Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#41
John;
You appear to have changed from our little chat.
Whilst like many(most) people i'm happy to get behind stopping DHB getting it's way(although with the mouse and u turns, and indecision its difficult)
but i will continue down that road, that has to be in my view the top option.
What comes after that is of course up for debate and im sure will open up many can of worms, and go round in circles
but as we said in our chat for today it's about DHB not getting it's way.
As I asked paulw if he supported the DHB line (having made a political campaign in previous elections on it) and got a council wide answer rather than did he support DHB or not in his venture
i throw this open to all the politicians who post on here to give there view(no matter what party or non party they come from)
it would be interesting to get viewpoints from all out politicians who post on here and there are many
on;
1; do they support DHB in it's venture
2; if not do they support the peoples port
3; if they are luke warm to the peoples port or have reservations what are they?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 688- Registered: 16 Jul 2009
- Posts: 268
#42
Hi Keith,
No I am in exactly the same position, first stop the current agenda.Then open up the progressive dialogue on how we can put the community at the forefront of the future of the Port and so best benefit from it.This discussion needs to be full and frank and involve as many disparate elements of the community as possible,but,Keith,it needs to be the towns discussion.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
#43
The National Trust has done well and it is good news that the geology is safe.
The DHB has told the people of Dover time and time and time and time again that whilst it remains with its current status it cannot spend one penny outside the port. Roger Mountford has said that one of his main reasons for wanting to sell the port is to free it up so that it can spend money outside the port. Yet we see yesterday that the DHB was able to donate 2% of its pretax profits to help purchase a section of cliff well outside the port and town and it does this whilst continuing to ruin the lives of men and women in Dover by making them redundant and outsourcing their functions, whilst telling the Town that no money can come from the port to the Town to assist with regeneration, but that the Town can have the loan of 5 Hi-Vis bibs so long as they are returned to Harbour House each night, whilst promoting policies that rip significant external funding from programmes that will benefit our young people. Can no-one see the incongruity of the DHB donation to a cash rich national charity whilst it spits on its neighbours and workforce? What is of more value to you - people or rocks?
This is not a DPPT thing.
This is a scandal, either the DHB has deliberately spurned the Town when it could have helped or it is breaking with its foundational documents and constitution by making such a donation.
The DHB has demonstrated how much it cares about the people and the town by offering the loan of 5 hi-vis vests whilst giving £200k to a cash rich national charity to help them buy something well outside the town. Proof, if any more were needed, that the DHB cannot be trusted to make decisions that will serve the best interests of their stakeholders and cannot be trusted to decide the future of the port. Stop the privatisation of the port, the DHB transfer request will be an unmitigated disaster for all of us if it is allowed to proceed.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#44
slip of the pen from you there john, i think you mean the district's discussion. dppt membership specifically states it is open to people who live or work in the dover district council boundaries.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
#45
There's more controversy and discussion in Lydden over who owns the pond and is responsible for maintaining it, I've never heard the port ownership discussed within the parish boundaries!
Guest 688- Registered: 16 Jul 2009
- Posts: 268
#46
I stand,as always,corrected,thanks Howard.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#47
i have an honours degree in pedantry john.
on a more serious note i would be surprised if there was much interest outside of dover itself, although i read that kingsdown villagers invited a top honcho from dppt to address them on the issue.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#48
done a bit of homework on ray's pond problem, it appears that it is owned by the harbour but as it is outside the dock gates they cannot help.
Guest 688- Registered: 16 Jul 2009
- Posts: 268
#49
Is that the ' duck gates ' Howard
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
#50
Someone in officialdom actually told us earlier this year that before they could do any work on the pond they would have to catch and remove the ducks, apparently didn't realise they could fly as well as paddle.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#51
They obviously not used to ducks then Ray. Why do they have to remove the ducks? So long as the ducks have a container of water (even a large bucket would do) that they can stick their heads in they should be quite happy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#52
Reminds me of that recent news story of some guy being told to get rid of his pigeons - trouble is they are homing pigeons so will just come back !!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
#53
Sorry for being dense, but I'm at a loss to understand why this is a contentious issue. Wherever the money comes from, the Cliffs are now just one piece of land which means that the landowner - the National Trust - can work to save them from erosion. Before, they couldn't. So, why is this contentious, unless individuals have had their noses put out of joint by Goldfinger's mob failing to support their own cause?
Is this a case of failing to rally round a worthy cause simply for reasons of bruised egos?
True friends stab you in the front.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#54
The issue for me is not that the National Trust has bought them it is the amount of money they paid for them, that money could have done so much elsewhere.
As a side issue what will happen to the cliffs that are owned by the Harbour Board if that is sold or have I misunderstood and they are now owned by the National Trust.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
#55
Who owns the 'cliffs' - it would be an interesting legal case with the owners of the land on top arguing with the owners of the land at the bottom as to where the boundary is.
The NT haven't saved the cliffs, they weren't going anywhere no matter who bought them, what they have saved is the important chalk downland on top of them and the opportunity for people to walk on and enjoy them.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#56
a clue to who owns the bottom of the cliff,h.m queen thats who does.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
#57
Andy, the problem is that for years the DHB has refused to financially support any cause whatsoever that might help and improve Dover because they have said that they are forbidden by their constitution and foundational documents from spending even one penny outside the port. Now they have suddenly donated 2% of their pre-tax profits well outside the port in contradiction to everything they have ever said before. What is true - they cannot spend a single penny outside the port or they can and have chosen to spend public money in support of an already cash and asset rich charity instead of being a good corporate citizen?
DHB have donated this money whilst being a publicly owned corporation without reference to their stakeholders and in contravention of their position when requested for financial assistance on every occasion over at least the last 10 years. That is what is contentious.
If you were an employee of the port and among those who have just been told that they are redundant now, how would you feel about this donation?
If you were a ferry company and had just been told that from July next year you'll be paying a tariff increase nearly double inflation having been forced to pay above inflation increases for the last 5 years, how would you feel about this donation?
If you were a tenant in a DHB property and had just been told that your lease was going to sky rocket, how would you feel about this donation?
If you were a small Dovorian charity who had just recently been turned down for a couple of hundred pounds support because 'DHB cannot spend even one penny outside the port', how would you feel about this donation?
Jan, the bit of cliffs owned by the DHB are still owned by the DHB and, in case of private sale, would currently transfer to the new owner upon completion of sale. However, much may change over the intervening period between any announcement over the future of the port and the completion of any changes engendered by that announcement.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#58
The pond at Lydden is not a pond .It is only a s/away .
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#59
with the latest revelation maybe the forum should set up a focus group "save the lydden puddle".
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
#60
Howard, you don't know the hornet's nest you could stir up in lydden with that remark.
Getting back to the subject matter and Neil's very illuminating posts, is there any way this donation can come under public scrutiny in a formal way?