Wednesday, 29 May 2013

Transeuropa £3.3.million debt. Cover up begins

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


  1. Excellent: publish the questions here and call in the Police.

    Who was on the Committee? And did Clive approve the membership and secrecy?

    1. 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.

  2. 'Most serious financial disaster' ... I thought that was the Royal Sands malarkey?

  3. AHHHHH 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.

    Now 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.


    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?

  4. 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.

  5. Replies
    1. John, 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.

    2. Sadly 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.

      I expected better of you.

    3. 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:

    4. John Hamilton, the comment rules here are clearly stated underneath the comment form.

      I 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.

    5. 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.

      Because 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.

  6. 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.

  7. If 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.

  8. Anonymouse 14:46,

    Who the hell are you to presume that you can tell me when and where to post, you clown.

  9. 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 :)

  10. Somebody needs to. "Anonymouse", "buffoon", "clown" - yawn.


Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive and anonymous derogatory comments about real people will be deleted. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.