Thanet Labour and Tory Councillors joined forces tonight to
vote down Green
Party Councillor Ian Driver's proposal to set up an investigation
into how insolvent ferry operator TransEuropa was allowed to run up
debts to Thanet Council of £3.3. over a 2 year period.
Said
Driver "The TransEuropa £3.3 million debt is the most of the serious
financial disaster ever faced by Thanet Council
and local people expect nothing less than a full investigation into how
it happened, who authorised it and why it was kept secret until it was
too late. In my opinion there are some extremely serious legal,
constitutional and ethical questions to be asked about this fiasco and
the conduct of some very senior Council officers and politicians of
both main parties
needs to be thoroughly investigated.".
"However
instead of treating this financial disaster with the seriousness and
urgency it requires Councillors from the Labour and Conservative
parties voted against setting up an investigation and are now trying to
delay and cover up what has happened. I guess I should not be surprised
because the leadership of both parties supported the waiving of
TransEuropa's fees over more than 2 years and the leadership of both
parties kept this agreement secret from back bench councillors and now
they are trying to cover their backs."
"I have no
intention of letting this issue drop. I have already contacted the
District Auditor to express my concerns. I will be challenging the
Council's accounts when they are published later this year and I now
call on the Council to launch a
full independent investigation into this financial scandal, because
quite obviously there is no will amongst elected councillors to find out
why a company was allowed to run up debts of more than £100,000 a month
over 2 years without action been taken.
I will
be attending a meeting of Thanet Council's Cabinet tomorrow (29th at
7pm). Myself and colleague independent councillors have 25 questions we
wish to ask Council Leader Clive Hart about this shameful situation. The
public have a right to have answers to these questions"
Cllr Ian Driver
Green Party
07866588766
Excellent: publish the questions here and call in the Police.
ReplyDeleteWho was on the Committee? And did Clive approve the membership and secrecy?
Anon, 11:32, why don't you try calling the police if it concerns you so. Five will get you ten that they are not interested. This is just Driver off on another bandwagon.
DeleteJohn Worrow!
ReplyDelete'Most serious financial disaster' ... I thought that was the Royal Sands malarkey?
ReplyDeleteAHHHHH this is Drivers new bandwagon! Shame Worrow seems to have abandoned Driver to ride the bandwagon alone, but then Driver did abandon Worrow a while back.
ReplyDeleteNow lets examine the bare facts without the spin of those with an axe to grind.
It appears there are 2 scenarios when a company is failing, at the is the position that TDC found itself in. So, simply put, the 2 scenarios are below;
1. TEF indicates it is in trouble some 2 years ago, TDC it appears tries to help it by waving fees for a time that extends to 2 years plus, ending in TEF going bust, and the council losing the £3.3million it had waived, Driver jumps on bandwagon.
or
2. TEF indicates it is in trouble some 2 years ago, TDC immediately pulls the plug, resulting in the loss of the service 2 years ago, fee no longer due to TDC as TEF no longer exist, adding upto a loss to TDC of £3.3million in fees from TEF as they have gone bust 2 years earlier, Driver jumps on bandwagon.
As far as I can see, the facts only support 1 conclusion, the £3+ million lost would have been lost if TEF had been forced out of business 3 years ago, or failed 2 months ago.
So, can anyone proffer a viable suggestion as to how TDC could have stopped the loss to it's income of the £3+ million? Perhaps someone can suggest a law that's been broken that the police should investigate?
I wonder if he who is shouting for heads to roll really understands what happened, and whether he himself has ever held a position of similar responsibility. It is redolent of those who attacked a woman because they believed her to be a paedophile, whereas she was actually a paediatrician.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJohn, calling a real person a “dishonest lying clown” from the comfort of you anonymity is something you are not allowed to do here. Possibly your own blog, although even you may consider that this action is asking for a libel litigation, or at least the named individual complaining to Google and having your blog removed.
DeleteSadly Michael, It appears that the concept of anonymity is still a mystery to you, inspite of me attempting to educate you on the matter on several occasions. the only explanstion left for you removing my wholy factula post is that you still, for reasons unknown, choose to try to defend Driver, in spite of him being rejected quite correctly by teh vast majority of Thanet residents. Libel litigation would require my post to be untrue, clearly that is not the case.
DeleteI expected better of you.
I commend the following explanation of Libel Law by Adam Porter in his article "Basic Libel For Idiots". Mr Porter clarifies, gives warnings and dispels myths. I assume that Michael has already sought legal guidance. For those of us that have not done so I commend the article for its clarity and authority. Especially to the usual anonymice, that is those that can handle long explanations. Here is the link:
Deletehttp://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
John Hamilton, the comment rules here are clearly stated underneath the comment form.
DeleteI think in the last month I have had to remove about 20 anonymous comments including two or three directed at you. This has nothing to do with supporting either you or councillor Driver but much to do with attempting to maintain a reasonable level of courtesy and communication.
You will no doubt appreciate that when John Smith comments here it doesn’t affect his or her anonymity if John Smith happens to be his real name, nor does it effect his or her permission to be insulting or potentially libellous.
Michael, As usual in your rush to defend poor ole Driver, you seem to skim over the fact that I am not anonomous, and my posts are 100% accurate. An insult and indeed a libelous remark would both need to be untrue for those labels to apply, again, neither label is applicable to my posts.
DeleteBecause I don't pop in for a cup of tea Michael doesn;t make me anonomous, it simply means I chose my company carefuly. I have educated you on the meaning of anonomous on many occasions, sadly you chose to continue to trot out the same inaccurate myth to justify your misplaced disire to defend poor ole Driver. I did exepect better from you, but sadly your mistaken and obviously flawed actions are becoming the norm.
Couldn;t agree more John H. Sadly i can't say more, as my comment will be romved by those choosing to defend Drivers actions.
ReplyDeleteIf Holyer and Hamilton didn't post so often this blog might be more interesting. As it is their childish insults and petty point scoring are just tedious. Once a day for each of them would be enough given they have their own blogs? This post was about the Ferry debts and TDC's role in them.
ReplyDeleteAnonymouse 14:46,
ReplyDeleteWho the hell are you to presume that you can tell me when and where to post, you clown.
Perhaps if you tried to understand the issue Anon 13:46, rather than stamping your foot to try to hide your ignorance, you may, one day, make an intelligent post. I look forward to reading it, but won't expect to see it anytime soon :)
ReplyDeleteSomebody needs to. "Anonymouse", "buffoon", "clown" - yawn.
ReplyDelete