Maybe when you editted it, you should have removed it completely, then you would not have given the clear impression that;

You really do not know how Goa works

?
Because as your post stands, Waterproof was definitely not wrong!

Ok lets not start a debate about it. We all know that Prettypollycat edited her post......... and why, so please leave it at that.

Kath x

Johnny five you should really read the whole thread before jumping in as Waterproofs comment of

You really do not know how Goa works

actually came from an unedited post of PPC's.

PPC's initial post which led to Waterproofs comment of "You really do not know how Goa works" is as follows

Prettypollycat wrote:

Reading the latest link, I just wondered if Tito's and Mambo's actually HAVE violated coastal regulatory zone (CRZ) norms.

If they have - knowingly - then why shouldn't the structures be demolished?

Of course, if this is a retrosepctive regulation and the structures were fine before introduction of that regulation, that is a different matter.

Waterproof answered the above with :-

waterproof wrote:

PPC- If they have - knowingly - then why shouldn't the structures be demolished?

You really do not know how Goa works - lots of structures violate CRZ rules and always have.
Pay and stay is the rule. They will knock down one wall (a small one) and that will be it - lots of money will pass hands and end of it.
Titos is world famous and it will not disappear - Goa could not afford that.

PPC responded to this bold sentance with a simple - you're wrong, ie WP is wrong for assuming PPC nows nothing about how Goa works.

It's probably best in these situations to not interfere and let the 2 members involved sort it out instead of jumping in when you've misunderstood the posts.

Thanks, Glynis & Kath.

I'm aware that this is often the reality in Goa (quote from Waterproof - which as Glynis points out is the reason I said Waterproof was wrong) :

Pay and stay is the rule. They will knock down one wall (a small one) and that will be it - lots of money will pass hands and end of it.

And I think THIS quote from Gramps (Alan) is very telling:

Have a look round the Sinquerm, Candolim, Calangute, Baga stretch of the coast and you will see that this ban is almost universaly flouted, so I dont think thats the reason for the move to demolish all or part of the nightclubs.

As I don't frequent either of the clubs mentioned, it's doesn't really matter to me what they do with them.

I did read the "un-editted" post.

I did read the "un-editted" post.

In that case you'll know that I know how Goa works.

PPC edited the post below on

edited by Prettypollycat on Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:45 pm

J5 you made your post Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:25 am Which is a little late to be making comments about information which is no longer there. And, if you read the original post in it's entirety then that's when you should have made any comment. Too late now for the rest of the members to follow what is being said.

Sorry, didn't realise there was a time limit

Time limit? I'd have thought it was common sense not to make a reference to a post that no longer contains the information you are referring to

Big hug Johnny five!

BCC strip are all zoned CRZ III. The NDZ stretches 200 metres from the HTL so that would make every structure since February 1991 IDS, but I wouldn't expect them to enforce SCN's for DO's, so NW's there then. Great news for T &. M's.

moksha wrote:

BCC strip are all zoned CRZ III. The NDZ stretches 200 metres from the HTL so that would make every structure since February 1991 IDS, but I wouldn't expect them to enforce SCN's for DO's, so NW's there then. Great news for T &. M's. :que

Anyone who really knows Goa would know that.

To be precise, 19th February 1991.

Anyone who really knows Goa would know that.

Moksha
FWIW, I did know that, AAMOF.

But, TMI IMHO.

LMAO

EOD - AFAIC- IYSWIM.

If that is TMI (Too Much Information) for you, then what are you doing on this thread, your contribution is irrelevant and you obviously have no understanding of the politics behind the threatened demolitions at Mambo's/ Tito's. Tit for Tat. Tat for Tit.

They will not be demolished (maybe 're-arranged'), which is super-dooper neeews for all you happy disco dancers. A woman scorned can cause many problems in a bitter divorce case but I have it on the most direct authority that this particular enterprise will not be disrupted without compensatory action. After all, who bankrolled the incumbent politico establishment? It certainly wasn't the Shahs at C C***na.

Great news for all, dontcha fink?

Anyone who really knows Goa would know that.

Ok that's enough.
locked.
As a holiday site we don't need either the bickering or the politics. When someone can confirm if the nightclubs are no longer in business then please post with that info if you want, but any more indepth analysis of the political situation is not relevant for this forum.