Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Snap!
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
peter/chris
i will bear those comments in mind
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Chris, I know full well that the referendum and its wording were not decided by DTC, but by the P/p, as I cleary have written. I do think though that DTC are responsible for considering whether the reasons given by the petitioners of a referendum are exact and not misleading.
The P/p have openly stated as a reason - among others - that the referendum would be whether Dover Port should be sold oversees or consigned to the very trust that has called for the referendum.
Please read what I am writing, and recognise that the referendum can be easily challenged, as its given reasons are false! This is no democratic bases to hold a referendum, as the P/p committee have evidently already decided the outcome of the decision of the Secretary of State for Transport, and put in her mouth that the decision has been reached by her and the Government to sell the port oversees.
This is a false statement, Chris, but is clearly what people interpret from the people's port trust's given reasons for a referendum. The reason given for the referendum, and a few other statements on the P/p website, can be legally challenged by anyone interested, hence my advice that DTC reconsider carefully the implications of false statements made by petitioners.
Please remember that a decision has still not been reached by the Secretary of State for Transport, and then look carefully at what I have written in the previous and this post regards P/p reasons for a referendum.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Apart from ranting on this forum, Alexander, what official steps have you taken to challenge this referendum? And what false statements were contained in the wording of the petition to the Town Council? I suggest you read the provisions of the Local Government Act before sounding off.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
alex,was you there when bob markhan read out the proposal,i suspect not.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i am not sure how the town council are guilty of anything.
the ancient by law said that only 6 or more people are needed to call for a public meeting, then 10 or more to call a referendum.
the wording of the question on it would be nothing to do with them as i see it.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
I think you had to be at the meeting to even talk about it,if one was not there how can one talk about what happen and what was or not said.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I haven't taken any official steps to challenge the referendum, Peter.
As for the wording given as a reason for petitioning the referendum, it is clearly spelt on the people's port website, and was also written accordingly in the local press.
I do not consider the Town Council guilty, but believe that the decision to call for a referendum was unwise, for the reasons I have pointed out above.
The decision to call a referendum was preceded by the vote on the motion, which in turn was preceded by the petition - or request - for a motion. And that very first act, the request for a motion, is based on what I consider to be wrong information.
This input of information will then repeat itself in a pattern through the whole process of the motion (already passed), the referendum, and any consequences it may have on future decisions regards the Port of Dover.
Vic, the town wards are involved in this, and I live in the town, where-as you live in River, so I have more reason than you to state my point.
I think that, since the Town Hall meeting, the whole people's port project has come more to light through this forum and the legitimate questions and points raised on it, and the answers given, than was known prior and during the meeting.
Alone the knowledge of the 200 million pounds + 200 million pounds was not properly understood on the Forum until it was coaxed from Neil Wiggins after the meeting, through insistent questions here on the Forum.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
Rubbish - the costs position was made months ago on this forum on the previous thread about the port sell off
As was the point about how the Ports Act 1991 works in terms of purchase price - I even posted links to the relevant legislation
"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
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Don't some people go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on.

.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Sorry Alexander, yours is very much a voice in the wilderness and in future neither Neil nor I will respond to your noises. Sorry but we have gone over it time and again but all that there is to be said (for now) has been said.
Good night and God Bless.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 652- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 595
looks like referendum is to be held on the 23rd March at the normal polling stations, starting about 3-15 till 9-15 so get out and make your mark count
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
At the cost of £13000 and will mean nothing,sorry but that is the way i see it.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
thnks for info sheila, whether it has any influence on the final decision or not, it is important that we vote.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I shall most ceretainly not take part in that referendum if one is held.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
The wording is very good but that is just to pull the wool over your eyes,and none of you can see that.
the wording again
Do you oppose the private sale of the port of Dover,(This we all agree on)as proposed by the Dover Harbour Board.
Now this is the part that theyare fooling you all with.
And support its transfer to the community of Dover instead.
That will never happen .Again it is selling off our port,which by the way is Dovers anyway under the Royal Charter.
The community will have no say in the running of the port even if they give you a vote.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Quite right, Vic. I will not take part in any referendum, if one occurs, along the lines in which the process has been presented to DTC, and am already taking note of the wording used by the P/p private trust.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Vic, as I understand it the port is going to be sold regardless of whether we want it sold or not as the government need the money .
I would much rather those who live within DDC area had control than the French, Arabs or any other nationality.
We are now back where we started with this discussion months ago,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
That is just it Jan that will never ,never happen.The money men behind this will never let the Dover public Run the port,and I must say they would be right in thinking that,it is all about the wording ,Jan do not get taken in by it.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Scare-mongering, Jan! As I understand it, your understanding does not come from any official statement, no matter what inside knowledge Peter has claimed to be aware of.