Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#1
For the pass 3 years we in Dover have had a cold war between two party,s on one side we had the D.H.B. and on the other a group calling it self the public of Dover port (or a name like it.
They even went to the polls over who should run the port and by a vote of just over 5000 out of a possible 28000 they said they had the mass of the Dover voters behind them in calling for the end of the DHB and the two main persons behind this group was Mr Wiggins and our own MP who even got up in the house of parliament shouting out we in Dover wish to see the end of the Royal Port of Dover ,and that the port should be handed over to P.of Dover group to run.They said they could loan the 4 millions of pounds to take the port over and again who was behind this it was our own MP and Mr Wiggins,and for the next two years we saw them both in the press and on the TV running down the members of the D.H.B. and saying they should all get the boot from the job.
But then because they lost the cold war and parliament said no to their plan (Which we know would not work) they were still shouting from the roof tops WE WILL CARRY ON THE FIGHT TO GET RID OF THE D.H.B..
But then the DHB made a very clever move by saying we will like to take some members of the public and put them on our running committee (knowing the public members that got on would be out voted over any running issues of the port that came up.)but still not happy with that they went on the say we would like a paid member of the public to take that job on,and asking the public of Dover to put their names forward if they would like to serve, knowing that there would be a rush now it was a paid job, and also knowing Mr Wiggins would be one of the names on the list.Also knowing that Mr Wiggins name would go down well in some quarters of the public in Dover which it has done just that and also it will get rid of the main man behind the other plan and it worked both the MP and Mr Wiggins turned their backs on their own group and resign or relinquish their own job on the committee of that group.
And took over a paid job on the DHB the group he said he hated only two years before that.And will we see him now getting up and telling the press and on the TV how bad the .D.H.B. is running the port ? Its a BIG no to that we do not hear him or the MP now running down the D,H,B, And that in my books show they do not have any Honour left after turning their backs on their own supporters which I will say I was not one of them.Honour has only six letters but the meaning behind that word means a lot to most of us, that word Honour also is not in the make up of our own councils to.They have over many years reds ,blues, have let Dover down with no Honour behind the moves they used. thank you.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#2
The port is now a community port instead of being a separate entity to the town so we have moved on.
The only problem I have is that the Minister did not detail what that actually meant in practice and I said that at the time on this forum.
The decision about dosh being allocated was made well before the two non executive directors was made, strange decision in my view but we have to look to the future with renewed enthusiasm.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
#3
Still a Trust Port surely?
Audere est facere.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#4
Yes it is still a trust port in my books still a Royal Port.And run as it should be by a .D.H.B.
But that is not the issue ,I am on about two members who jumped ship .And the way it was done .Will Mr Wiggins now come back on the forum to take on the issues I have made and the lost of Honour by making the move he done and the MP.? We wait and see but I do not think he will already we have seen he does not post anymore .And we all know why?
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#5
Vic, there are so many factual inaccuracies in your post that I don't know where to start.
Life's too short.
So I shan't. Except to say that it's not a clever move by DHB, it was forced on them by the DfT.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#6
Sorry Mr Garstin but I did not think you would agree as you was one of the leaders of that group yourself. But I know you to well to fall out about it .We do agree on one thing life is to short to keep it up. But that is what happen.
Not much more I can add to what I have already wrote.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#7
All I will say is that a rambling rant from Vic is no surprise as he was quite happy to stick with the original DHB lot that had been so good at ruining that area of the town for their own gains and blow the rest of Dover.
Neil was the most obvious choice as he will put the town needs before the DHB needs, he also helped highlight how unpopular the DHB was with the local population which is why we now have the much needed changes. Neil has not lost honour he has gained huge respect as can been seen by all the positive comments I have read on many other forums.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#8
Vic, we shall certainly not fall out about it. But the appointment of community directors is what the DfT see as being the best way to start bringing together the port and the town, not a clever wheeze by DHB, nor a cynical ploy by Neil to get some extra dosh as you seem to imply.
For the record, Neil is one of the most honourable people I know, and I think you owe him an apology. Charlie is an MP and therefore fair game.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
#9
Well said Peter - Neil, and I'm sure the other community director also, is as honourable as they come.
More than can be said for some of Vic's factually inaccurate post.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#10
Sorry but I do not apology for what I wrote .I also said the same about the councils we have had over the pass 40years but I did note none of you picked me up on that one does that mean you agree with me on that part of my post.?And I will not give out a apology on that one to.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#11
You can say what you like about elected people, if they stand for election they put their heads above the parapet (and that includes you, Vic). Although when I criticise local politicians I tend to do it face to face and not on social media. I think that's only fair. Now that Neil is a DHB director he will not be able to participate in such online debates as everything he says will be construed as DHB policy.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#12
You are right I have been shot at many times and do not mind that.I have said nothing more then I would say on a face to face and one to one .many times I have said what I was thinking to both the MP and Mr Wiggins and would do so again if our paths cross.If that is true about Mr Wiggins not talking about his roll on the D.H.B which is to put over the views of the Dover public what is the point of him being there in the first place,?
Guest 1266- Registered: 8 May 2014
- Posts: 381
#13
If Neil Wiggins is not able to participate in online debates then quite frankly he is as useful as a chocolate teapot. Social media is a big part of modern day community!
Jack of Hearts
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#14
I haven't seen Neil say anything about not participating in any debates, would be surprised if that turned out to be the case as we have the leader of DDC and the Town Mayor posting on here and elsewhere.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#15
Nolan principles regarding standards of behaviour in public llife.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#16
We will have to wait and see if and when that happens.
Guest 977- Registered: 27 Jun 2013
- Posts: 1,031
#17
As a parish councillor you might wish to refresh your understanding of the Nolan principles, and then offer that apology.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
#18
Of course I can still participate, and listen, however, unless otherwise stated, all views expressed will be my own.
Mr Vic, I like you quite a lot, but almost everything that you put down to open this thread is inaccurate. I always try and avoid attacking the integrity and honour of other people as I do not know what is in their heart. You ought to know that even though I strongly disagreed with Mr Goldfield and with the way in which he had chosen to achieve his stated objectives, I did not attack his integrity or impugn his honour. I spent almost all my time explaining how the DPPT plan could and would work and a small amount of time showing how what was then the plan of the DHB would pan out if allowed to proceed, or how it fell short of the revised criteria when they were published.
I was critical of DHB policy, of a private equity sale and the approach that had been adopted towards their community and their customers. I believed, and still do, that much improvement can be made in the way that the port worked and works and am honoured that I will now be a part of making that improvement in however small a way. I think that you will find that all my criticism was reserved for the then executive and the policy and methods that he had adopted and that I ALWAYS spoke well of the day to day management and staff of the port who always have and continue to do a brilliant job. When privatisation was rejected, I, on behalf of the DPPT, vowed to continue fighting on for reform of the port and its governance to ensure that privatisation did not emerge as an issue again in the future. Perhaps you missed the point that the DPPT made right at the outset of the privatisation process which was, 'The Port of Dover should not be sold to private equity, but if it is going to be sold, then it should belong to the people of Dover and no one else'. The Port of Dover has not been sold and that is brilliant news for all of us.
Things have certainly moved on since December 20th in 2012 and the Minister's statement in April of this year was the culmination of a lot of effort.
The DHB has started reform and that continues, it has access to the financial powers that it needs to invest in the growth and development for the future, it will have a new governance HRO with Directors from the community and the principle of a Community Fund has been established.
Basically, all the things that I criticised the previous executive and board members for not doing are now in progress; unlike some I do not leap to resume kicking if everything that I want to happen does not happen immediately and exactly as I wanted it to. Change takes time, reform takes time, improvement takes time and they need to be given time to put down roots and establish a shoot in order to begin to flourish.
I am no longer Chairman or Board member of the DPPT because to remain so could be perceived as a conflict of interest (everyone would have been right to point that out had I not stepped down) and I will need to devote myself to serve to the best of my ability within the Board of the reforming DHB and help to deliver what we all want and need, a flourishing port at the heart of a newly flourishing town and a community which enjoys the best port-town relationship in the country. That means working with people and building bridges to bring about the change that everyone seems to want.
For the record, Charlie is still a member and Director of the DPPT, so all the huff about rats jumping ship is total guff.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#19
Thank you for that Mr Wiggins but I still stand by what I said ,but you come back and put your views which is more then I was hoping for .So time again will tell which one of us is right,I do not think you should have got the post for the points I made in my first post ,And read between the lines I still think the MP did jump ship but as we all know he needs all the votes he can get so at this time he will try and not upset any voter..Just because I am still a parish cllr does not mean I cannot give out my views and even if that was the case I would still go ahead and do it.I will not be giving out any apology over what I have wrote they are my views and mine alone which I still hold.But just to add that I will not be a parish cllr after the next election.Nor will I be voting.Thank you.
Guest 643- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,321
#20
I'm sure that Neil, Peter and Ray find some of these ill informed and made up comments very tiresome, childish and boring - I certainly do. Goodness only knows what outsiders looking in think - I just hope they see through the rubbish and read the sensible and factual comments from people who know what they are talking about.
There's always a little truth behind every "Just kidding", a little emotion behind every "I don't care" and a little pain behind every "I'm ok".