Port of dover, no to privatisation
- Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
11 September 2012 17:28190909well howard gave you a way in didn't i lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS - 11 September 2012 19:27190942Keith, in your post 74 you mention again a letter from the DfT.
As already said, this was mentioned by me in specific response to Richard who posed a question to me in a previous post. You'd have to read that post to follow the subject.
I invited Richard to a cider in Town offering to show him a letter in which the DfT state that DPPT is not being treated in any different way to other entities and organisations who have made a representation. That was all.
Your next phrase:
"I do think alexander whilst your views on who could/would run the port in the future is far from reality, i welcome your viewpoint"
is rather mystifying, as my only proposal to the DfT on who should run the port is that whoever it is, should be nominated by Local - or Local and Central - Government, or that their nomination is at least approved by Gov. (local or central).
It's none of my business who they appoint to run the Port, and I've never suggested to the DfT that they either get rid of DHB or that they appoint any other specific person or group.
As far as I'm concerned, Neil Wiggins could apply for the job, and if he got it, I'd have nothing to complain about. My point to the DfT on who runs the Port, is that it should be a management whose duty is solely to run the Port, and not borrow money to invest in projects unrelated to the Port. And that privatisation would be extremely damaging to the Port.
I also proposed that the Port be transferred as an asset to local Government, free of any cost. Hence my idea that the local authorities would have a say in who is nominated as Port managers, to ensure they are qualified.
Does this clarify your query?
Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 11 September 2012 19:32190943As with most things Alexander why not just post the letter up for all to see ?Been nice knowing you :)
- 11 September 2012 19:41190944#71 what on earth are you talking about Vic? I have absolutely no idea at all, I made no reference to you in my post which was nothing at all to do with you or anything you specifically said.
- 11 September 2012 19:45190946mystified me too.
- 12 September 2012 00:14190961READ again my post66 then move on to your post 70 and you should bealbe to see it. If not what can I say.?
- 12 September 2012 06:42190968Still does not make sense Vic. I was not specifically addressing you anyway, I made an general point and went on to address something to Ed.
- 12 September 2012 07:57190978Does that matter,I do not think so,but the good thing is that the p/p will not get it , and I hope DHB do not win to.
- 12 September 2012 09:29190998Neil.
Having spent most of my working life down the docks, from Townsend's to George Hammonds and the Cruise Terminal.
I am passionate that the docks do not get privatised and the idea of DPPT must be and is the best option to privatisation.
However, privatisation does not have to be the solution to the problem.
The problem is that the port is not being run properly and Dover/Deal does not benefit anyway near enough from the DHB operations.
I still go for keeping the port under trust Status and agree with your first sentence in your #72
"If the Trust Port status was working for Dover and if it really truly afforded any protection against being sold off by the next generation of execs and/or government, then I'd say and campaign to keep the status just as it is".
Your whole #72 post is proof to me and should be to others, that you have considered all angles and have shown that your commitment is initially about saving the docks, with the DPPT being your preferred option.
To be honest, the DPPT has always been a good alternative idea to privatisation but I have always been sceptable about the motives behind it and direction it would take if it succeeded. Reading your post on here, I now have confidence in the DPPT plan.
What is still uncertain is how it will pan out if it was accepted.
That is why I am still for changing port trust management and port trust rules, to benefit Dover/Deal and to safeguard the selling off, of the port.
As you say in #72, the charter can be changed to accommodate these safeguards and whilst I agree that they could be altered again in the future, I still believe this is where our efforts should be concentrated."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" - 12 September 2012 12:32191023Well said Mr Gary, it is not Mr Wiggins or Mr Williams day is it?"Ha"
- 12 September 2012 12:42191025Vic, I think you need to read the last post again!
- 12 September 2012 12:47191026Thank you ,its the age thing,sorry about lastnight I was already at ameeting and could not get away in time.
- 12 September 2012 13:36191036Every day that the port has not been sold off is a good day for me. It is another day, another chance to act to ensure that the Port is brought under the ownership of its surrounding communities in perpetuity.
- 12 September 2012 13:47191038the impetus is with the peoples port now with so many shops displaying posters in favour, i have noticed that a lot more people are talking about it. many do not understand the concept of dppt but they are adamant that the port is not sold off.
- 12 September 2012 13:51191042As you no doubt know, Neil, I agree with you on your last post, my view being that the Port should be a Council asset (of one or more local Councils), which would mean it could never be alienated from the local Community (Communities).
But let's hope Gov. speedily says No! to the DHB proposal, as every day that passes is a day lost to local economic Prosperity as long as the Port situation is not defined.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 12 September 2012 14:49191046Vic.
Neil's post #72 has convinced me that the DPPT is being run by genuine local people, with the right intentions and if I was able to, I would bung a tenner in the pot today.
I think Deal residents should have been included but that is another issue.
I still think that both options, ie. DPPT and changing the Charter rules, should have been addopted and/or pursued from the start, if for no other reason than to put more options and more presure on the government, to stop the sale of the port to others, at all costs."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" - 12 September 2012 15:04191049Gary, your second paragraph in post 96: "that both options, ie. DPPT and changing the Charter rules, should have been addopted and/or pursued from the start"
couldn't have been applied, as from the start of the public consultation in March 2010, DPPT did not exist.
DPPT was created in August 2010, but by then, all the representations from March 2010 had already been submitted to the Department for Transport.Chanters, Drums and Drones Potty Time http://youtu.be/99fMqpjnXYA
Rule Britannia!
Kent First http://youtu.be/04F3mAP3fV4 Keep banging on http://youtu.be/qYCU_SKmkGQ - 12 September 2012 15:04191050have to disagree gary, problems that the port brings only impact on dover.
aycliffe, townwall street mostly but other parts of the town are affected when traffic is diverted. additionally deal town council would have been castigated if they had organised an expensive referendum in cash strapped times. - 12 September 2012 15:17191056Have to disagree Howard - things like operation stack and the like affect me greatly getting from Deal onto the motorway, as it does a lot of people from DealBeen nice knowing you :)
- 12 September 2012 15:29191060Gary, DPPT membership is open to everyone living or working in the geographical area defined by the boundaries of Dover District Council authority. http://www.peoplesport.org.uk/downloads/dpptl-application.pdf The local referendum (Parish Poll) was restricted to Dover Town solely because the Localism Act was still a Bill at the time and we had to use legislation dating from the early 1970's as the only means of allowing people to democratically express their views on a single issue of local importance.
The ideas and concepts that led to the formation of the DPPT were formulated during and immediately after the first consultation in 2010. DPPT was formally constituted in August 2010 and was able to participate as a body corporate in the second consultation of 2010. Prior to that time the ideas were insufficiently well tested to be presented as more than the personal views of individuals (they were presented as such from a personal perspective during the first consultation). Without sufficient intellectual and financial rigour and testing the concept could have been dismissed as a lovely, but undeliverable, ideal. DHB have consistently tried to dismiss the idea of community ownership as such, but, because of the process by which the ideas were forged and took corporate shape, long ago lost that argument. Along the way it has been proven that direct community ownership makes financial and social sense, delivers a more efficient method of raising money for long term infrastructure investment and has sufficient support from within the community to both engage and protect the heritage of the port and its future.