Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
31 August 2010
21:5268209Good Lord this really is very painful; the endless parading of ignorance dressed up as sensible and or informed commentary.
It appears to me that there are only 2 options on the table and neither of these is the status quo; in other words the current Trust Port is not an ongoing option; despite the vociferousness of the supporters of that choice. So back to what are the options?
These are either
The Harbour Boards preferred choice of a straight forward trade sale to the highest bidder with the sweeteners of some shares for the workers pension fund and a community trust for the support of local initiatives; the latter being funded from the proceeds of the sale assuming the government are prepared to do this.
Now from where I stand this is the worst option for workers and townsfolk alike, the workers get a few shares given to their pension fund, but not enough to have any meaningful voice and no doubt at some cost to their contributions; the townsfolk get the promise of some form of community trust fund entirely reliant on the largesse of a government that is slashing budgets left, right and centre and needing to haul in as much cash as possible; so probably unlikely to happen. Oh and of course the port goes to the highest bidder, which may or not be the Calais Chamber of Commerce, or some Sovereign Wealth Fund o frankly whoever offers the best price to Bob and his merry men.
The other option is "The People's Port" proposal from Charlie, which I understand will be a Community Trust vehicle which will raise the money to acquire the port through the sale of some form of bond which is likely to be denominated at some reasonably affordable level so local people can participate (e.g. £10 each). The trust would then seek third parties to run the port on their behalf, in many ways much as DHB currently does with services such as stevedoring, security, repair work etc. The profits from port operations would then be used to fund community initiatives, via some form of sub committee, though the bulk would be reinvested in the port to maintain and enhance the infrastructure to keep the port competitive. This strikes me as a better option as the community fund bit is very much part and parcel of the proposal and therefore is essentially guaranteed so the town definitely gets something back.
What is currently unclear is the face price of the bond, its structure (debenture or term bond?, coupon rates if the latter? concessions if the former? multiple bond classes to appeal to different investors? etc.) the structure of the trust body, what the selection process is to sit on the trust board etc.
Whilst I favour the latter option I do think both parties need to rapidly start fleshing out their proposals so we can make informed choices, lobby Charlie, write to the Transport Minister etc.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 700- Registered: 11 Jun 2010
- Posts: 2,868
31 August 2010
22:4968241Saw on news tonight that Vera Lynn is backing the 'people's port' idea.
---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 September 2010
07:0368252Alexander - direct quote from you #103 ""you on the front page have just written about a share-company for Dover Port, advising that if it comes into being, people should buy shares.""""
You very specifically said that I advised people to buy Dover Bonds and that is a serious allegation that I have broken the law.
As you say in your post #116 """Now if Charlie's plan goes ahead then we really would get local ownership of the Port and those of us that buy 'Dover Bonds' will have a say in what happens to it.''""" was what I actually said.
Where in that comment is advice to buy? - the wording was 'those of us that buy'
You made a serious allegation that I broke the law and I repeat my demand that you immediately withdraw that claim. You fail to understand the serious nature of your attempt to misinterpret what I said and are being obstinate and foolish in your continued denial of the obvious. This is not mere hair splitting.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
1 September 2010
12:3968286Barry, now that you have specified more clearly what the phrase was that upset you, it is easier to give a reply. There has been ceetainly no intention on my part to make any allegations against you, and I was not considering your phrase on the front page - addressed to me - in any way illegal. I sinceely understood it to mean as I interpreted it, and cannot be responsible as, even now, if I reread the phrase and immagine to be doing so for the first time (i.e. without your clarification) I do come to the same conclusion!
As you have clarified what you mean, that you are not advising anyone to buy bonds if Charlie's project goes ahead, then of-course I will correct my statement and hereby do so, noting that Barry Williams has not advised anyone to buy bonds should Charlie's Port proposl go ahead.
I do apologise to you, but insist that 1) I was not making alegations against you, 2) really did interprit your wording as I first commented it.
It may be helpful if you yourself clarified what you mean by the phrase on the front page, for all viewers who might read it or have done so, as, possibly, others might also interprit it as I did.
Ultimately, Barry, if there is any problem concerning legal and not legal in the way you expressed yourself on the front page, you are responsible for making clear statements that can not be inadvertidly misinterpreted.
Hence, there was no premeditation on my part, and hope that this clears up the whole question.
If you wish, I can release a statement on the front page to the effect that I interpreted your wording as advice to buy bonds should Charlie's project go ahead, but that you later clarified that it is not so. Even then, I would suggest that you be more careful how you word a phrase, as people might interpret it in a different way as to that which you intended, which would de facto exclude them from legal consequences!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
1 September 2010
12:5168287Have just come across the latter part of your previous post to me, Barry:
''You clearly do not understand what I said or the arguments involved and should not make such a complete fool of yourself.
Charlie's plan is to offer £10 Dovorian bonds, easily affordable by almost anyone who wants to purchase one. This is nothing to do with the rich getting richer at all and anyone who buys into such a trust structure would get a voice in that.''
I am more perplexed now than before, with what you actually are suggesting, and would like to add that I do not have that money to buy a bond, nor to buy many such bonds.
Barry, I think we had better call it a day here, as you really are getting yourself in a twangle, and I am not responsible for your unclear descriptive fashion.
If I have made a complete fool of myself, then so be it!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 September 2010
13:0768288Alexander - I am quite clear in my phrasing and am always specific when it come to advice, I have to be.
At no time have I advised anyone to buy bonds merely observed that the proposal is affordable to anyone who wishes to buy - that is not advice or recommendation to do so.
No matter how you wriggle there was no recommendation or advice for anyone to purchase.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 September 2010
14:1168291i read it as blue barry making a vague recommendation to buy, nothing heavy at all.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 September 2010
16:0068299Nothing by way of recommendation at all.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
1 September 2010
16:2168300PAULB
I realy do feel you need to intervene.
What we are heading into is a war of words, what's more worrying is the tone being used by barryw as much as to say LEGAL action will be taken.
I have always been of the opinion that this is a open forum, and we need to be able to have our say and disagree.
If we are going down the road of having to check for legal implications the forum will die.
And I for one will stop posting.
We should never be in this ball game, and I hope that the forum can get back to open debate, and as i'v said before I may disagree with posters, but to continue to tell people they DONT UNDERSTAND or ARE WRONG Is not the way to invite people to continue to contribute.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 September 2010
16:3368302a bit strong there keith, don't see barry threatening legal action, just asked alexander to withdraw a comment.
looks like a mountain out of an ant hill, storm in an egg cup sort of thing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
1 September 2010
16:3568303Keith you are treading in a dangerous place.
My tone is correct and proper given the alleged breach of financial services regulations that threatens my professional standing. I have already made a formal complaint to PaulB via email, because such re-interpretations of what is said must not be tolerated. This is not merely a matter of semantics,. I would expect any professional person to act in the same manner.
An immediate apology and withdrawal of what he said would have satisfied me initially but he persists in clouding the issue.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 September 2010
16:5668308all getting a bit over the top.
barry
alexander in his second paragraph of post 124, the first 2 lines withdrew his earlier comments and made clear that you were not advising people to buy any possible future bonds in the proposed scheme.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
1 September 2010
17:0568309Whilst not wishing to become part of this mud slinging exercise, I can't help but think that if the wording of the post was a little more precise there would be no reason for any misinterpretation. I have read it a couple of times and it clearly leans, although actually not saying it, to a recommendation that people should buy a share in the port. On this alone I would have to say that any reasonable-minded person, which is what civil law is about, would interpret the relevant passage in the same way.
I cannot see how any financial authority would take much notice of it, it's hardly relevant in the big scheme of things and I think Barry that you do tend to over react at times.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
1 September 2010
17:2768312BAZ
I fully understand whre your coming from, and an apology as HOWARD states is in place.
The wider implications as I stated earlier of telling people they MISUNDERSTAND or are WRONG dont lead to encourage people to post.
I hope that PAULB can consider the whole issue.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 September 2010
17:4168314keith
you are misreading what i have posted, i have never asked or suggested that anyone should apologise.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
1 September 2010
17:5068318HOWARD
Ok, I have E Mailed paulb myself with my concerns
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
1 September 2010
17:5468322Just read Alexanders post in #124 and agree with Howard. The retraction and apology are clear. As far as I can see matter closed.
With regard to Keiths point in post 134, I also agree we don't want to go down the road of having to think "is this legal" etc., beyond what we already do. I confess to trusting PaulB and Howard to jump on anything that might be liable to cause new revenue stream for those nasty legal eagle types.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
1 September 2010
17:5668323ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
1 September 2010
18:0068324i can honestly say that i am glad not to be paulb, his e mail box must be full of depressing stuff about legalities and demands for posts to be deleted.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
1 September 2010
18:0468328HOWARD
I have in the past supported even BARRYW when paulb suspended him for a few days.
I never want to see any posts deleted
only ope and fair contributions without fear of legal action
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
