The post you are reporting:
Alexander, my apologies, I may be mistaken about your final position on King Arthur. I was remembering your argumentation on another thread on this very forum where you used the Arthurian Legend as a support of your argument against development, this was back in May and left me with an abiding impression. I also traced the blogs concerned and the general subject themes whilst being similar to yours (Celtic half legend, Disputed History on the early Church in England, early Saxon Kings) are not the same subject matter that you list above and the name they are signed with is different on each occasion and isn't your name.
As for fact or fantasy on the numbers, DPPT's have been externally tested and scrutinised and hold up under that scrutiny.
I do not wish to, nor have I made any attempt to undo your representations. Merely tried to show that statements that you have made in regard to DPPT as 'fact' are factually incorrect.
Rail. read what I wrote. It isn't just your suggestion, I was very clear and detailed about rail and have been many times. The only person who could ever have claimed that rail connection to a port was his original idea was Brunel, not you or I (however, at least I know how much it would cost, how the connection could be achieved and what percentage of freight is likely to move on it).
TownWall Tunnel: again, not specifically your idea and not mine either (Townwall tunnel has been suggested by many people on many occasions over the last 40 years, so stop pretending it is all your idea alone), just pointing out that you've made suggestions that are uncosted, untimetabled and unfinanced, where items such as a tunnel under Townwall street, have been properly investigated and properly costed by DPPT as part of a long term potential regeneration strategy which has been developed in consultation with other stakeholders.
No History rewrite. Read the DPPT Website which has said since the result was announced 'communitisation, A People's Port'.
FACT: The DPPT was not mentioned in the question, community ownership was what the question asked and what Dover voted for, a people's port.
DPPT campaigned hard for a 'Yes' vote on the parish poll and we have'nt used the result in the way that you suggest. Yes, the vote result legitimises a full fledged campaign for a people's port. Yes, the result has been seen to support the DPPT view that the Port of Dover should be communitised and become a People's Port. I, personally, have always been very precise in saying that Dover voted for a people's port, communitisation of the port, not privatisation. DPPT has and does maintain that it is representative of that community and therefore a transfer of ownership, howsoever achieved, to the DPPT would be appropriate given the appetite and expressed will of Dovorians for community ownership. I have also said and written publicly on many occasions and on all threads where I have written about the port that I believe that the DPPT solution is the best proposition for the port and the town, never that I believe it is the only alternative. Parliament will decide the final outcome.
The Consultation was on whether or not stakeholders agreed that the DHB enhanced revised proposals met the government's criteria on the the privatisation of Trust Ports. Representations that did not address the DHB proposals directly in relation to the criteria may not have delivered the message that the writer intended.