howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
trust you to be on the ball richard.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Also on the ball
the most posted on threads are as it appears the political ones(cobbled together lol)
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 312.....first para ...agree.....last para ...philanthropic....depends how the market place decides.....could end in tears....
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
don't mention the cobbled together govt.
but do hope they make a decision soon
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
I am going to buck the trend and Thank Alex for his continual pumping for Neil to explain the ins and outs of DPPT.
I still think it got off to a wrong start and I can still see and understand the caution and mistrust that it has been shown in the early stages but I now think that caution and mistrust must be put aside and we all should all give DPPT our full support.
I am now regretting not getting on board sooner.
Through Neil's openness and honest replies to Alex and other sceptics like me, on this forum, I am now convinced that it is what it says on the packet and that it is a true attempt to stop the Port from being privatised and that DPPT is community based and is and will be, for the good of the community.
I truly believe we should stop being cautious and start being more supportive and that is not directed just at DF members but by all community members.
Best of luck to Neil and his DPPT Team and let's hope this government makes at least one right decision, very soon.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Gary, there are a number of factors to consider.
The DPPT option requires the sale of the Port.
It envisages the Port being in debt for 40 years through the emission of bonds - not only to pay the Treasury £200 million, but also to build a T2, as stated in a recent post by Neil. So the borrowing would just go on and on...
It would mean outsourcing the institutionalised administrations of the Council-defined communities to DPPT. Even though this group recognises Dover District as an administrative area - hence their decision that only residents within this boundary can be members - and acknowledges the Town Council - hence the Parish poll obtained through DTC - yet it would supplant the District and Town Councils and become a new administrative body running the Port and local regeneration.
Opting for DPPT would mean outsourcing democracy and community rights to this self-appointed organisation:
No member of the community who isn't a member of DPPT could have any say in the future regeneration of our area.
All decision regards the Port and local prosperity would depend on eight directors, who are not elected by the Communities as directors of the Port and local regeneration, but are self-appointed, such as Charlie Elphicke the current MP for Dover and Deal and David Foley the leader of the Dover Chamber of Commerce.
These people, as directors of DPPT, would claim to represent the whole community, while excluding anyone who is not a paid-up member of their organisation from any say in anything regards our future prosperity.
This is unconstitutional!
Furthermore, what they propose to the whole District is a one-off payment of £50 million pounds of borrowed money, and once that is gone, there would just be the annual dividends of £1 million.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Gary,
I don't think we are all convinced as yet
but for me (as john heron told me)
its one step at a time
first its all out to make sure D.H.B. doesn't win it's bid
the rest at this time doesn't matter
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
If Charlie Elphicke and David Foley want to have a say in local administration, they should stand as councillors and compete according to institutionalised democratic standards.
Neither of these people have been elected to represent the Community to run the Port, nor to run local regeneration.
Neither of them have the right to exclude members of our Community from having a say in our future.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Alex.
I have read all your concerns many times before and carefully considered Neil's response to them.
I then used the bit of intelligence that I have, to look them up and make some enquiries of my own, before making up my mind.
I could point out the many of flaws, in your concerns but that has already been exhausted and would be wasting time.
However, I do have a concern of my own, regarding some of the questions that you have levelled at Neil recently, I could be wrong but are they emanating from you or from a third party?
Keith.
I am convinced and I am sure you will be at some time in the future.
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
just spotted on the peoples port website a seminar coming up at st mary''s parish hall this coming thursday the 25th at 6. 30 p.m.
led by lord maurice glasman and forum leg end john heron - all welcome.
first i have heard of it.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Good question, Gary.
But the DPPT proposal, if ever put forward by the DfT. would require the Communities Secretary and his Office to be involved, this is a forgone conclusion, unless an Act of Parliament were passed abolishing democracy and Community rights.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander;
you are incorrect on the role of an M.P
Garyc
maybe. lets see
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, the MP Charlie Elphicke is a co-founder of DPPT and one of its eight directors. In other words a member of its board numbering 8 people. The MP has no legislative authority to decide over matters that concern local Councils, such as future regeneration and the right of the residents of the administrative communities to elect their representatives, which by Law and Constitution is in the form of councillors.
He cannot exclude us from taking part in our future nor transfer authority from the local communities to a self-proclaimed board which wants to represent the community and to have the rights - should it ever be approved in Parliament - to exclude us from decisions that pertain to our future prosperity.
A board that would be elected only from its own members, supplanting democracy and our inherent rights to elect our own representatives.
I am not part of this self-proclaimed group, as far as I am concerned it could be a masonic lodge trying to take over and replace Local Government.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
Thinking about your post GaryC about Alexander's questions coming from a third party; because of the nature of them and the open hostility in them, you could be right. I do doubt though that the third party in question, would use Alex as a medium to forward their hostile opposition.
Roger
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the plot thickens, i think that alex is publicising his own views rather than anyone elses.
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
Roger.
I did not refer to the third party being anyone particular, although we will all draw our opinion's, if it is true.
I was referring to the intellectual level and somewhat complexity of some of his later, questions/comments.
Alex.
Your words, from an earlier post.
"Dover in my rep to the DfT. Some forms of structural regeneration require an investment but will not bring a profit. Other forms of economic investment would be financially profitable".
My representations to the DfT
They have in fact replied to me in each instance that my proposals are being taken into consideration, from March 2010 to August 2012.
Are you a one man band?
How was you elected, to put forward these proposals?
How do you know your proposals are for the good of Dover/Deal communities?
Where would your funding come from, for those investments you speak of?
"My New Year's Resolution, is to try and emulate Marek's level of chilled out, thoughtfulness and humour towards other forumites and not lose my decorum"
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Good questions, Gary.
Certainly some people taking part in the public consultation hold a post to which they have been nominated or elected.
For example in the Dover District Chamber of Commerce, or in Parliament.
However, a public consultation does not exclude the Public in general from taking part.
Your last question must have been answered tens of times, or even more than that.
But it's important to note that the DPPT board, by way of its proposed constitution, is asking for a transfer of authority to a self-appointed body. This is where both democracy and the existing local administrative constitution come into question.
Guest 688- Registered: 16 Jul 2009
- Posts: 268
Surely,Alexander,you are putting the cart before the horse.Is it not in everyone's interest,apart from a select few, to try and stall this privatisation cycle and then to gain the breathing space to look at the alternatives.Those alternatives that,must and will ,put the town and the community at any proposals heart and not just as a begrudged tick box exercise.Then for the town to move on and to try and make sure this is never allowed to happen again.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Without the DPPT and the campaigning of Charlie/Neil etc the Port would already have been sold off and may well now be owned by the Arabs/Chinese or French.
Anyone in the Dover District can become members of DPPT for just £10 and from that get certain rights in electing the Board should they win the day. That is a whole lot more public involvement than the current status provides.
As for DDC or KCC taking it over - what a nightmare scenario. Councils cannot even make a profit from selling a pint of beer.
Alexander, as usual comes up with a pile of.... red herrings....
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 339....1st para ...the market place will decide...2nd para ... gobbledygook...it`s a closed shop....#3rd para...agreed....
4th para...???...from the owner of the fishmongers !!!!..........