The post you are reporting:
Once the tolls came in, Howard, the money would be shared, as I have already explained, between the two Dover Councils (40 percent), the County Council (30 percent) and the State Treasury(30 percent). This would apply to all British commercial ports.
As the sum going to Dover's Town and District Councils would by far exceed the government support grants to cover the Council budgets, the Councils of Dover (DDC, DTC) wouldn't need to apply for these grants to cover the annual budget, AND would still have a lot more money to spare. So the State would benefit twice, once for receiving a share in the tolls, twice for not having to pay gov. support grants to Dover's Councils, nor to the Councils of any town or city or district in Britain that runs a large commercial port. So, as you can see, Howard, that what people would pay on tolls, would bring about a great saving to the State Treasury, or at least a saving, great or no, and would finance the local budget of port towns and cities. It would be fare, it has naught to do with high-way robbery or the like.
Adding to this, the extra money that Dover's Town and District Councils would have, could be used to build a new berth at Western Docks, carry out other works at Western Docks and along the promenade, build a tunnel beneath Townwall and Snargate Streets to have the traffic under the ground, and so, so much more in Dover and District. Large and small projects! And this would create work, too, Howard, meaning that the State would pay less unemployment and housing benefit, and that more people could have more to spend. The idea of repairing or rebuilding a church was just my personal proposal, and this would have only taken up a very small amount of a port-toll budget.
Howard, if you agree or don't, please spare the kind of hysteria that Andy unleashed with his left-handed approach, as I too am only limited, and only want to do good to Dover!