Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Mr Matthews Well said,I have been saying that now for some two years,even on the TV and in the press.I have told the MP and Mr Wiggins many times and on this and other forums.I am a parish cllr siting on four councils,it is right to say we did not hold a referendum(1) Because we was not asked to by the parish members.(2) It would have cost many 1000s of pounds.The Town council have around £600.000 year coming in. The parish council do not get anywhere near that,One of the big parish councils I sit on get about £60,000 per year to look after the parish.And one of the smaller ones get only £9000 per year,yes just £9000 to look after the whole parish.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Now in reality
if you were a conservative minister looking at this project needing to make a decision, would you;
1; go with the peoples port proposal
2; go with alexanders proposal
3; keep on DHB but by a different method
4; other
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Any Political Minister will wait for the market place to throw up the biggest bid..........time will tell....
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, my proposal does not envisage the demise of DHB, so questions 2 and 3 are conflicting.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
so alexanderdo you honestly feel your proposal has any momentum??
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, there is no majority public demand for DHB to be replaced, especially now that the privatisation bid has been rejected.
My proposals do not harm in anyway the Port's functioning, but on the contrary would be of great benefit to the Port.
They do not conflict with DHB's interests (now that their bid is no longer standing).
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Interesting alexander
many flaws in your proposal apart from the failed DHB
letting govts local or national anywhere near running the port is nowt short of looking for failure
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, either you speak Chinese, or I do.
The Port is run by DHB, and I've never proposed otherwise.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
maybe you should re read post 228
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, I don't need to reread any post nor repeat the same thing over and over again.
We've been through all this before.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
yes we have alex,on all 16 pages,and you are the worst culprit.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Well looking in from the outside, Im afraid(like the govt probably will) proposals to let local govt get there paws on the port
finishes it for me
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, my port toll proposal does not ask for, nor require, local Government to have any say whatsoever on the running of the Port. The Department for Transport have already written this in as many words in the Decision Minister's letter.
Perhaps you should read through that letter, Keith. There is a link to it on page 1 of this thread.
Apart from that, Keith, I think you do not grasp one essential element regards the Port of Dover.
It is a Public Asset, not acquired privately by DHB. The land and harbour that constitute DHB territory and waters (and airspace), is not privately owned.
DHB have been established by charter and appointed to run this land and adjacent water, and, ultimately, it is the Government that can change this charter, or not change it, or amend it, or not amend it. It has been amended several times, in particular during the 20th century.
Some decisions concerning DHB do depend on the Government, in particular the DfT, and these decisions in turn depend on standing legislation.
When you say that the "Government should have no say over the Port of Dover", as in many past posts, you appear not to realise that the Government does have authority over our Port, and has had since 1606.
DHB quite simply is not a private company, Keith.
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
havent you heard the latest,its being floged off to the french.all paper work will be signed off next week.honest guv.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
So alexander post 228 you now have moved away from?
confusing or what?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
"Mr Wiggins expects big changes at DHB between now and the end of May as all non-executive roles, except for incoming chairman George Jenkins, come up for renewal or replacement."
This implies that DHB will not be disbanded or replaced. That's what I've been saying.
Surely it means DPPT are no longer an option?
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
What exactly are the"non executive" roles in DHB?
Audere est facere.
Guest 705- Registered: 23 Sep 2010
- Posts: 661
Why shouldn't the DHB be disbanded or replaced-after all their plan for the future of the port was apparently fundamentally flawed and rejected out of hand. This shows that they have failed miserably in expediting the most important stage of all time in the development of Dover as a working community.. In any other business this magnitude of misinterpretation would be met with clear instructions. So forumites, why do you think that the (DH) board have not demanded anything different?
Alexander you can say what you like about DPPT and you have made one or two valid observations, but really, no longer an option?- frankly they are the only option.
Never give up...
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Richard, when the DHB request was rejected, Neil stated that he wouldn't start singling out Dr. Goldfield.
There are some posts on this thread to that extent.
Howard's article suggests Neil has now joined a chorus calling for his resignation.
In the Public Consultation, as I recall, Bob Goldfield's post was never up for discussion or consultation.
I'm not sure the DfT will want to get involved in calls for his resignation, as it was never part of their role to consult the Public on this.