Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
I think this thread is one of the most pointless on the whole forum, no new information just a re-hash of what has been said previously by just about everyone.
#59 and #60 both quotes are at least 6 months old.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
I am just going out to walk the dog,and I do not even have one.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alex
http://www.dover.uk.com/forums/dover-forum/latest-on-the-port?p=35 refer to post 688. Still applies to the real situation today.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Yes, Jan. You are right. They are about 6 months old.
The Decision Minister's letter is from 21 December 2012 - 2 months old - and if by that time he did not decide to accept DPPT's proposals as were put forward in their representations, then DPPT cannot claim to be in an on-going relation with the Government on the Port of Dover and/or local regeneration in Dover deriving from Port revenue.
Unless the "People's Port" - of which you are a paid-up member - can prove that the DfT have changed their policy as specified DURING the Public Consultation (see statements from 6-9 months ago), they are walking in hot waters.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Unless anyone has anything new I mean new please can we move on. ThANK YOU.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Vic, you may be having a nice time rubbing your hands, as you always said that Dover should not receive any revenue from the Port, and are no doubt satisfied with your achievements, but this thread is not your personal property, and I suggest that YOU move on away from it, rather than posting useless comments.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
If my comments are along that line I am only following yours.
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
Jan Higgins wrote:I think this thread is one of the most pointless on the whole forum, no new information just a re-hash of what has been said previously by just about everyone.
#59 and #60 both quotes are at least 6 months old.
Agree Jan a 'new thread' for ' new news', just struggling to see anything new here !!
The Unite rep at the Port of Dover certainly doesn't think it is over for the People's Port
http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Dover-harbour-decision-fuels-hopes-port-s-future/story-17748675-detail/story.html#axzz2LklSB7xwGuest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alexander, you have failed to read or understand the relevant posts that I have pointed you to or pretty much anything else that has been written by me or other members of the DPPT in this regard.
The consultation on the DHB proposals is finished.
The Minister has rejected the DHB privatisation as put forward and amended by the DHB.
The 1991 Ports Act is still the governing legislation and so the DHB may choose to put forward a new proposal at any time.
The Public Bodies Act also has clauses with specific regard to the Port of Dover and the DHB.
The 1964 Harbours Act also give the Secretary of State significant and wide ranging powers.
The Secretary of State has discretion as to whether the Government adopts the DPPT proposals or not and whether to use his powers under the 1964 Harbours Act, the 1991 Ports Act or the 2011 Public Bodies Act to implement all or part of them.
If you think that the future of the port is settled once and for all by the Minister's decision on the previous DHB proposals in December last year, then you are much mistaken. Equally, if you believe that the decision on the DHB proposals for private equity sale precludes the continuance of a process necessary to deliver the Government's aims and objectives with regard to Treasury income and community benefit, then you are sadly out of touch with reality.
http://www.dover.uk.com/forums/dover-forum/latest-on-the-port?p=35 refer to post 688. Still applies to the real situation today.
So sue me.
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Jan, I see that Alexander refers to you as a paid up member of DPPT. Might as well get hung for a sheep as a lamb
http://www.peoplesport.org.uk/downloads/dpptl-application.pdf - sorry, glass or two of wine inside now whilst I enjoy the warmth of the water
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
The way I see it, even if DPPT doesn't achieve it's aims, it has hopefully helped raised the profile of Dover and may actually get DHB working with the town in a better way, so they need to be encouraged with their ambitions
In a similar way to the CGI plans for the Heights even if they don't happen they have certainly raised the awareness of the area both with the population and with English Heritage, and pushes the question "what next?".....
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil. this has nothing to do with suing anyone.
It has uniquely to do with knowing whether DPPT's representations have been rejected, or accepted, by the Decision Minister.
The previous posts outline the official DfT stance on the DPPT. It clearly reads that the "People's Port", or any other representation from other participants in the Public Consultation, would be equally treated in determining the Minister's decision on the DHB bid.
If DPPT has any further on-going position with the Government relating to the Port of Dover AFTER the 22 December 2012, then where is the official proof of this? You have not shown any.
Has your representation been accepted, or rejected?
Jan has herself printed on the Forum that she would become a paid member of DPPT, so I only assume she is a supporter of your stance. No problem with that.
Paul seems to confuse the Department for Transport with Google, but that does not surprise me either!
As I've posted already tonight, Neil, my request is already at the DfT to inquire whether DHB can put up another privatisation bid.
This needs sorting out officially. The reason being, our Community cannot go on being told that our Port will be or can be privatised whenever DHB so decide to put in another bid.
This is contrary to our local prosperity, contrary to regeneration, and damaging to our economic future.
The DfT will have to give an official reply to this question.
I'm simply trying to sort out through official clarifications from the competent Gov. Offices all the never-ending rumours that are flying around even after the 22 December.
And I will inform you of the DfT's official position on the DPPT as of post-December 2012, as you have not given us this statement yourself.
To put it plainly, I just want to know the facts, ONE set of facts, and the official ones.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
http://www.dover.uk.com/forums/dover-forum/latest-on-the-port?p=35 refer to post 688. Still applies to the real situation today.
The above answers your question, how many more times before you understand?
Much as your offer to inform me about the Minister's position with regard to communitisation of the port intrigues me, I think I'd rather prefer to have such information imparted direct when I or one of the other members of the DPPT board next meet with him and his officials
Read the 1991 Ports Act, it is already official and on the statute books in plain English. That will answer your question on whether the DHB can, if they so desire, make a new privatisation request.
DPPT are not dealing in rumours, the Government has made it plain that they are not satisfied with the status quo and that they want to see a community benefit. DPPT continues to work on delivering a solution that means no future sale and on sale uncertainties and the level of perpetual community benefit that the Government has said that it wants.
By the way you keep getting the date wrong on the decision announcement, which is really undermining any credibility that you think you might still have.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
Alex, to put it bluntly, I'm sure most people think all you are doing with this thread is showing yourself to be a plonker with a big ego and no connection with reality - and that's not criticism, it's advice to read all the posts and think about what you post in future.
And after that I'll do a Vic on this!
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Just because, and to make it all look like its new:-
Ang Ministro para sa Pagpapadala Sinabi DHB na kailangan nila maayos suriin at isaalang-alang ang LAHAT ng mga magagamit na mga pagpipilian para sa kanilang mga hinaharap na pagmamay-ari at pamamahala. George Jenkins ay malinaw na sinasabi na DHB hindi gawin kung ano ang Gobyerno ang nagsasabing dapat itong gawin, hindi na maluwag sa loob ng hindi bababa sa. Ang DHB ay hindi kailangang mag-aplay para sa privatization upang para sa may isang pagbabago sa katayuan ng port, ang Kalihim ng Estado ay may makabuluhang kapangyarihan sa ilalim ng umiiral na batas upang gumawa ng mga pagbabago nang walang pahintulot ng DHB o pakikipagtulungan kung siya pinili upang gawin ito. Gobyerno Ang ay ginawa ito malinaw na ang sitwasyon na umiiral ngayon ay hindi napapanatiling at hindi maaaring magpatuloy, kaya alinman port ang maghatid ang komunidad at paglilimita sa isang lugar agenda sa isang modelo komunidad magkaparehong ng pagmamay-ari maluwag sa loob at cooperatively sa pamamagitan ng isang ma-renew ang board, kung saan sa pagtatapos ng Mayo ay dapat magkaroon ng hindi bababa sa 5 bagong miyembro, o ang Kalihim ng Estado ay gumamit ng mga magagamit na kapangyarihan upang matiyak na ang resulta na ang mga kagustuhan ng Gobyerno.
Bilang para sa George Jenkins hindi-unawa ng mga benepisyo na ang pagmamay-ari ng pinagsasama-sa may-ari ng port - oh dear.
Ako na ang pakikipagtulungan ruta ay tinangka unang, ngunit ang interbiyu sa George Jenkins sa Mercury ay hindi isang mahusay na pagsisimula para sa ganitong paraan pasulong. Siguro saloobin shift kapag ang bagong mga miyembro ng board sa lugar.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Muling basahin kung ano ang ko sinulat ni. Ko na sinabi wala ng uri at ako tiyak HINDI paglukso ng barko.
Ipaalam sa akin pasimplehin - alinman sa port ay maging isang tao port sa pakikipagtulungan na may isang bagong DHB board o ito ay maging isang tao ng port nang hindi na pakikipagtulungan sa pamamagitan ng direktang aksyon sa pamamagitan ng Kalihim ng Estado. Gobyerno ay subukan ang pakikipagtulungan unang.
Tulad ng sinabi ko sa iyo maraming mga buwan na nakalipas mr Vic, kung ang kasalukuyang katayuan ay may kakayahang naghahatid ng kung ano ang kinakailangan, pagkatapos Gusto ko ay magiging masaya kung ang aking kampanya natapos na may privatization tinanggihan at ang katayuan ng Quo na pinananatili.
Gayunpaman, ganap na malinaw na ang kasalukuyang katayuan ay hindi naghahatid ng kung ano ang kinakailangan, na ang Gobyerno ang alam ito at nais kakaiba at patuloy Trust Port katayuan AY magresulta sa isa pang privatization labanan na fought ng ibang henerasyon ng mga Dovorians. Maaaring mong maging masaya sa iwanan aming paglaban sa ang susunod na henerasyon kapag maaaring namin na won ito sabay-sabay at para sa lahat ng ngayon, am ko hindi masaya upang gawin iyon at ay makita hinaharap ang port ng nagpasya ang magandang ng ang komunidad ng Dover at nito nakapalibot na lugar sa henerasyon na ito, para sa lahat ng henerasyon.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Ang sulat ng desisyon na mismo at ang mga Ministro para sa Pagpapadala ng pagtuturo sa DHB. Bukod na, DPPT ay patuloy sa tumutugma pasalita na may mga Ministro ng Gobyerno, Civil tagapaglingkod at may pambansang mga pulitiko ng lahat ng politicial lilim sa sa pinakamataas na antas na maunawaan at pagkasunduan sa mga argumento, parehong pilosopiko at financial, na DPPT ilagay sa harap sa pabor ng paglikha ng Dover bilang ang unang tunay na komunidad na pag-aaring mga port, port tao, sa UK.
Alam ko ang lahat ng mga pangalan ng Civil tagapaglingkod na kasangkot sa Dover, alam ko ang pangalan ng Ministro at kung paano upang maabot ang lahat ng mga ito sa pangangailangan. Nakakakita ng isang proyekto sa pamamagitan ng sa isang matagumpay na konklusyon tumatagal ng maraming higit pa kaysa sa isang sulat o ilang.
Tulad ng nakaraang panahon, na natapos na sa Disyembre 20, 2012 ay lahat tungkol sa DHB plano, Gobyerno ang tanging pagtugon sa na direktang at lamang hindi direkta, sa pamamagitan ng paggamit ng mga salita ng sulat ng desisyon at kasunod na pagtuturo sa DHB, sa DPPT panukala.
Ang aming orihinal na nag-aalok ng higit sa 2 taon na ang nakakaraan at ay tumugon sa sa isang positibong paraan sa pamamagitan ng Gobyerno sa oras, ngunit bilang konsultasyon pagkatapos ay kung upang payagan ang DHB scheme sa magpatuloy o hindi, hindi legal nila maaaring tanggapin ang aming alok.
Dalawang taon ay isang mahabang oras sa negosyo at pulitika, kaya ngayon na ang DHB scheme ay tinanggihan at ang komunidad na nag-aalok ng maayos na itinuturing, ito ay kinakailangan upang dalhin ito hanggang sa petsa. DPPT ay kasalukuyang ina-update ang aming alok para sa port na may lahat ng mga pinakabagong mga numero ng trapiko at projection mula Govt. istatistika at pagtataya na mga modelo para sa maikling dagat trapiko. Din kami nakakakuha ng ma-renew ang mga titik ng suporta mula sa mga pangunahing stakeholder ng port, legal na opinyon at mga bangko. Kapag ang pormal na alok ay na-sign-off ang ng board DPPT at kami ay handa na muli upang magpatuloy sa buong dahil sipag, pagkatapos ay namin muli sumulat sa DfT dito.
Upang petsa, ang tugon sa aming patuloy na pagsisikap at on-pagpunta sa mga pandiwang mga talakayan na may pamahalaan ay positibo.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Sorry to all of you who actually speak Tagalog, I'm a bit rusty as it has been a few years since I was a regular speaker and I've had a bottle of wine, which makes it even worse.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
I was going to 用中國人編寫 the relevant posts, but the wine has now gone to my head and I can't remember enough characters.
ok Howard, how come in the 'edit post' bit 'write in Chinese' appears properly in characters, but when I post it it doesn't?
Find me on Facebook Dover History Pages Group or Flickr