Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
25 February 2011
19:2694194Mines in Africa are notorious for being places where people work at very high risk. South Africa has a very high casualty rate in its over-exploited mines.
I don't think Gov. is impressed with Charlie's offers, nor with the idea of a throng of local people in Dover paying ten pounds so as to sit at a meeting and make decisions on running a port vital to British trade.
The opposition to DHB's privatisation proposal - at least on my part - does not envisage that DHB should go, as they are highly qualified people as a board and as a working force, only that the Port needn't be privatised as there are much better possibilities for it to prosper, and for Dover to prosper.
Charlie seems to want to replace the Board with obscure magnates (private owners) and a parade of local people brandishing a ten-pound voucher! How could Gov. ever accept that?!
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
25 February 2011
19:2694195vic
i'm unsure of the best way forward.
I don't share the DHB proposals
and i would love to support our charlie, but an uncosted, hopeful for donations proposal, is not something i can support.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
25 February 2011
19:3094197charlie and chums are offering 200 million used oncers, how much is the port actually worth?
last time i checked there were wildly different figures being quoted.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
25 February 2011
19:3594199howard
the figures appear to be far higher than that, and even if it were so low, at this time charlie has no guarentees of even one bean towards the 200 million,
of course if the port sale was 200 million it could be said its being sold off cheap
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
25 February 2011
19:3694201At the last Port Consultative Committee meeting DHB were asked what their 'Plan B' was if their vision of the sale did not get approval. Their answer was that, "they have tried that already and there is no other option". I think that makes it clear enough that they want to dismiss the Peoples Port proposal and that it is up to the Peoples Port Trust to prove that there are alternatives.
'Alleged links' and 'accusations' are part and parcel of big business, it is proofs that should concern us.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
25 February 2011
19:3794202makes me wonder if bob and chums have a buyer lined up and waiting in the wings.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
25 February 2011
19:3894204Well Howard, I was given the impression, after trying to sift through the whole thing about the 'people's port', that it is supposed to be 400 million of 'em, half of which would go to the Treasury.
I think the actual supporters of the 'people's port' plan don't even know themselves what it is about, hence we get continuously conflicting data through.
25 February 2011
19:4094205"Alleged links" and "accusations" are always used and manipulated one way or another in these things. I repeat, if you are joining a conversation you need to learn the language. But for some, we are talking about people who actually believe what they read in the papers..........
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
25 February 2011
19:4994212bern
you are being very obtuse, please humour me.
what conversation and language?
what is in the papers about the port, i haven't seen anything for ages?
what are the alleged links and acusations?
25 February 2011
20:0494221I mean: if you are going to negotiate or try to influence it is as well to know the rules and pitfalls. When I was a union rep a lifetime ago I quickly learned that in order to obtain the desired result one needed to play by the rules and know how to use and manipulate them. It was a lesson well learned and very handy...........
I was referring to the papers simply in order to be offensive if I am honest. To the papers, and to the Sun and Mail readers who allow themselves to be used and manipulated by the papers for their own political and financial ends. Those same people will read in the papers/forums/etc that the people who may (MAY) fund the port may (MAY) have dodgy connections. Like anyone who has been around for a while hasn't...........
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
26 February 2011
00:5794263What I find difficult to understand, Bern, is how one can vote on a port-trust that has not been set up by the Government and does not stem from any Act of Parliament!
Money-lenders do not lend money without a contract, and if they do not get their money back at the appointed time, they can cause the indebted party to be declared insolvent!
I think DTC would have been better advised to vote on a motion for a referendum on the DHB privatisation plan, as this would be in line with the public cumsultation that the Government - and previous Government - set up.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
26 February 2011
09:3494301Reading through the posts on this thread I find it astonishing how many people seem unable to take on new ideas and prefer to snipe at those who do, being constantly negative and unconstructive. Some people need to remove heads from behinds and see what is happening in the real world. Maybe you dont understand the proposals, or maybe you dont want to understand - but at least stop being so unconstructive and appreciate that there are many people who have a much better grasp of the issues than you.
The Port simple cannot continue as at present, in a way that has one little or nothing to help Dover Town. It must change and it is the People's Port that offers the best future for both Port and Town.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
26 February 2011
10:4894307BARRYW
I welcome, but dont share your viewpoint.
whilst the port should not continue as it is, on other subjects you would never go along with an uncosted, hopeful for donations project, in fact you would be critical of it.
I don't know if the party politics has anything to do with your decision.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
26 February 2011
10:5594309barry
because people have different views to you, does not mean that they have less grasp of an issue than you.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
26 February 2011
10:5894311ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
26 February 2011
12:0794321I am not talking about disagreements Howard so much as the attitudes often taken. That plus the fact of the more blatently plainly idiotic and daft things some have said, regardless of viewpoint. There is a difference.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
26 February 2011
12:0994322ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
26 February 2011
12:1094323I try to be constructive Keith.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
26 February 2011
12:1194324ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 671- Registered: 4 May 2008
- Posts: 2,095
26 February 2011
12:2594325BarryW.
We are all entitled to our opinions. In this thread, it is all about opinions, I would never be so arrogant to declare my opinions are right and everyone else is wrong. Not like some people.
Bern.
Never read the Sun or Mail and no I don't believe everything the papers say or what some people on here say either. I did give you the source of the 2 people who have been named as backers, not May but Have, and that was via BarryW's thread.
"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"
