we need to stop at the border and send back where they came from
ReplyDeletePooter does not look the part in his photo. Bit of a nonentity.
ReplyDeleteWhen Bob Neill, MP, invited Mr Cow to the House of Commons for tea on the terrace beside the River Thames (a magnificent and unique setting) the Chinaman was beside himself with excitement that he had been asked to "the building with Big Ben".
ReplyDeleteArriving in the Public Lobby after queuing for ages at St Stevens Entrance for security checks Mr Cow was in a foul mood. He had expected the VIP treatment from his important hosts and imagined that he would be met by a servant and escorted into the building quickly.
Cow was thrilled to arrive on the terrace and watch the boats on the river Thames but turned in confusion to inquire "Where is Big Ben?". "Over there" replied Neill, "Under the plastic covering sheets?"
Cow was furious. No "Big Ben". "Why is it covered when I am here" he asked.
A seriously distressed Pooter replied: "It just is".
Client from Hell
DeleteFrom RBKC's own Building Height Supplementary Planning Document of 2010, and a reminder that this would have been in Pooter Cockell's remit as he was Leader of the Council at the time......
ReplyDeleteThe documents are at
https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/supplementary-planning/building-height-supplementary
A few extracts from the various PDFs there are as follows -
'In the recent past development economics were the overriding consideration when it came to the siting of tall buildings (AS PER THE HOLIDAY INN IN THE 70S, MORE HOTEL BEDS REQUIRED IN LONDON). ... Today, policy at all levels demands that the arguments for where tall buildings can be located should be much more carefully and comprehensively considered.'
'Only two buildings in the Borough have more than 25 storeys... The first is the Trellick Tower.... The second tower is the Kensington Forum Hotel Tower at 84m .... This highly prominent, bulky building appears out of scale and does not relate to its immediate context. It has been identified as an “eyesore” in the Core Strategy'
'When considering high or tall buildings the Royal Borough distinguishes three categories...... Local landmarks, District landmarks, Metropolitan landmarks
Local landmarks are defined in the Royal Borough as buildings that may be taller than the surroundings, but no taller than 1½ times the typical building height of the context.
District landmarks ....... civic, cultural or institutional activities of London-wide significance (NOT A HOTEL!). The premise is that Kensington and Chelsea is generally not a tall buildings Borough .... where a tall building may be countenanced it should be of district scale..... 1½ and 4 times the prevailing building scale. Based on a typical building height and street pattern in the Borough this generally equates to 60m maximum for a new tall building. Above this proportional height, metropolitan scaled proposals will be resisted (see Metropolitan below).
Metropolitan landmarks are defined as buildings whose height is more than 4 times the typical building height. Metropolitan landmarks are inappropriate to the predominantly residential character of the Borough, away from the economic
centre of the Capital.'
SO -
either RBKC under Pooter was taking the mick out of, and wasting the residents' money on, writing this policy, knowing that it would not be honoured when schemes like the Forum Hotel enlargement came up
Or Cratus has been taking the money of the Forum Hotel developer, with Pooter in an advisory capacity well aware that the policy would be highly likely scupper the attempt
Or both?
Well I never!
Excellent....Rick
DeleteThis is the kind of digging and research that demonstrates clearly the depths of dishonesty and hypocrisy woven into the fabric of Hornton Street.
DeleteThere are files and files of policies and strategies in the Planning Department that have been put together at huge cost by expensive teams of planners in a massive job creation exercise.
DeleteMany of these policies and strategies are contradictory. Not a problem for the planners. They just pull out the strategy that happens to support the pet project (and brown envelope) of the moment and this forms the basis of a recommendation to the Planning Committee.
The swamp has become so opaque and poisonous, and impossibly difficult for the average resident to unravel, that the only solution is to sweep it all away. Otherwise, democracy will be dumped.
Resident makes a good point. These 100 page strategy documents are regularly emailed to residents who are invited to comment. (Part of the Cllr Weale "consultation" process). Residents, of course, are too busy to read 100 page technical documents which we are incapable of understanding. And the Planning Officers and Councillors than make the convenient assumption that their scribbling has received "democratic approval".
ReplyDeleteAnd then they pretend to be hurt and confused when there are mass protests and 800 letters of objection to monstrosities like the new Holiday Inn proposal.
Get your act together Hornton Street! Communicate intelligently and use Ward Councillors to link up with their residents. AND LISTEN TO FEEDBACK.
This is the kind of thing that requires understanding and leadership from Cllr Campbell to sort out. She has not been christened "dizzy lizzie" by fellow Conservative Councillors for nothing
DeleteClr Campbell continues to demonstrate that she does not have a single ounce of leadership material in her person
DeleteThis is a very interesting blog. It exposes how the planning network works, how the written authority is created and stored, and how the gamekeepers turned poachers exert their influence.
ReplyDeleteThe overall intention is to be fair and balanced. But when leadership neglect sets in then the whole apparatus becomes a cockpit for administrative abuse and profit taking on the side by the locusts.
It may all sound very boring and pedestrian to Cllr Campbell compared with BBC Radio 4 appearances. But as Leader of the Royal Borough it is time for her to put her house in order.
I think this is only a tip of the iceberg. There are lots more smaller cases which doesn't see the light. Can't comment too much detail as an individual may be put at risk but when you hear 'little' storeis, you'd be astonished how deep the corruption is.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnon 16:29- Indeed, the corruption has very long roots. They spread throughout local and national government. It is based on cronyism, favouritism, nepotism and iffy handshakes. Many of these projects get through on a nod and a wink, without any proper record. You must remember that there is NO proper external oversight/audit of RBKC's activities. There are many 'smaller cases', which do not get a look at, as there is NOBODY ENTITLED to do so. This has become worse since Cameron's abolishment of the Audit Commission. The general public was given to understand that the National Audit Office, NAO, would take over. It is at the top of the pyramid, setting the 'overall' policy, but details are hammered out by local authorities, who STILL appoint their auditors, who do as they are told, to benefit from a fat fee. In the knowledge that what they 'sign-off' is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to be looked at again. Life goes on, unchallenged.
ReplyDelete