Bad day for dr b
- 25 March 2013 18:45222207Please refer to Neil's post above.
"The website did originally allow comments, however, as the site's primary purpose is giving real information to members, it was decided to move the ability to comment and discuss from the site to a more appropriate forum, facebook. It turned out that some people with no interest in what was written and what DPPT were doing were clogging the web site with incorrect and poorly informed opinions unrelated to the articles to which the comments were attached."
Was that insufficiently clear? If you want to make a comment you can do so on Facebook or Twitter (@DoverPP)I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson - 25 March 2013 18:48222208as clear as the facebook page - cannot get much clearer than that, not one message.
- Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
25 March 2013 18:48222209Heaven help the Facebook page and those who read it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
------------------------------------------------------------------- - 25 March 2013 18:49222210won't take long jan.
- 25 March 2013 18:49222211We can delete anything daft, Jan!I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
- Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
25 March 2013 18:54222213Just as well Peter.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
------------------------------------------------------------------- - 25 March 2013 19:43222220Alexander D wrote:Peter, if I leave out: 2013, and digit only: Dover people's port trust, I get to place four on page 1 of Google.
However, it is another article of mine posted Sep. 3rd 2011.
Also, Yahoo and Bing bring my "2013" article up on the top of page 1, under: Dover people's port 2013, as well as Google.
The point is, people read these articles, and then find that on the DPPT webpage they cannot even comment.
So they come back to me for more information.
As said, thousands of page views!
Still doesn't mean it is 'quality' information and anyone is actually reading itFind me on Facebook Dover History Pages Group or Flickr
http://www.facebook.com/groups/393747750647287/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/doverpast - 25 March 2013 19:49222222There has been loads of discussion on other threads about how much net debt would be incurred by DPPT and how that debt would be serviced and funded. I've answered the question on this forum at least twice with a full account and elements of the same question a number of other times.
The answer is the answer and it has been given, just because someone doesn't like the answer or doesn't believe how infrastructure debt funding actually works or how low the rates are for solid cash-flow infrastructure port assets, doesn't change the answer.
Initially more than that would have had to be raised (up to £400m) under the Ports Act process, but due to the way that the purchase process cash flows work, net debt that would have required long term bond funding on completion of the transaction would have been £200m.
Now that we are looking at a different route for purchasing the port because, fortunately, the Ports Act process, which puts DHB in the driving seat, will not immediately be reactivated, the initial and final amount of money that needs to be raised is the same and we can more or less go direct to bond rather than using a 'bridge to bond'.
For those who missed it before - Net debt to purchase the port predicated on actual market value would be between £190m and £230m at the moment. At ticket rates currently indicated by the market this level of debt funding is serviceable within DHB's current pre-tax profit projections with sufficient reserve.
Howard, no DHB buildings or assets will be sold off under the DPPT plans. - Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
25 March 2013 19:50222223thats what ive told them neil. - 25 March 2013 20:03222231or leased out neil?
- 25 March 2013 20:05222232Hi Howard, yes to leases, no to sales.
- Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
25 March 2013 22:06222233Surely it is in the interests of whoever runs the port to maximise their revenues through full economic use of their property and land portfolio. Ideally this should be achieved through lease/rental of those parts of the portfolio not currently making any economic contribution.
Or am I missing something?"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi - 26 March 2013 00:40222234Neil must have missed the £87 million works scheduled for Eastern Docks, and that comes from DHB's revenues.
Anyway, it now transpires that the P/p are wanting to purchase DHB, following Neil's last post.
Now for that to happen, there would have to be a sale of DHB. So who would get the £190-230 million which Neil mentions?
Would it go to the Treasury?
The DfT have made no mention of this sale perspective, so where is the evidence, Neil?
Also, there is no way of getting onto DPPT facebook, have tried it, doesn't work.
And if no-one has commented on DPPT facebook page, then no-one is interested.
Or, if Peter has deleted all comments as they came, on account of their being daft, then that must mean that everyone who commented had their comment deleted, on account of their (it) being daft!
Best let this thread die a natural death, methinks.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 26 March 2013 00:59222235Paul, Google has a strict policy of putting quality information at the top.
You should read Google's policy.
Many page views on my Port threads come from the UK and Taiwan, for whichever reason.
The "rail link to Dover Port" article actually had hundreds of comments on it, at one point, and they were coming in from different people, one of whom suggested I contact a university to promote the idea.
In fact a number of these persons were so interested in this proposal, they kept asking how I intended to implement it, and asked for the technical details.
One person kept asking me for proof that I had actually taken part in the Public Consultation.
I realised that my proposal was at risk of intellectual theft, but as I had made it in early 2010 in my first representation, and every subsequent one to the DfT, and had the written proof from the DfT that I had made this rail link proposal, some of the posters became very angry.
Alas I had to delete almost all the comments, as they became unsavoury.
Modestly, Alexander
Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 26 March 2013 08:41222267My Dear Alexander, read previous postings on this subject or get a better memory (Howard, you have no Goldfish Smilies). I explained to you before that the stress tested business plan and financials included a £100m spend over 5 years on catch up maintenance and capital investment. In order for the Government Criteria to be met, the TREASURY must achieve 'Fair Value'. I thought you knew all about everything to do with ports Alexander and everything to do with the Ports Act and the Public Bodies Act, it is clear that all monies go to The Treasury - where else did you think they might go? If the port is going to be communitised and re-created as a friendly Mutual society, then the Government have to achieve fair value. I am saying nothing new here.
The facebook page appears to work from my end and some people have commented on the page in the past, but I'm no Social Media Officianado, FB is not my thing, so possibly something not working that I don't know about.
As I've said before to you, rail links to ports are nothing new, they are a long established method of connecting ports to their wider hinterland (Port-Rail connectivity has been around for as long as rail has been). I'm sure that everyone on this forum who has a better memory than you will remember that, as a port professional, I mentioned once or twice that rail connectivity would be among DPPT considerations when reviewing the Port Masterplan. Intellectual theft of such an idea is impossible as it is not your intellectual property, best have a word or two with Brunel andd see if he'll grant you full rights over what were originally his ideas. - 26 March 2013 09:24222275Alexander D wrote:Paul, Google has a strict policy of putting quality information at the top.
Yeh right !!Find me on Facebook Dover History Pages Group or Flickr
http://www.facebook.com/groups/393747750647287/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/doverpast - 26 March 2013 09:27222277Alexander D wrote:Paul, Google has a strict policy of putting quality information at the top.
You should read Google's policy.
Many page views on my Port threads come from the UK and Taiwan, for whichever reason.
The "rail link to Dover Port" article actually had hundreds of comments on it, at one point, and they were coming in from different people, one of whom suggested I contact a university to promote the idea.
In fact a number of these persons were so interested in this proposal, they kept asking how I intended to implement it, and asked for the technical details.
One person kept asking me for proof that I had actually taken part in the Public Consultation.
I realised that my proposal was at risk of intellectual theft, but as I had made it in early 2010 in my first representation, and every subsequent one to the DfT, and had the written proof from the DfT that I had made this rail link proposal, some of the posters became very angry.
Alas I had to delete almost all the comments, as they became unsavoury.
Modestly, Alexander
Your intellectual property for a rail link into the Western Docks??? There was me thinking their were several rail links in the past into the Western Docks. You really think you had a great new idea?Find me on Facebook Dover History Pages Group or Flickr
http://www.facebook.com/groups/393747750647287/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/doverpast - 26 March 2013 18:08222348Alexander D wrote:
Also, there is no way of getting onto DPPT facebook, have tried it, doesn't work.
And if no-one has commented on DPPT facebook page, then no-one is interested.
Or, if Peter has deleted all comments as they came, on account of their being daft, then that must mean that everyone who commented had their comment deleted, on account of their (it) being daft!
Best let this thread die a natural death, methinks.
Looks ok to me!!
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Dover-Peoples-Port/161018273953220Find me on Facebook Dover History Pages Group or Flickr
http://www.facebook.com/groups/393747750647287/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/doverpast - 26 March 2013 18:39222350curiouser and curiouser, 2 facebook pages but no comments on either.
http://www.facebook.com/dover.peoplesport?fref=ts - 26 March 2013 18:42222351the king is dead, long live the king.
http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Exclusive-Succession-speculation-Waggott-lands/story-18523190-detail/story.html#axzz2NzN7Bsra