The post you are reporting:
Alex, you were invited, as was every other stakeholder and interested party, it was an open invite made by the Secretary of State last year in a written statement. You just did not respond to the invite.
I have never said that DPPT are the local community. I have said that DPPT are representative of the local community and will become more so as new members continue to join from across the district. There is a difference between being the local community, representing the local community and being representative of the local community. Being representative of the community does not mean that the entire community agree with us, obviously some don't. It does mean that we have as members people who live and/or work in the local community who hale from all walks of life, from Peers of the Realm to waiters in restuarants, and from a multitude of political persuasions and we are as a result representative of the community as a whole.
Members of the community, elected representatives from town, district, county and nation from all political and business persuations are involved with the DPPT project and actively support its aims and objectives, as do the other major stakeholders in the port.
You do not agree with our aims and objectives, fine, we can all disagree.
You have your own proposals and ideas for which you can actively demonstrate neither popular or stakeholder support, you have failed to take part in the ongoing consultations, ignoring a key invitation from the Secretary of State along the way. Below is the invite that you ignored:
"Delivered by: The Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP
Publisher: Department for Transport
Delivered date: 15 September 2011
Type: Written statement
Mode/topic: Shipping, Ports, UK shipping industry
The Secretary of State for Transport (Philip Hammond): On 3 August 2011, I announced the criteria that the Government will consider particularly relevant to the appropriateness of the sale of a major trust port in England or Wales under the Ports Act 1991. This followed the consultation that I announced on 16 May 2011 [Official Report Column 4WS] and which closed on 27 June. I regret that it was not possible to announce this first by Written Ministerial Statement to the House, but I did not wish to delay consideration of the application by Dover Harbour Board for a transfer scheme.
I am aware that Dover Harbour Board has now considered the criteria, intends to proceed with its application for a transfer scheme under the Ports Act 1991, and proposes to submit a new set of documents containing a further elaboration of its scheme for decision by the Minister of State under the new criteria. If interested parties would find it useful and seek my department's assistance, we would be happy to consider ways in which properly to facilitate discussions on all the options before the Dover Harbour Board submits its elaborated proposal."
It goes on a bit after that.
It is impossible to find any evidence of your own campaign on the local or national TV news, in the local or national newspapers or on local or national radio, so what campaign? Have you tested your ideas in the white heat of expert opinion? Have you done financial modelling for your ideas and had those models stress tested by independent experts? Have you spent at least 20 hours a week for the last two and a bit years gaining a full understanding of how a wide range of UK Legislation will impact on your ideas and the way in which the port may be able to invest and grow as a result of implementing them? Have you applied in depth expert knowledge of ports industry and maritime sector to support your argumentation in favour of your ideas? Maybe you have, I really hope so.
As I've said before, I believe that the DPPT model is the best way to deliver stability of ownership that is fully accountable to the local community, through its membership, and the port's major stakeholders, through its governance model and that it is also the best way to do this whilst allowing free access to the private capital markets to raise funds as and when required to ensure the port's growth and prosperity.
Alex, it is clear that you don't agree.
