1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Brexit Ferry update

Discussion in 'Personal' started by afterdark, Feb 10, 2019.

  1. sparklesparkle

    sparklesparkle Established commenter

  2. blazer

    blazer Star commenter

    We had the referendum in 2017. So if they were planning in 2015 they must have been anticipating problems even when we were willing members of the eu. Probably as an alternative to operation stack. When did manston close as an airfield?
     
  3. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    Correct.

    2014, but it had been identified as possible relief for Operation Stack in a 2011 report, because of the increasing number of problems caused by ferry workers strikes, angry French farmers and the like.
     
  4. LondonCanary

    LondonCanary Star commenter

    That was for consultancy on all ferry services including not recommending Seaborne.
     
    sparklesparkle likes this.
  5. afterdark

    afterdark Lead commenter

    [This comment/section/image has been removed for breaching our Community Guidelines/Terms and conditions]

    Seabourne freight had a separate contract drawn up from the other 2 companies. The must have been some cost in this. This cost was incurring making special arrangement for seaborne freight. Taxpayer's money has already been spent on Seaborne freight, not directly to them but drawing up a contract for them.

    Here is a radio interview where Grayling says this.

     
  6. sparklesparkle

    sparklesparkle Established commenter

    "There must have been some cost in this" is not proof. It is speculation.

    "This cost was incurring [sic] making special arrangement [sic] for seaborne freight".

    Where is your evidence for this?
    Where is your evidence for this?

    Unless you can provide evidence for your statements, I put it to you that you are making them up.
     
  7. sparklesparkle

    sparklesparkle Established commenter

    I've listened to the interview and he does not state at any point that money was spent on drawing up a contract for them. He does not mention spending taxpayers' money, or anyone else's money, being spent on this.

    Please quote where he mentions this.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019
  8. afterdark

    afterdark Lead commenter

    How naive, you really believe that legal professional drew up contracts for UK government and didn't get paid?
     
    monicabilongame likes this.
  9. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Star commenter

    He was asked in parliament what the Seabourne shambles was costing the taxpayer, although he didn't give an answer.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-po...ing-on-ending-seaborne-freight-ferry-contract

    EDIT: full video where he says no money was spent (on the contract, which isn't the same as it hasn't cost anything).

     
  10. sparklesparkle

    sparklesparkle Established commenter


    So you admit that you were wrong in stating:

    He did not state this in the interview. You have falsely attributed this to him.
    [This comment/section/image has been removed for breaching our Community Guidelines/Terms and conditions]

    In evidence you stated that "800k" was spent on Seaborne Freight but you were wrong. This was spent on fees for due diligence on all the tendering companies.

    Now you are saying that money was spent on "legal professional" [sic]. How much was the legal professional paid, please? Is this the "800k" or some other figure? Where is your proof that it was paid?
    [This comment/section/image has been removed for breaching our Community Guidelines/Terms and conditions]



     
  11. sparklesparkle

    sparklesparkle Established commenter

    Umm, yes it is. It's exactly the same.

    Read the above back to yourself.
     
  12. afterdark

    afterdark Lead commenter

    Operative word SPENT.
     
  13. sparklesparkle

    sparklesparkle Established commenter

    Wrong.

    Operative words ON ALL THE TENDERING COMPANIES.

    You stated in post 45: "Taxpayer's money has already been spent on Seaborne freight, not directly to them but drawing up a contract for them."

    The money was not spent on this company directly.
     
  14. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Star commenter

    I was saying that there are costs involved that wouldn't have otherwise been spent. Technically the contract didn't cost them anything as it didn't go through, however there were costs to get to that point. Probably not huge, tens of thousands maybe. Due diligence probably was someone looking the name of the company at companies house (else they'd have noticed that three of the directors previously ran companies that owed HMRC a lot of money). Certainly some cost to Thanet council having to keep the port open. Certainly not as huge as the cost of the legal bill to defend Eurotunnel's challenge.
     
  15. LondonCanary

    LondonCanary Star commenter

    The due diligence led to the recommedation not to use Seaborne
     
    monicabilongame likes this.
  16. TES_Rosaline

    TES_Rosaline Administrator Staff Member

    Please can everyone read the house rules including the forum netiquette which includes the following:
    • Don't attack another forum or encourage others to do so - if you have a problem with any thread, post or user please use the Report option and provide us with details.
    This also includes comments which could be potentially libellous. Please report it, don't repeat it and leave it to the Moderation Team to deal with.

    And to avoid any doubt, the code of conduct includes the following:

    Keep it legal

    Please do not make allegations about individual establishments or their staff as there might be legal implications.

    Accept responsibility for your actions

    You may be held legally accountable for what you say or do online. In particular, you may be held liable for any defamatory comments, threats and untrue statements or other illegal or fraudulent claims made by you.

    Remember that everything you post is a public comment, so be careful about how much personal information you give away.


    Users are encouraged to report inappropriate content rather than take matters into their own hands because this often means that they attack other members resulting in them breaching the guidelines instead. Please remember the house rules about posting personal attacks and accusations on the forums.

    And the rules apply to everyone.

    If people cannot discuss an issue without making it personal or posting any other inappropriate (inlcuding potentially libellous comments, accusations against other members etc) comments then this discussion will have to be locked.
     
  17. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Star commenter

    Did it? But they went ahead anyway?
     
  18. LondonCanary

    LondonCanary Star commenter

    Apparently. The DfT should explain why. It can't solely be down to Grayling being useless.
     
  19. florian gassmann

    florian gassmann Star commenter

    And, as I have said many times before, government ministers don't have time to get involved in operational matters. The contracts for Seaborne, DFDS and Brittany Ferries were the responsibility of a DfT committe consisting of the Permanent Secretary to the Department of Transport, the Director General of Maritime, the Director General of Resources and Strategy, the department's Finance Director and its Legal Director.

    It will, of course, suit them all to hide behind the skirts of the minister in the traditional manner, if criticisms are raised.
     
  20. sparkleghirl

    sparkleghirl Star commenter

    800 000 for legal advice on a ferry company and noone told them it would be better to have some ferries first?

    They don't care about wasting taxpayers' money.
     
    afterdark and monicabilongame like this.

Share This Page