Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I give up.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Peter, even if you give up the DPPT project, you can still be active in the Port's future, anyone willing to back my proposals is welcome.
In my letter from the Department for Transport, it is also written:
"He (the Decision Minister) also concluded that so far as the Board (DHB) made the application in order to be able to obtain the additional finance necessary to undertake the proposed redevelopment of the Western Docks, there were other options available to secure the development".
This means that the DfT have other options other than the DHB privatisation bid to finance the T2. So that bid will not come up again, there are alternatives. Also note the plural in options. More than one!
To suggest that the DHB bid will reappear is scaremongering.
This is why people like Vic and me, who are fully involved in the Public Consultation from day 1, are making a point of informing the Public of what really has been decided by the DfT.
Otherwise the Public could be misinformed and made to believe things that really cannot be.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
So in conclusion, for DPPT to wage a public campaign to the effect that DHB could overrule the Government's decision and cancel the alternative options to fund T2 that the DfT has identified, and present another privatisaion bid, is really going over the top, and would only serve to withhold a sensible decision on the part of the Government to bring in proper regeneration funds for Dover and District.
Enough is enough, we've fought our campaign, we've stopped the DHB privatisation bid, so let's not start waging wars on phantasms of the past. It's time to ask the DfT to accept my proposals for a Public Revenue in all British ports.
This is the only way we can achieve local regeneration, not only here in Dover and District, but also in Shepway and in all British communities where there is a commercial or - at any rate - traffic-related port.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
peter,wellcome to the i have given up club on this subject.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
All I do must say with help is send letters I am in no talks etc with anyone infact I feel like a loner doing it,but there are members of the public that feel the same way as I do,but do not post,and I can understand that.IT is good to get letters back from the dept,but they will go their own way.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
Vic I am very much in the keep it as a Trust Port camp, however I do not understand the Political side of it and certainly not some of the ramblings on here, I am delighted that the privatisation has been rejected and await the next announcements with great interest.
Audere est facere.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
OBE for Mrs Helen Deeble. Chief executive, P&O Ferries Division and president, UK Chamber of Shipping. For services to the Shipping Industry. (Canterbury), good couple of weeks for her.
Audere est facere.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
I was going to post in answer to Alexander's and Mr Vic's posts, but they are so far wide of the facts and remain staunchly wedded to their own views of what the real facts are, that it would be counter productive. Just to say Alexander, I know the Localism Act extremely well and bodies like the DHB are expressly exempted from being localised under that Act. The provisions of the Localism Act cannot be used to take DHB into local government ownership, so you are definitely barking up the wrong tree there.
DPPT will be doing a lot more than writing the odd letter in order to ensure that the expressed will of the people of Dover is realised and the port is transferred into the ownership of the community who will hold it in such a way that later legislation will not be able to impinge on the perpetual nature of that ownership.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Alex.
Selling off the FSA, prior to the decision and what will prove to be very detrimental for the Port of Dover, in the short and long term, was not a "phantasms of the past" it is a fact.
You are being very short sighted in thinking Bob won't try this again in the future.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
On the other hand, Charlie arranged for DHB to be expressly mentioned in the Public Bodies Act.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
interesting that dhb have made no announcement that they intend to come up with a better proposition, i would have thought they would have had a plan b.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Not sure what the Ports Act has to say on that, Howard. Neil, is there a cooling off period before they are allowed another stab?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Bob or his successors if things stay as they are and anything which has politicians (local, regional or National) as the controlling owners becomes vulnerable to sale in times of hardship. When we rely on our representatives, they have been elected to office for a large variety of reasons on a wide swathe of issues and representative democracy will not necessarily see them elected due to support for local government ownership of the port or deselected for selling the port, so they cannot be trusted as guardians of the port's future. New legislation to require them to retain ownership in perpetuity can always be changed or repealed if the government of the day deems it expedient to do so. So, any form of ownership that leaves the future in the hands of politicians and port executives will inevitably mean that at some point in the future there will come a time when either us or our successors will have to fight this fight again. The only forms of ownership that truly protect the port are ones which give a direct say on the port's ownership to the largest possible number of local individuals who can express their view on the port's ownership directly as a single issue.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Under the Ports Act there is no defined cooling off period. Theoretically Bob and his team could take on board what the minister has written and draw up a new request for transfer accordingly which would be subject to a renewed period of consultation. The Ports Minister, Stephen Hammond MP, will be meeting with them, but the meeting will not be quite what Bob has in mind I think. BG seems to think that he will be telling the Minister about new DHB proposals for future development, however, the over riding impression that I get is that the Minister will be the one doing the telling.
I don't think that DHB even considered that they would lose this, not even for a moment and so no plan b existed. They could have, at any time over the last couple of years, adopted a mutual solution as suggested by the DPPT, but chose to press on with a doomed private equity sale instead.
I am quite frankly stunned that the supposedly switched on and intelligent businessmen at the DHB remained so blithely unaware that their chosen course was set for disaster and rejection despite the very clear and very large hints provided along the way by the Government, the Town, their users and their MP.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Personally I can't see any connections to politicians and politics in the DHB decisions, contrary to what Neil says.
Similarly. I fail to see a connection to the proclaimed conspiracy theory of wanting to sell the White Cliffs and the harbour to foreign powers/owners.
However, for there to be a DPPT bid, it would require public consultation, and we'd be back to base 1.
Martin, the word ramblings etc. can be equally applied to some other ideas on here, thought it was about time to let you know
At least Neil is gentleman-like in his discussions and choice of words, which I appreciate.
However, my foremost aim at the moment is to secure local revenues from the Port. Revenues that are directly dependent on the Port's traffic. If you live in Deal, Martin, you probably don't experience the port traffic. Other people live in Dover. The port is in Dover, and we get all its traffic day in day out.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Mr Wiggins,I can not see the D.H.B. do not have a plan B in place,I think they have just that,and in the newyear we will hear and see more of what that plan is.If the public was looking for plans for funding for the townthen they have just said goodbye to it.The DHB plan would have done just that if millions being put into the town overnight, As I said we will now see the D.H.B moving and working hard to keep the port as a trust port,which is the way others and myself want. The P/P plan would never work and as I said many times before see the port go bust.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
of course dhb have a plan b,its called giving up and rolling over.if what ever way it go's i cant bob goldfinger getting a big payout as in a golden hand shake.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
He will not go ,he will want to get his own back its not about money anymore.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
vic,bob goldfinger is holding out for a very large lump sum to put in his pension pot.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
He and his colleagues have comprehensively shot themselves in the foot and lost all credibility. They should accept defeat and bow out gracefully.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
