Cunard 'would use Liverpool' if cruise terminal is built

Queen Elizabeth near Liverpool

Queen Elizabeth near Liverpool

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Education Reporter

IT is a scene that will send shivers through everyone connected with Southampton’s cruise industry.

As Cunard bosses yesterday admitted they would be prepared to use Liverpool to start cruises in the future, their iconic liner Queen Elizabeth sailed into the city for the first time.

Get Involved

To sign the petition or get involved in the campaign, see the links at the foot of the article.

The ship made her way past sculptor Anthony Gormley’s Another Place installation on Merseyside yesterday on her way to the Mersey River Festival.

And the picture could be a worrying indication of things to come as Liverpool steps up its controversial bid to muscle in on Southampton’s lucrative cruise industry. As reported, the city wants to use its new £20m taxpayer-funded cruise terminal as a “turnaround”

destination, putting it in direct competition with privately financed ports around the country.

The move has sparked a row between the Merseyside city and civic and industry leaders in Southampton, who argue using public cash to create a rival is unfair.

The Government is next week due to reveal its decision on Liverpool’s application to change the use of its terminal, just a year after a previous attempt to do the same thing was rejected.

Related links

More than 5,000 people have signed a petition calling on ministers to reject the plans on the grounds that allowing any use of public cash gives an unfair advantage.

But Cunard president Peter Shanks said Liverpool could become an attractive location for the company.

He said: “Southampton remains our base, but if in future Liverpool do invest in their facilities, and like other ports around the world have the opportunity for turnaround, then it is quite possible that some voyages would start in Liverpool.

“I think that would be very popular for our guests.”

Sign the petition
Download template letter of rejection
Download a petition form
UK Cruise Port Alliance on Facebook
DfT Consultation

Comments (68)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:32am Fri 9 Sep 11

Lone Ranger. says...

Of course Cunard would use Liverpool. From their point of view it makes good business sense.
.
There are thousands in the North that would rather go from Liverpool than drive 150 miles extra to board the same boat.
.
Dont worry Cunard have no feelings for Southampton ........ Its a convenient port to run their ships from ...... Thas all.
.
This may be a wake up call to this city although i doubt it.
.
Our skyline coming up southampton water and into the docks is a dump. Year upon year with little or no investment (apart from the Terminal) and it shows what a grubby little outfit our docks and aproach is.
.
Get to grips with the waterfront and start to create good "first impressions" befor its too late. Sitting back on their and waiting for the inevitable is not an option
Of course Cunard would use Liverpool. From their point of view it makes good business sense. . There are thousands in the North that would rather go from Liverpool than drive 150 miles extra to board the same boat. . Dont worry Cunard have no feelings for Southampton ........ Its a convenient port to run their ships from ...... Thas all. . This may be a wake up call to this city although i doubt it. . Our skyline coming up southampton water and into the docks is a dump. Year upon year with little or no investment (apart from the Terminal) and it shows what a grubby little outfit our docks and aproach is. . Get to grips with the waterfront and start to create good "first impressions" befor its too late. Sitting back on their and waiting for the inevitable is not an option Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

12:09pm Fri 9 Sep 11

MSK says...

As controversial as my comment may seem, I welcome competition to Southampton's cruise industry. There is nothing wrong with competition (albeit the funding of Liverpool is questionable) and as the post above highlighted, there are those in Scotland and the North who would like to use a port closer to home. After all, we have choice in regional airports - why not ports too.
.
Southampton's prospects of regeneration were ruined when IKEA were allowed to build on a prime land instead of being built near Nursling Industrial Estate, with free-shuttle buses to/from Southampton.
As controversial as my comment may seem, I welcome competition to Southampton's cruise industry. There is nothing wrong with competition (albeit the funding of Liverpool is questionable) and as the post above highlighted, there are those in Scotland and the North who would like to use a port closer to home. After all, we have choice in regional airports - why not ports too. . Southampton's prospects of regeneration were ruined when IKEA were allowed to build on a prime land instead of being built near Nursling Industrial Estate, with free-shuttle buses to/from Southampton. MSK
  • Score: 0

12:23pm Fri 9 Sep 11

Rockhopper says...

Southampton's waterfront is a disgrace and especially annoying when you look down the road to Portsmouth Dockyard and Gunwharf Quays.
From the Royal Pier, past Mayflower Park to the Docks is a prime area ready for decent development.
But what do the Council do let the Pier become an Indian Restaurant and waste money on an extension to the Civic Centre called a Sea City Museum.
Of course it makes sense to have a cruise terminal in the North and South to serve customers from all over the Country.
If Liverpool use this opportunity to develop their City then Southampton has only itself to blame for standing still for too many years thinking 'we don't have to do anything because we have the Cruise industry monopoly'.
What makes it worse is peeople moaning how unfair it is for Liverpool to use tax payers money towards the project.
Well how much of tax payers money has been used over the years to benefit Southampton residents eg. Thornhill regeneration alone which cost £30million.
You can't accept it in one hand and then complain when it is offered to someone else.
Southampton's waterfront is a disgrace and especially annoying when you look down the road to Portsmouth Dockyard and Gunwharf Quays. From the Royal Pier, past Mayflower Park to the Docks is a prime area ready for decent development. But what do the Council do let the Pier become an Indian Restaurant and waste money on an extension to the Civic Centre called a Sea City Museum. Of course it makes sense to have a cruise terminal in the North and South to serve customers from all over the Country. If Liverpool use this opportunity to develop their City then Southampton has only itself to blame for standing still for too many years thinking 'we don't have to do anything because we have the Cruise industry monopoly'. What makes it worse is peeople moaning how unfair it is for Liverpool to use tax payers money towards the project. Well how much of tax payers money has been used over the years to benefit Southampton residents eg. Thornhill regeneration alone which cost £30million. You can't accept it in one hand and then complain when it is offered to someone else. Rockhopper
  • Score: 1

12:28pm Fri 9 Sep 11

loosehead says...

Rockhopper wrote:
Southampton's waterfront is a disgrace and especially annoying when you look down the road to Portsmouth Dockyard and Gunwharf Quays.
From the Royal Pier, past Mayflower Park to the Docks is a prime area ready for decent development.
But what do the Council do let the Pier become an Indian Restaurant and waste money on an extension to the Civic Centre called a Sea City Museum.
Of course it makes sense to have a cruise terminal in the North and South to serve customers from all over the Country.
If Liverpool use this opportunity to develop their City then Southampton has only itself to blame for standing still for too many years thinking 'we don't have to do anything because we have the Cruise industry monopoly'.
What makes it worse is peeople moaning how unfair it is for Liverpool to use tax payers money towards the project.
Well how much of tax payers money has been used over the years to benefit Southampton residents eg. Thornhill regeneration alone which cost £30million.
You can't accept it in one hand and then complain when it is offered to someone else.
So what do you call the proposed development of the Royal Pier & Mayflower site?
[quote][p][bold]Rockhopper[/bold] wrote: Southampton's waterfront is a disgrace and especially annoying when you look down the road to Portsmouth Dockyard and Gunwharf Quays. From the Royal Pier, past Mayflower Park to the Docks is a prime area ready for decent development. But what do the Council do let the Pier become an Indian Restaurant and waste money on an extension to the Civic Centre called a Sea City Museum. Of course it makes sense to have a cruise terminal in the North and South to serve customers from all over the Country. If Liverpool use this opportunity to develop their City then Southampton has only itself to blame for standing still for too many years thinking 'we don't have to do anything because we have the Cruise industry monopoly'. What makes it worse is peeople moaning how unfair it is for Liverpool to use tax payers money towards the project. Well how much of tax payers money has been used over the years to benefit Southampton residents eg. Thornhill regeneration alone which cost £30million. You can't accept it in one hand and then complain when it is offered to someone else.[/p][/quote]So what do you call the proposed development of the Royal Pier & Mayflower site? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:34pm Fri 9 Sep 11

loosehead says...

MSK wrote:
As controversial as my comment may seem, I welcome competition to Southampton's cruise industry. There is nothing wrong with competition (albeit the funding of Liverpool is questionable) and as the post above highlighted, there are those in Scotland and the North who would like to use a port closer to home. After all, we have choice in regional airports - why not ports too.
.
Southampton's prospects of regeneration were ruined when IKEA were allowed to build on a prime land instead of being built near Nursling Industrial Estate, with free-shuttle buses to/from Southampton.
Answer me this why don't the people of the North & Scotland use Newcastle ? don't Newcastle already have turnaround facilities? The argument that the people of the North would use cruise ships if Liverpool had the facility is flawed why doesn't Cunard start cruises from Newcastle? what charges are Liverpool proposing to Cunard? Will the facility be viable at the charges levied or will more public money be put in to subsidise the port? Also on the telly Cunard man said we would use Liverpool to cater for the expected customers from the north wehat happens if this increase of passengers fails to materialise?
[quote][p][bold]MSK[/bold] wrote: As controversial as my comment may seem, I welcome competition to Southampton's cruise industry. There is nothing wrong with competition (albeit the funding of Liverpool is questionable) and as the post above highlighted, there are those in Scotland and the North who would like to use a port closer to home. After all, we have choice in regional airports - why not ports too. . Southampton's prospects of regeneration were ruined when IKEA were allowed to build on a prime land instead of being built near Nursling Industrial Estate, with free-shuttle buses to/from Southampton.[/p][/quote]Answer me this why don't the people of the North & Scotland use Newcastle ? don't Newcastle already have turnaround facilities? The argument that the people of the North would use cruise ships if Liverpool had the facility is flawed why doesn't Cunard start cruises from Newcastle? what charges are Liverpool proposing to Cunard? Will the facility be viable at the charges levied or will more public money be put in to subsidise the port? Also on the telly Cunard man said we would use Liverpool to cater for the expected customers from the north wehat happens if this increase of passengers fails to materialise? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Fri 9 Sep 11

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
Of course Cunard would use Liverpool. From their point of view it makes good business sense.
.
There are thousands in the North that would rather go from Liverpool than drive 150 miles extra to board the same boat.
.
Dont worry Cunard have no feelings for Southampton ........ Its a convenient port to run their ships from ...... Thas all.
.
This may be a wake up call to this city although i doubt it.
.
Our skyline coming up southampton water and into the docks is a dump. Year upon year with little or no investment (apart from the Terminal) and it shows what a grubby little outfit our docks and aproach is.
.
Get to grips with the waterfront and start to create good "first impressions" befor its too late. Sitting back on their and waiting for the inevitable is not an option
Please tell me what side your talking about Fawley maybe? Weston Shore which has been tried to be improved many times only for the yobs to wreck it.besides putting West Quay where Ocean Village is or knocking down the Pictures & putting town there I can't see how we could have built a gun wharf quays.Most terminals are dock gate 10 with the old terminal/cunard being in dock gate 4 so exactly what would you bulldoze to make the waterfront more attractive?Maybe the whole of Weston & Woolston? How many Northerners or Scots are going to want to spend time in Liverpool? No matter how true it is Liverpool has a terrible reputation & if your that close to home why not go home?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Of course Cunard would use Liverpool. From their point of view it makes good business sense. . There are thousands in the North that would rather go from Liverpool than drive 150 miles extra to board the same boat. . Dont worry Cunard have no feelings for Southampton ........ Its a convenient port to run their ships from ...... Thas all. . This may be a wake up call to this city although i doubt it. . Our skyline coming up southampton water and into the docks is a dump. Year upon year with little or no investment (apart from the Terminal) and it shows what a grubby little outfit our docks and aproach is. . Get to grips with the waterfront and start to create good "first impressions" befor its too late. Sitting back on their and waiting for the inevitable is not an option[/p][/quote]Please tell me what side your talking about Fawley maybe? Weston Shore which has been tried to be improved many times only for the yobs to wreck it.besides putting West Quay where Ocean Village is or knocking down the Pictures & putting town there I can't see how we could have built a gun wharf quays.Most terminals are dock gate 10 with the old terminal/cunard being in dock gate 4 so exactly what would you bulldoze to make the waterfront more attractive?Maybe the whole of Weston & Woolston? How many Northerners or Scots are going to want to spend time in Liverpool? No matter how true it is Liverpool has a terrible reputation & if your that close to home why not go home? loosehead
  • Score: -1

12:44pm Fri 9 Sep 11

MSK says...

Newcastle is a North Sea port with excellent ferry connections and cruises to the Baltic states and Scandinavia. It probably doesn't have the extra capacity. It's a bit like asking Dover to become a cruise-ship port.
Newcastle is a North Sea port with excellent ferry connections and cruises to the Baltic states and Scandinavia. It probably doesn't have the extra capacity. It's a bit like asking Dover to become a cruise-ship port. MSK
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Fri 9 Sep 11

Tom Liverpool says...

At last some people in Southampton are now talking sense. And Loosehead I don't think people find Liverpool offensive at all, just a couple of weeks ago 360,000 came to the Matthew St. festival, every hotel (and there are a lot of modern new ones here now), was fully booked. Also I don't think Newcastle can handle large cruise liners, but I'm not sure about that. also Newcastle is as difficult to get to as Southampton from the North West. I bear Southampton no ill will, But be realistic 20 million people live within an hour and a half drive from Liverpool surely those people deserve the chance of a relaxed journey to and from their cruise, instead of the current situation which is difficult in the extreme due to the poor infrastructure of this country.
At last some people in Southampton are now talking sense. And Loosehead I don't think people find Liverpool offensive at all, just a couple of weeks ago 360,000 came to the Matthew St. festival, every hotel (and there are a lot of modern new ones here now), was fully booked. Also I don't think Newcastle can handle large cruise liners, but I'm not sure about that. also Newcastle is as difficult to get to as Southampton from the North West. I bear Southampton no ill will, But be realistic 20 million people live within an hour and a half drive from Liverpool surely those people deserve the chance of a relaxed journey to and from their cruise, instead of the current situation which is difficult in the extreme due to the poor infrastructure of this country. Tom Liverpool
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Fri 9 Sep 11

groster2 says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Of course Cunard would use Liverpool. From their point of view it makes good business sense.
.
There are thousands in the North that would rather go from Liverpool than drive 150 miles extra to board the same boat.
.
Dont worry Cunard have no feelings for Southampton ........ Its a convenient port to run their ships from ...... Thas all.
.
This may be a wake up call to this city although i doubt it.
.
Our skyline coming up southampton water and into the docks is a dump. Year upon year with little or no investment (apart from the Terminal) and it shows what a grubby little outfit our docks and aproach is.
.
Get to grips with the waterfront and start to create good "first impressions" befor its too late. Sitting back on their and waiting for the inevitable is not an option
Please tell me what side your talking about Fawley maybe? Weston Shore which has been tried to be improved many times only for the yobs to wreck it.besides putting West Quay where Ocean Village is or knocking down the Pictures & putting town there I can't see how we could have built a gun wharf quays.Most terminals are dock gate 10 with the old terminal/cunard being in dock gate 4 so exactly what would you bulldoze to make the waterfront more attractive?Maybe the whole of Weston & Woolston? How many Northerners or Scots are going to want to spend time in Liverpool? No matter how true it is Liverpool has a terrible reputation & if your that close to home why not go home?
A "terrible reputation" ?!? 14m tourists visited Liverpool in 2008 as part of the European Capital of Culture Year and that wasn't just because of the Beatles and football. Liverpool is a vibrant, exciting European city with stunning architecture, renowned museums and a huge reputation for creativity. The sight of the Queen Elizabeth sailing past a world heritage site should rightly encourage Cunard to further consider Liverpool as an asset to its business. I support the positive comments about Southampton accepting competition and investing accordingly. Its what Liverpool did and we have a 'destination' to be proud of, which goes far beyond a planned boarding point for cruise liners
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Of course Cunard would use Liverpool. From their point of view it makes good business sense. . There are thousands in the North that would rather go from Liverpool than drive 150 miles extra to board the same boat. . Dont worry Cunard have no feelings for Southampton ........ Its a convenient port to run their ships from ...... Thas all. . This may be a wake up call to this city although i doubt it. . Our skyline coming up southampton water and into the docks is a dump. Year upon year with little or no investment (apart from the Terminal) and it shows what a grubby little outfit our docks and aproach is. . Get to grips with the waterfront and start to create good "first impressions" befor its too late. Sitting back on their and waiting for the inevitable is not an option[/p][/quote]Please tell me what side your talking about Fawley maybe? Weston Shore which has been tried to be improved many times only for the yobs to wreck it.besides putting West Quay where Ocean Village is or knocking down the Pictures & putting town there I can't see how we could have built a gun wharf quays.Most terminals are dock gate 10 with the old terminal/cunard being in dock gate 4 so exactly what would you bulldoze to make the waterfront more attractive?Maybe the whole of Weston & Woolston? How many Northerners or Scots are going to want to spend time in Liverpool? No matter how true it is Liverpool has a terrible reputation & if your that close to home why not go home?[/p][/quote]A "terrible reputation" ?!? 14m tourists visited Liverpool in 2008 as part of the European Capital of Culture Year and that wasn't just because of the Beatles and football. Liverpool is a vibrant, exciting European city with stunning architecture, renowned museums and a huge reputation for creativity. The sight of the Queen Elizabeth sailing past a world heritage site should rightly encourage Cunard to further consider Liverpool as an asset to its business. I support the positive comments about Southampton accepting competition and investing accordingly. Its what Liverpool did and we have a 'destination' to be proud of, which goes far beyond a planned boarding point for cruise liners groster2
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Fri 9 Sep 11

SpittingMoreFire says...

loosehead wrote:
Rockhopper wrote:
Southampton's waterfront is a disgrace and especially annoying when you look down the road to Portsmouth Dockyard and Gunwharf Quays.
From the Royal Pier, past Mayflower Park to the Docks is a prime area ready for decent development.
But what do the Council do let the Pier become an Indian Restaurant and waste money on an extension to the Civic Centre called a Sea City Museum.
Of course it makes sense to have a cruise terminal in the North and South to serve customers from all over the Country.
If Liverpool use this opportunity to develop their City then Southampton has only itself to blame for standing still for too many years thinking 'we don't have to do anything because we have the Cruise industry monopoly'.
What makes it worse is peeople moaning how unfair it is for Liverpool to use tax payers money towards the project.
Well how much of tax payers money has been used over the years to benefit Southampton residents eg. Thornhill regeneration alone which cost £30million.
You can't accept it in one hand and then complain when it is offered to someone else.
So what do you call the proposed development of the Royal Pier & Mayflower site?
A joke!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rockhopper[/bold] wrote: Southampton's waterfront is a disgrace and especially annoying when you look down the road to Portsmouth Dockyard and Gunwharf Quays. From the Royal Pier, past Mayflower Park to the Docks is a prime area ready for decent development. But what do the Council do let the Pier become an Indian Restaurant and waste money on an extension to the Civic Centre called a Sea City Museum. Of course it makes sense to have a cruise terminal in the North and South to serve customers from all over the Country. If Liverpool use this opportunity to develop their City then Southampton has only itself to blame for standing still for too many years thinking 'we don't have to do anything because we have the Cruise industry monopoly'. What makes it worse is peeople moaning how unfair it is for Liverpool to use tax payers money towards the project. Well how much of tax payers money has been used over the years to benefit Southampton residents eg. Thornhill regeneration alone which cost £30million. You can't accept it in one hand and then complain when it is offered to someone else.[/p][/quote]So what do you call the proposed development of the Royal Pier & Mayflower site?[/p][/quote]A joke! SpittingMoreFire
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Fri 9 Sep 11

arizonan says...

This gentleman's later comments, did not mention operating cruises from Liverpool, only the 175th anniversary of Cunard's first transatlantic from Liverpool to Boston in 2015.Perhaps he was got at by the,' petrified' burghers of Southampton.
BTW, the consultation ends next week, but the Government's decision will not be known until early in the new parliament.
This gentleman's later comments, did not mention operating cruises from Liverpool, only the 175th anniversary of Cunard's first transatlantic from Liverpool to Boston in 2015.Perhaps he was got at by the,' petrified' burghers of Southampton. BTW, the consultation ends next week, but the Government's decision will not be known until early in the new parliament. arizonan
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Fri 9 Sep 11

Tom Liverpool says...

To add to my earlier comments, Newcastle is a great friendly city and is ideal for cruises to the Baltic and Scandinavia. But the extra distance to the Med. America and all points South must be a no-no for cruise companies.
To add to my earlier comments, Newcastle is a great friendly city and is ideal for cruises to the Baltic and Scandinavia. But the extra distance to the Med. America and all points South must be a no-no for cruise companies. Tom Liverpool
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Fri 9 Sep 11

Here, There says...

Irrespective of the pi$$ing contest going on regarding the 2, it would be a great loss to Southampton and both the City and the Port should do everything they can in their attempts to disuade Cunard from making the switch.
Irrespective of the pi$$ing contest going on regarding the 2, it would be a great loss to Southampton and both the City and the Port should do everything they can in their attempts to disuade Cunard from making the switch. Here, There
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Fri 9 Sep 11

arizonan says...

Read what this gentleman said in his statement,' Southampton remains our BASE,SOME voyages could start from Liverpool'
Don't jump off the top floor just yet.
Read what this gentleman said in his statement,' Southampton remains our BASE,SOME voyages could start from Liverpool' Don't jump off the top floor just yet. arizonan
  • Score: 0

7:14pm Fri 9 Sep 11

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Of course Cunard would use Liverpool. From their point of view it makes good business sense.
.
There are thousands in the North that would rather go from Liverpool than drive 150 miles extra to board the same boat.
.
Dont worry Cunard have no feelings for Southampton ........ Its a convenient port to run their ships from ...... Thas all.
.
This may be a wake up call to this city although i doubt it.
.
Our skyline coming up southampton water and into the docks is a dump. Year upon year with little or no investment (apart from the Terminal) and it shows what a grubby little outfit our docks and aproach is.
.
Get to grips with the waterfront and start to create good "first impressions" befor its too late. Sitting back on their and waiting for the inevitable is not an option
Please tell me what side your talking about Fawley maybe? Weston Shore which has been tried to be improved many times only for the yobs to wreck it.besides putting West Quay where Ocean Village is or knocking down the Pictures & putting town there I can't see how we could have built a gun wharf quays.Most terminals are dock gate 10 with the old terminal/cunard being in dock gate 4 so exactly what would you bulldoze to make the waterfront more attractive?Maybe the whole of Weston & Woolston? How many Northerners or Scots are going to want to spend time in Liverpool? No matter how true it is Liverpool has a terrible reputation & if your that close to home why not go home?
Thats OK Loosehead because it has been a dump for years we wont bother with it then.
.
Because we have a few vandals on Weston we will leave it to rot and let the grass grow throgh the stones and encourge more dogs and their owners to s**t on it.
.
Because Ocean Village shopping was not very successful i think that the village itself is bareable,
.
Because certain parts of the docks is decaying if we build anything new that will decay is your attitude.
.
Yours is the typical foresight that this City has been plagued with for years.
.
The pier and its surroundings, including Mayflower Park has been a dump for as long as i can remember. A total lack of ambition and creativity by ABP and our council over the years where all they really consider are shops, flats and more bl**dy flats.
.
Thats why our foreshores will never be the same as the dump to the East.
.
It is so depressing that with our great heritage we have NOTHING to offer any visitor ....... Not even a public toilet.
.
And please do not mention Mr Egos dream Sea City
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Of course Cunard would use Liverpool. From their point of view it makes good business sense. . There are thousands in the North that would rather go from Liverpool than drive 150 miles extra to board the same boat. . Dont worry Cunard have no feelings for Southampton ........ Its a convenient port to run their ships from ...... Thas all. . This may be a wake up call to this city although i doubt it. . Our skyline coming up southampton water and into the docks is a dump. Year upon year with little or no investment (apart from the Terminal) and it shows what a grubby little outfit our docks and aproach is. . Get to grips with the waterfront and start to create good "first impressions" befor its too late. Sitting back on their and waiting for the inevitable is not an option[/p][/quote]Please tell me what side your talking about Fawley maybe? Weston Shore which has been tried to be improved many times only for the yobs to wreck it.besides putting West Quay where Ocean Village is or knocking down the Pictures & putting town there I can't see how we could have built a gun wharf quays.Most terminals are dock gate 10 with the old terminal/cunard being in dock gate 4 so exactly what would you bulldoze to make the waterfront more attractive?Maybe the whole of Weston & Woolston? How many Northerners or Scots are going to want to spend time in Liverpool? No matter how true it is Liverpool has a terrible reputation & if your that close to home why not go home?[/p][/quote]Thats OK Loosehead because it has been a dump for years we wont bother with it then. . Because we have a few vandals on Weston we will leave it to rot and let the grass grow throgh the stones and encourge more dogs and their owners to s**t on it. . Because Ocean Village shopping was not very successful i think that the village itself is bareable, . Because certain parts of the docks is decaying if we build anything new that will decay is your attitude. . Yours is the typical foresight that this City has been plagued with for years. . The pier and its surroundings, including Mayflower Park has been a dump for as long as i can remember. A total lack of ambition and creativity by ABP and our council over the years where all they really consider are shops, flats and more bl**dy flats. . Thats why our foreshores will never be the same as the dump to the East. . It is so depressing that with our great heritage we have NOTHING to offer any visitor ....... Not even a public toilet. . And please do not mention Mr Egos dream Sea City Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

8:29pm Fri 9 Sep 11

WoolstonSean says...

MSK wrote:
Newcastle is a North Sea port with excellent ferry connections and cruises to the Baltic states and Scandinavia. It probably doesn't have the extra capacity. It's a bit like asking Dover to become a cruise-ship port.
Dover is a major cruise ship berth with two cruise terminals, I am thinking you only know it as a ferry port!

Harwich along with Newcastle and Leith are also a cruise turn around ports serving mainly cruises to the Baltic and Norway with the odd Med cruise.
[quote][p][bold]MSK[/bold] wrote: Newcastle is a North Sea port with excellent ferry connections and cruises to the Baltic states and Scandinavia. It probably doesn't have the extra capacity. It's a bit like asking Dover to become a cruise-ship port.[/p][/quote]Dover is a major cruise ship berth with two cruise terminals, I am thinking you only know it as a ferry port! Harwich along with Newcastle and Leith are also a cruise turn around ports serving mainly cruises to the Baltic and Norway with the odd Med cruise. WoolstonSean
  • Score: 0

9:32pm Fri 9 Sep 11

loosehead says...

MSK wrote:
Newcastle is a North Sea port with excellent ferry connections and cruises to the Baltic states and Scandinavia. It probably doesn't have the extra capacity. It's a bit like asking Dover to become a cruise-ship port.
Yes it is isn't it! OH! Dover is a cruise ship port
[quote][p][bold]MSK[/bold] wrote: Newcastle is a North Sea port with excellent ferry connections and cruises to the Baltic states and Scandinavia. It probably doesn't have the extra capacity. It's a bit like asking Dover to become a cruise-ship port.[/p][/quote]Yes it is isn't it! OH! Dover is a cruise ship port loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:42pm Fri 9 Sep 11

loosehead says...

groster2 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
Of course Cunard would use Liverpool. From their point of view it makes good business sense.
.
There are thousands in the North that would rather go from Liverpool than drive 150 miles extra to board the same boat.
.
Dont worry Cunard have no feelings for Southampton ........ Its a convenient port to run their ships from ...... Thas all.
.
This may be a wake up call to this city although i doubt it.
.
Our skyline coming up southampton water and into the docks is a dump. Year upon year with little or no investment (apart from the Terminal) and it shows what a grubby little outfit our docks and aproach is.
.
Get to grips with the waterfront and start to create good "first impressions" befor its too late. Sitting back on their and waiting for the inevitable is not an option
Please tell me what side your talking about Fawley maybe? Weston Shore which has been tried to be improved many times only for the yobs to wreck it.besides putting West Quay where Ocean Village is or knocking down the Pictures & putting town there I can't see how we could have built a gun wharf quays.Most terminals are dock gate 10 with the old terminal/cunard being in dock gate 4 so exactly what would you bulldoze to make the waterfront more attractive?Maybe the whole of Weston & Woolston? How many Northerners or Scots are going to want to spend time in Liverpool? No matter how true it is Liverpool has a terrible reputation & if your that close to home why not go home?
A "terrible reputation" ?!? 14m tourists visited Liverpool in 2008 as part of the European Capital of Culture Year and that wasn't just because of the Beatles and football. Liverpool is a vibrant, exciting European city with stunning architecture, renowned museums and a huge reputation for creativity. The sight of the Queen Elizabeth sailing past a world heritage site should rightly encourage Cunard to further consider Liverpool as an asset to its business. I support the positive comments about Southampton accepting competition and investing accordingly. Its what Liverpool did and we have a 'destination' to be proud of, which goes far beyond a planned boarding point for cruise liners
But you didn't! the terminal you want to use was achieved by lies.My own cousins are careful driving into & parking up & leaving their cars ( they live in liverpool) Ask any football fan what Liverpools reputation is.As for European Capital of Culture wasn't that achieved through regeneration grants? we never saw much of that down here Our city has been rebuilt with private investment.just think of what we could have achieved with the amount of money Liverpools received ? Opened the whole of the old castle made safe Canutes Palace even rebuilt our city after the devastation of the bombing we took in the war.Your city owes much to the South but now you want more of the cake & bugger who loses out as long as you've got it.Just tell me this what guarantees can Liverpool give that only customers from the North will be allowed to use the facilities? NONE
[quote][p][bold]groster2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: Of course Cunard would use Liverpool. From their point of view it makes good business sense. . There are thousands in the North that would rather go from Liverpool than drive 150 miles extra to board the same boat. . Dont worry Cunard have no feelings for Southampton ........ Its a convenient port to run their ships from ...... Thas all. . This may be a wake up call to this city although i doubt it. . Our skyline coming up southampton water and into the docks is a dump. Year upon year with little or no investment (apart from the Terminal) and it shows what a grubby little outfit our docks and aproach is. . Get to grips with the waterfront and start to create good "first impressions" befor its too late. Sitting back on their and waiting for the inevitable is not an option[/p][/quote]Please tell me what side your talking about Fawley maybe? Weston Shore which has been tried to be improved many times only for the yobs to wreck it.besides putting West Quay where Ocean Village is or knocking down the Pictures & putting town there I can't see how we could have built a gun wharf quays.Most terminals are dock gate 10 with the old terminal/cunard being in dock gate 4 so exactly what would you bulldoze to make the waterfront more attractive?Maybe the whole of Weston & Woolston? How many Northerners or Scots are going to want to spend time in Liverpool? No matter how true it is Liverpool has a terrible reputation & if your that close to home why not go home?[/p][/quote]A "terrible reputation" ?!? 14m tourists visited Liverpool in 2008 as part of the European Capital of Culture Year and that wasn't just because of the Beatles and football. Liverpool is a vibrant, exciting European city with stunning architecture, renowned museums and a huge reputation for creativity. The sight of the Queen Elizabeth sailing past a world heritage site should rightly encourage Cunard to further consider Liverpool as an asset to its business. I support the positive comments about Southampton accepting competition and investing accordingly. Its what Liverpool did and we have a 'destination' to be proud of, which goes far beyond a planned boarding point for cruise liners[/p][/quote]But you didn't! the terminal you want to use was achieved by lies.My own cousins are careful driving into & parking up & leaving their cars ( they live in liverpool) Ask any football fan what Liverpools reputation is.As for European Capital of Culture wasn't that achieved through regeneration grants? we never saw much of that down here Our city has been rebuilt with private investment.just think of what we could have achieved with the amount of money Liverpools received ? Opened the whole of the old castle made safe Canutes Palace even rebuilt our city after the devastation of the bombing we took in the war.Your city owes much to the South but now you want more of the cake & bugger who loses out as long as you've got it.Just tell me this what guarantees can Liverpool give that only customers from the North will be allowed to use the facilities? NONE loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:19am Sat 10 Sep 11

Edwick says...

loosehead

You seem to forget that most of the Southampton council owned homes are maintained and modernized by grants the local council gets from the government.

That money comes from all the tax payers in the UK so is not from private investment !

The local council have also introduced charges for some of the older buildings which are open to the public, and were free to visit, so as to re-cover the cost of the work which has been carried out !

Regarding re-building the city after the bombing, many parts of the UK received a lot more damage than Southampton and have also been rebuilt !

Where passengers decide to join a ship is their own choice, depending on the port of departure, so lets hope Liverpool can soon offer full turn round facitilites for the benefit of people living in that part of the Uk which will also save them the costs of having to travel to Southampton !

When compared with ports around the world such as Sydney, in Australia, Southampton looks shabby and in need of a lot of money being spent to improve the appearence of most of the port area fronting the river.
.
loosehead You seem to forget that most of the Southampton council owned homes are maintained and modernized by grants the local council gets from the government. That money comes from all the tax payers in the UK so is not from private investment ! The local council have also introduced charges for some of the older buildings which are open to the public, and were free to visit, so as to re-cover the cost of the work which has been carried out ! Regarding re-building the city after the bombing, many parts of the UK received a lot more damage than Southampton and have also been rebuilt ! Where passengers decide to join a ship is their own choice, depending on the port of departure, so lets hope Liverpool can soon offer full turn round facitilites for the benefit of people living in that part of the Uk which will also save them the costs of having to travel to Southampton ! When compared with ports around the world such as Sydney, in Australia, Southampton looks shabby and in need of a lot of money being spent to improve the appearence of most of the port area fronting the river. . Edwick
  • Score: 0

1:53am Sat 10 Sep 11

DougBrum says...

I just wish some of you will get real and let reality kick in. As Cunard have stated many many times over, Southampton IS their main UK sea terminal and always will be! Dont forget 4 tides a day too! That will NOT change regardless of what happens at Liverpool. Cunard along with other Cruise Line companies WILL consider for the occasional cruise to come to Liverpool with or without turn around facilities - if the former happens then may be about 10 a year will use the turn around facility. The people of Southampton and especially your paper need to get a real grip on the matter and stop scare mongering! As for your waterfront - yes it is a mess but you have yourselves to blame! There is were Liverpool has one over you along with the numerous attractions the city and the region has. Yes I've been to Southampton and the area is relatively nice and would not knock the people unlike some of the posters on here about Liverpool and their people! Really a shame on you for stooping so low! As it happens I'm down on Sunday to go on the QM2 UK cruise and the highlight of the cruise - yes you guessed it LIVERPOOL (with Cobh coming second). Again, I have no qualms in starting & finishing at Southampton in the future but if Liverpool gets the facility I will use it especially if Cunard do the ODD one every now and then. Again, stop scare mongering - you have nowt to worry about but just accept Liverpool deserves to have turnaround facilities and stop going on about the money otherwise I may have to mention a recent investment to your area from public funds of £45 million pounds (+ £6 million from ABP) for improved rail links for the ultimate benefit of Southampton Western Docks Freight traffic - now is that a fair playing field? Enough said. Have a nice day and look forward in seeing some friendly Southampton people on Sunday & Monday. A proud Scouser who still lives in his fine friendly city.
I just wish some of you will get real and let reality kick in. As Cunard have stated many many times over, Southampton IS their main UK sea terminal and always will be! Dont forget 4 tides a day too! That will NOT change regardless of what happens at Liverpool. Cunard along with other Cruise Line companies WILL consider for the occasional cruise to come to Liverpool with or without turn around facilities - if the former happens then may be about 10 a year will use the turn around facility. The people of Southampton and especially your paper need to get a real grip on the matter and stop scare mongering! As for your waterfront - yes it is a mess but you have yourselves to blame! There is were Liverpool has one over you along with the numerous attractions the city and the region has. Yes I've been to Southampton and the area is relatively nice and would not knock the people unlike some of the posters on here about Liverpool and their people! Really a shame on you for stooping so low! As it happens I'm down on Sunday to go on the QM2 UK cruise and the highlight of the cruise - yes you guessed it LIVERPOOL (with Cobh coming second). Again, I have no qualms in starting & finishing at Southampton in the future but if Liverpool gets the facility I will use it especially if Cunard do the ODD one every now and then. Again, stop scare mongering - you have nowt to worry about but just accept Liverpool deserves to have turnaround facilities and stop going on about the money otherwise I may have to mention a recent investment to your area from public funds of £45 million pounds (+ £6 million from ABP) for improved rail links for the ultimate benefit of Southampton Western Docks Freight traffic - now is that a fair playing field? Enough said. Have a nice day and look forward in seeing some friendly Southampton people on Sunday & Monday. A proud Scouser who still lives in his fine friendly city. DougBrum
  • Score: 0

5:53am Sat 10 Sep 11

arizonan says...

Never had any problem with driving or parking in Liverpool, nor any of my family, friends or work mates, never.
But when I stayed in a small country hotel near Chatsworth House in Derbyshire, I had my sidecreen smashed and all the contents removed.
Liverpool owes much to the south?.Please explain.
Never had any problem with driving or parking in Liverpool, nor any of my family, friends or work mates, never. But when I stayed in a small country hotel near Chatsworth House in Derbyshire, I had my sidecreen smashed and all the contents removed. Liverpool owes much to the south?.Please explain. arizonan
  • Score: 0

7:46am Sat 10 Sep 11

georgetheseventh says...

Loosehead...the only bad reputation Lpool has is from the likes of 'thickoes' such as you and your mates cracking 'out-of-date' scouse jokes. I truly hope you dont have any relatives living up here 'lowering' the tone of our neighbourhoods..and if you have..hopefully in the not to distant future they can take a little cruise from our WONDERFUL HISTORIC CITY.
Loosehead...the only bad reputation Lpool has is from the likes of 'thickoes' such as you and your mates cracking 'out-of-date' scouse jokes. I truly hope you dont have any relatives living up here 'lowering' the tone of our neighbourhoods..and if you have..hopefully in the not to distant future they can take a little cruise from our WONDERFUL HISTORIC CITY. georgetheseventh
  • Score: 0

7:53am Sat 10 Sep 11

georgetheseventh says...

I echo your comment on 'friendly' Southampton people..I know there are many of them out there..most do not waste there time reacting to a local 'rag' trying to stir up headlines to attract advertising. As for 'loosehead'..well..t
hats a different kettle of fish..maybe a brain transplant from a monkey would help
but sorry to the monkey.
I echo your comment on 'friendly' Southampton people..I know there are many of them out there..most do not waste there time reacting to a local 'rag' trying to stir up headlines to attract advertising. As for 'loosehead'..well..t hats a different kettle of fish..maybe a brain transplant from a monkey would help but sorry to the monkey. georgetheseventh
  • Score: 0

8:04am Sat 10 Sep 11

georgetheseventh says...

Loosehead...try using your LITTLE brain..maybe do some 'research' for once..Tony Blair's government told Lpool they would not get a penny to stage the fantastic..European Capital Of Culture..we did it all on our own.
Now..a lot of people up here have been researching just how many millions your area has received under so called New Labour......didnt you do WELL....??????????
Loosehead...try using your LITTLE brain..maybe do some 'research' for once..Tony Blair's government told Lpool they would not get a penny to stage the fantastic..European Capital Of Culture..we did it all on our own. Now..a lot of people up here have been researching just how many millions your area has received under so called New Labour......didnt you do WELL....?????????? georgetheseventh
  • Score: 0

8:58am Sat 10 Sep 11

loosehead says...

georgetheseventh wrote:
Loosehead...try using your LITTLE brain..maybe do some 'research' for once..Tony Blair's government told Lpool they would not get a penny to stage the fantastic..European Capital Of Culture..we did it all on our own.
Now..a lot of people up here have been researching just how many millions your area has received under so called New Labour......didnt you do WELL....??????????
So all you can do is belittle some one who disagrees with you? I personally have nothing against scousers or Liverpool as a city but lets get it right it might not be the whole population of Liverpool but your football fans have a tea leaf reputation( light fingered). As for the grants we've recieved what grants? also council rents paid for by the tenants in any city goes to the government the local authority has to pay for repairs & modernisation the government is suppose to pay back a large chunk of the rents collected but in the South the last Labour Government cut back the moneys they send back to those councils instead sending it to the North.Call me what you like every post from the Southampton area is pay back the loans & fine but then you all disagree with that don't you? As for a little brain maybe I got that from my scouse father? But that would be a pathetic swipe at scousers & unlike you I will not belittle you
[quote][p][bold]georgetheseventh[/bold] wrote: Loosehead...try using your LITTLE brain..maybe do some 'research' for once..Tony Blair's government told Lpool they would not get a penny to stage the fantastic..European Capital Of Culture..we did it all on our own. Now..a lot of people up here have been researching just how many millions your area has received under so called New Labour......didnt you do WELL....??????????[/p][/quote]So all you can do is belittle some one who disagrees with you? I personally have nothing against scousers or Liverpool as a city but lets get it right it might not be the whole population of Liverpool but your football fans have a tea leaf reputation( light fingered). As for the grants we've recieved what grants? also council rents paid for by the tenants in any city goes to the government the local authority has to pay for repairs & modernisation the government is suppose to pay back a large chunk of the rents collected but in the South the last Labour Government cut back the moneys they send back to those councils instead sending it to the North.Call me what you like every post from the Southampton area is pay back the loans & fine but then you all disagree with that don't you? As for a little brain maybe I got that from my scouse father? But that would be a pathetic swipe at scousers & unlike you I will not belittle you loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:32am Sat 10 Sep 11

Sandra Rimmer says...

Play nicely! My two-penn'orth is on my blog, cut and paste the URL below:

http://www.abroadint
heyard.com/southampt
on-wheels-out-big-gu
ns-cruise-wars-liver
pool/

You can vote on it as well
Play nicely! My two-penn'orth is on my blog, cut and paste the URL below: http://www.abroadint heyard.com/southampt on-wheels-out-big-gu ns-cruise-wars-liver pool/ You can vote on it as well Sandra Rimmer
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Sat 10 Sep 11

MARYAM66 says...

I really think Southampton is being pathetic, can't cope with British Competition ? I am a big cruise fan and love visiting new ports. Liverpool has a world heritage waterfront and I have loved it when I have visited it. They are close to the Lake District and North Wales within an hour and a wee bit. Give others the chance to see these amazing places. Southampton is a dull sorry guys but its true.
I reckon it would be good for Southampton to have competition from the North of England. It might be a wake up call for the lazy councils to get their finger out and sort out your own waterfront its a mess. Don't blame Liverpool for wanting to showcase their treasures. They deserve to be seen by a wider audience and stop the knockers on here who have probably never been near the place. I say Good luck to Liverpool I hope they make it.Whenever I have been up there the people have been brilliant and there is so much to do.
I really think Southampton is being pathetic, can't cope with British Competition ? I am a big cruise fan and love visiting new ports. Liverpool has a world heritage waterfront and I have loved it when I have visited it. They are close to the Lake District and North Wales within an hour and a wee bit. Give others the chance to see these amazing places. Southampton is a dull sorry guys but its true. I reckon it would be good for Southampton to have competition from the North of England. It might be a wake up call for the lazy councils to get their finger out and sort out your own waterfront its a mess. Don't blame Liverpool for wanting to showcase their treasures. They deserve to be seen by a wider audience and stop the knockers on here who have probably never been near the place. I say Good luck to Liverpool I hope they make it.Whenever I have been up there the people have been brilliant and there is so much to do. MARYAM66
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Sat 10 Sep 11

MARYAM66 says...

I really think Southampton is being pathetic, can't cope with British Competition ? I am a big cruise fan and love visiting new ports. Liverpool has a world heritage waterfront and I have loved it when I have visited it. They are close to the Lake District and North Wales within an hour and a wee bit. Give others the chance to see these amazing places. Southampton is a dull place sorry guys but its true.
I reckon it would be good for Southampton to have competition from the North of England. It might be a wake up call for the lazy councils to get their finger out and sort out your own waterfront its a mess. Don't blame Liverpool for wanting to showcase their treasures. They deserve to be seen by a wider audience and stop the knockers on here who have probably never been near the place. I say Good luck to Liverpool I hope they make it.Whenever I have been up there the people have been brilliant and there is so much to do.
I really think Southampton is being pathetic, can't cope with British Competition ? I am a big cruise fan and love visiting new ports. Liverpool has a world heritage waterfront and I have loved it when I have visited it. They are close to the Lake District and North Wales within an hour and a wee bit. Give others the chance to see these amazing places. Southampton is a dull place sorry guys but its true. I reckon it would be good for Southampton to have competition from the North of England. It might be a wake up call for the lazy councils to get their finger out and sort out your own waterfront its a mess. Don't blame Liverpool for wanting to showcase their treasures. They deserve to be seen by a wider audience and stop the knockers on here who have probably never been near the place. I say Good luck to Liverpool I hope they make it.Whenever I have been up there the people have been brilliant and there is so much to do. MARYAM66
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Sat 10 Sep 11

AlwynM says...

What a sight, seeing Cunard finest coming home, let have some more of that please.
What a sight, seeing Cunard finest coming home, let have some more of that please. AlwynM
  • Score: 0

3:24pm Sat 10 Sep 11

Tom Liverpool says...

Does anything Loosehead write have any credibility? Liverpool (Merseyside) was the second most bombed location in the UK after London, over 500 air-raids in one month alone May 1941, and many more beside that, the city centre was totally decimated. Please research your pathetic quotes to make sure you're at least reasonably accurate.
But that is all in the past and both cities have rebuilt using whatever means they could, be that grants or private investment, whatever was available at the time. we should all stop being selective in the way we argue the merits of this case and accept that the grant system is to help in the development of our country for the good of ALL. Liverpool Council (Liberal at the time)were very naive when they signed that agreement for the terminal but are we to be held back for the rest of time? I hope not. This city now has an excellent reputation with foreigners but for some reason not with people from the South of England which I find quite perverse.
Does anything Loosehead write have any credibility? Liverpool (Merseyside) was the second most bombed location in the UK after London, over 500 air-raids in one month alone May 1941, and many more beside that, the city centre was totally decimated. Please research your pathetic quotes to make sure you're at least reasonably accurate. But that is all in the past and both cities have rebuilt using whatever means they could, be that grants or private investment, whatever was available at the time. we should all stop being selective in the way we argue the merits of this case and accept that the grant system is to help in the development of our country for the good of ALL. Liverpool Council (Liberal at the time)were very naive when they signed that agreement for the terminal but are we to be held back for the rest of time? I hope not. This city now has an excellent reputation with foreigners but for some reason not with people from the South of England which I find quite perverse. Tom Liverpool
  • Score: 0

4:04pm Sat 10 Sep 11

vag says...

As has been mentioned above, we have multiple tides per day in Southampton (due to the location of the isle of wight I believe). This means the ships have more opportunities to arrive and depart, which makes good business sense for the operators. Unless the isle of wight suddenly sails off to Liverpool, that won't change.
As has been mentioned above, we have multiple tides per day in Southampton (due to the location of the isle of wight I believe). This means the ships have more opportunities to arrive and depart, which makes good business sense for the operators. Unless the isle of wight suddenly sails off to Liverpool, that won't change. vag
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Sat 10 Sep 11

jhluxton says...

I am from Liverpool and signed the UK Cruise Port Alliance petition a couple of weeks ago.

A lot of people who have an opinion up here on Merseyside probably never even use a cruise ship. They just go down to the Pier Head and stare at them!

I have sailed from Southampton four times in the last two and a half years and I find the terminal facilities and organisation at Southampton very good.

As a Liverpool council tax payer I don't want our council to start using tax payers' money to refund subsidies for the Cruise Terminal. There are more important things for money to be spent on.

There are long term plans for a proper privately funded cruise terminal on the Mersey as part of the Peel Ports Liverpool Waters Development - preliminary planning permission has been sought.

This will be purpose built and may eventually offer Southampton a bit of competition, which won't do any harm but it will be on a level playing field.

Looking at the present arrangements we have at Liverpool any upgrade at the Pier Head will be a compromise which won't match what Southampton has to offer.

Anyway I look forward to my next two cruises from Southampton in 2012!

John
I am from Liverpool and signed the UK Cruise Port Alliance petition a couple of weeks ago. A lot of people who have an opinion up here on Merseyside probably never even use a cruise ship. They just go down to the Pier Head and stare at them! I have sailed from Southampton four times in the last two and a half years and I find the terminal facilities and organisation at Southampton very good. As a Liverpool council tax payer I don't want our council to start using tax payers' money to refund subsidies for the Cruise Terminal. There are more important things for money to be spent on. There are long term plans for a proper privately funded cruise terminal on the Mersey as part of the Peel Ports Liverpool Waters Development - preliminary planning permission has been sought. This will be purpose built and may eventually offer Southampton a bit of competition, which won't do any harm but it will be on a level playing field. Looking at the present arrangements we have at Liverpool any upgrade at the Pier Head will be a compromise which won't match what Southampton has to offer. Anyway I look forward to my next two cruises from Southampton in 2012! John jhluxton
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Sat 10 Sep 11

jhluxton says...

I am from Liverpool and signed the UK Cruise Port Alliance petition a couple of weeks ago.

A lot of people who have an opinion up here on Merseyside probably never even use a cruise ship. They just go down to the Pier Head and stare at them!

I have sailed from Southampton four times in the last two and a half years and I find the terminal facilities and organisation at Southampton very good.

As a Liverpool council tax payer I don't want our council to start using tax payers' money to refund subsidies for the Cruise Terminal. There are more important things for money to be spent on.

There are long term plans for a proper privately funded cruise terminal on the Mersey as part of the Peel Ports Liverpool Waters Development - preliminary planning permission has been sought.

This will be purpose built and may eventually offer Southampton a bit of competition, which won't do any harm but it will be on a level playing field.

Looking at the present arrangements we have at Liverpool any upgrade at the Pier Head will be a compromise which won't match what Southampton has to offer.

Anyway I look forward to my next two cruises from Southampton in 2012!

John
I am from Liverpool and signed the UK Cruise Port Alliance petition a couple of weeks ago. A lot of people who have an opinion up here on Merseyside probably never even use a cruise ship. They just go down to the Pier Head and stare at them! I have sailed from Southampton four times in the last two and a half years and I find the terminal facilities and organisation at Southampton very good. As a Liverpool council tax payer I don't want our council to start using tax payers' money to refund subsidies for the Cruise Terminal. There are more important things for money to be spent on. There are long term plans for a proper privately funded cruise terminal on the Mersey as part of the Peel Ports Liverpool Waters Development - preliminary planning permission has been sought. This will be purpose built and may eventually offer Southampton a bit of competition, which won't do any harm but it will be on a level playing field. Looking at the present arrangements we have at Liverpool any upgrade at the Pier Head will be a compromise which won't match what Southampton has to offer. Anyway I look forward to my next two cruises from Southampton in 2012! John jhluxton
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Sat 10 Sep 11

Tom Liverpool says...

Did JHLuxton sail from the same Southampton as I did. The facilities are poor at best. Go to Savona in Italy to see what cruise facilities should be like, and numerous other ports around the world. As I have said before I bear Southampton no ill will, but the problem is getting to and from the place and the horrendous costs involved.
Did JHLuxton sail from the same Southampton as I did. The facilities are poor at best. Go to Savona in Italy to see what cruise facilities should be like, and numerous other ports around the world. As I have said before I bear Southampton no ill will, but the problem is getting to and from the place and the horrendous costs involved. Tom Liverpool
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Sat 10 Sep 11

loosehead says...

Tom Liverpool wrote:
Did JHLuxton sail from the same Southampton as I did. The facilities are poor at best. Go to Savona in Italy to see what cruise facilities should be like, and numerous other ports around the world. As I have said before I bear Southampton no ill will, but the problem is getting to and from the place and the horrendous costs involved.
Tom I don't know what terminal you used but even the most avid pro liverpool turnaround advocate who's used Southampton has stated the facilities were very good
[quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: Did JHLuxton sail from the same Southampton as I did. The facilities are poor at best. Go to Savona in Italy to see what cruise facilities should be like, and numerous other ports around the world. As I have said before I bear Southampton no ill will, but the problem is getting to and from the place and the horrendous costs involved.[/p][/quote]Tom I don't know what terminal you used but even the most avid pro liverpool turnaround advocate who's used Southampton has stated the facilities were very good loosehead
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Sat 10 Sep 11

Tom Liverpool says...

To JHLuxton look up The Palacrociere Savona on the internet to see what I mean.
To JHLuxton look up The Palacrociere Savona on the internet to see what I mean. Tom Liverpool
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Sat 10 Sep 11

Tom Liverpool says...

To JHLuxton, I've only used Southampton twice, and I accept that maybe I've just been unlucky. I usually fly/cruise.
To JHLuxton, I've only used Southampton twice, and I accept that maybe I've just been unlucky. I usually fly/cruise. Tom Liverpool
  • Score: 0

5:48pm Sat 10 Sep 11

loosehead says...

Tom Liverpool wrote:
Does anything Loosehead write have any credibility? Liverpool (Merseyside) was the second most bombed location in the UK after London, over 500 air-raids in one month alone May 1941, and many more beside that, the city centre was totally decimated. Please research your pathetic quotes to make sure you're at least reasonably accurate.
But that is all in the past and both cities have rebuilt using whatever means they could, be that grants or private investment, whatever was available at the time. we should all stop being selective in the way we argue the merits of this case and accept that the grant system is to help in the development of our country for the good of ALL. Liverpool Council (Liberal at the time)were very naive when they signed that agreement for the terminal but are we to be held back for the rest of time? I hope not. This city now has an excellent reputation with foreigners but for some reason not with people from the South of England which I find quite perverse.
Tom don't forget when it came to size Southampton wasn't even a city in the second war I remember it as a Borough & I wasn't alive in the war.for size Southampton was hit extremely hard/heavy. we had the spitfire factory here, we had the docks here. we not only got bombed we got doodle bugged.come look at the centre of our city look at the bombed out church & take a look at the old town & see if there's anything left.Tom our town was flattened up to the point many areas that were rows of terrace houses have just recently had blocks of flats built on them.I think you'll find out that the figures you quoted were for correct if Southampton was the same size as liverpool was but it wasn't.Weren't you once the second largest city in England? We had a Labour council for years who did nothing for this city now we have a council thats trying to improve it & the left wing are doing their utmost to pull us back in time.our Mayflower park & pier are is being expanded & a Spitfire style statue is being erected plus we've just built a new cultural sector which is having rave reviews but the left didn't want it.I'm a Rugby fan but I wish you your sports teams & the people all the best we'll see this week exactly where we both stand Have Fun from a Hampshire Hog (Sotonian)
[quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: Does anything Loosehead write have any credibility? Liverpool (Merseyside) was the second most bombed location in the UK after London, over 500 air-raids in one month alone May 1941, and many more beside that, the city centre was totally decimated. Please research your pathetic quotes to make sure you're at least reasonably accurate. But that is all in the past and both cities have rebuilt using whatever means they could, be that grants or private investment, whatever was available at the time. we should all stop being selective in the way we argue the merits of this case and accept that the grant system is to help in the development of our country for the good of ALL. Liverpool Council (Liberal at the time)were very naive when they signed that agreement for the terminal but are we to be held back for the rest of time? I hope not. This city now has an excellent reputation with foreigners but for some reason not with people from the South of England which I find quite perverse.[/p][/quote]Tom don't forget when it came to size Southampton wasn't even a city in the second war I remember it as a Borough & I wasn't alive in the war.for size Southampton was hit extremely hard/heavy. we had the spitfire factory here, we had the docks here. we not only got bombed we got doodle bugged.come look at the centre of our city look at the bombed out church & take a look at the old town & see if there's anything left.Tom our town was flattened up to the point many areas that were rows of terrace houses have just recently had blocks of flats built on them.I think you'll find out that the figures you quoted were for correct if Southampton was the same size as liverpool was but it wasn't.Weren't you once the second largest city in England? We had a Labour council for years who did nothing for this city now we have a council thats trying to improve it & the left wing are doing their utmost to pull us back in time.our Mayflower park & pier are is being expanded & a Spitfire style statue is being erected plus we've just built a new cultural sector which is having rave reviews but the left didn't want it.I'm a Rugby fan but I wish you your sports teams & the people all the best we'll see this week exactly where we both stand Have Fun from a Hampshire Hog (Sotonian) loosehead
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Sat 10 Sep 11

forest hump says...

Steady on! I used to work for Curnard!
Steady on! I used to work for Curnard! forest hump
  • Score: 0

7:44pm Sat 10 Sep 11

Tom Liverpool says...

Loosehead, totally agree with your sentiments, both cities suffered abominably during the war, and have come through to their credit. I was in Southampton in June and have no complaints about the place, but I really get wound up when people slag-off Liverpool for no real reason, the stereo-typical scouser is a small minority but the media focus on it constantly. As you say the decision will be known soon, I just hope Liverpool wins the argument but accept that you strongly disagree. Also I really believe Liverpools cruise traffic if it comes about, will hardly dent Southamptons stranglehold on the market. Best of luck for the future.
Tom.
Loosehead, totally agree with your sentiments, both cities suffered abominably during the war, and have come through to their credit. I was in Southampton in June and have no complaints about the place, but I really get wound up when people slag-off Liverpool for no real reason, the stereo-typical scouser is a small minority but the media focus on it constantly. As you say the decision will be known soon, I just hope Liverpool wins the argument but accept that you strongly disagree. Also I really believe Liverpools cruise traffic if it comes about, will hardly dent Southamptons stranglehold on the market. Best of luck for the future. Tom. Tom Liverpool
  • Score: 0

9:15pm Sat 10 Sep 11

loosehead says...

Tom Liverpool wrote:
Loosehead, totally agree with your sentiments, both cities suffered abominably during the war, and have come through to their credit. I was in Southampton in June and have no complaints about the place, but I really get wound up when people slag-off Liverpool for no real reason, the stereo-typical scouser is a small minority but the media focus on it constantly. As you say the decision will be known soon, I just hope Liverpool wins the argument but accept that you strongly disagree. Also I really believe Liverpools cruise traffic if it comes about, will hardly dent Southamptons stranglehold on the market. Best of luck for the future.
Tom.
Tom what gets me so annoyed about all of this is all the venom from liverpool is aimed at Southampton.Yes we have a large share of the market but there's Dover & other ports plus your one time ally Portsmouth who are in the cruise industry & they all oppose you now.I wasn't against Liverpool.I said they should have talked to the other ports ( not portsmouth.no terminal then) & worked out a niche for your port & then applied for the grants every one would have been happy & these posts would never have happened.I'm in a very happy mood as I watched my team scrape through & thought they can only get better(England rugby)
[quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: Loosehead, totally agree with your sentiments, both cities suffered abominably during the war, and have come through to their credit. I was in Southampton in June and have no complaints about the place, but I really get wound up when people slag-off Liverpool for no real reason, the stereo-typical scouser is a small minority but the media focus on it constantly. As you say the decision will be known soon, I just hope Liverpool wins the argument but accept that you strongly disagree. Also I really believe Liverpools cruise traffic if it comes about, will hardly dent Southamptons stranglehold on the market. Best of luck for the future. Tom.[/p][/quote]Tom what gets me so annoyed about all of this is all the venom from liverpool is aimed at Southampton.Yes we have a large share of the market but there's Dover & other ports plus your one time ally Portsmouth who are in the cruise industry & they all oppose you now.I wasn't against Liverpool.I said they should have talked to the other ports ( not portsmouth.no terminal then) & worked out a niche for your port & then applied for the grants every one would have been happy & these posts would never have happened.I'm in a very happy mood as I watched my team scrape through & thought they can only get better(England rugby) loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:01am Sun 11 Sep 11

Edwick says...

For passengers flying in from overseas to join cruises departing from the UK one big advantage that Liverpool has over Southampton is that it is only about 33 miles from Manchester International Airport where flights land from all over the world.

Southamptons nearest international airport, receiving overseas flights, is Heathrow which is about 70 miles from Southampton so a lot less travelling for passengers joining a cruises in Liverpool who might be tired after a long flight.
.
For passengers flying in from overseas to join cruises departing from the UK one big advantage that Liverpool has over Southampton is that it is only about 33 miles from Manchester International Airport where flights land from all over the world. Southamptons nearest international airport, receiving overseas flights, is Heathrow which is about 70 miles from Southampton so a lot less travelling for passengers joining a cruises in Liverpool who might be tired after a long flight. . Edwick
  • Score: 0

9:07am Sun 11 Sep 11

loosehead says...

Edwick wrote:
For passengers flying in from overseas to join cruises departing from the UK one big advantage that Liverpool has over Southampton is that it is only about 33 miles from Manchester International Airport where flights land from all over the world.

Southamptons nearest international airport, receiving overseas flights, is Heathrow which is about 70 miles from Southampton so a lot less travelling for passengers joining a cruises in Liverpool who might be tired after a long flight.
.
What about Bournemouth? what about Southampton airport for European passengers?
[quote][p][bold]Edwick[/bold] wrote: For passengers flying in from overseas to join cruises departing from the UK one big advantage that Liverpool has over Southampton is that it is only about 33 miles from Manchester International Airport where flights land from all over the world. Southamptons nearest international airport, receiving overseas flights, is Heathrow which is about 70 miles from Southampton so a lot less travelling for passengers joining a cruises in Liverpool who might be tired after a long flight. .[/p][/quote]What about Bournemouth? what about Southampton airport for European passengers? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:20pm Sun 11 Sep 11

Edwick says...

Loosehead

Once again you spout but do not read.

I said International flights to airports which means those flights coming in from the USA, Canada and other parts of the world not from EUROPE !
.
Loosehead Once again you spout but do not read. I said International flights to airports which means those flights coming in from the USA, Canada and other parts of the world not from EUROPE ! . Edwick
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Sun 11 Sep 11

ruby83 says...

What is wrong with Cunard running cruises from Liverpool? I don't know if they still own it but they've always had a building down by the docks of Liverpool. Indeed I've never heard it referred to anything other than "The Cunard Building"

If statistics are to be believed Liverpool has 30% of its people out of work. Suggests business isn't exactly booming so is it any wonder they do not have enough private revenue for development? The exchange rate of hubcaps ain't what it used to be either.

Southampton still has two tides, two entrances & deeper docklands. It's still going to be a prestigious portal city. I don't imagine they'll lose too much business to be honest. Besides they've got the great claim that it's home to the most expensive stretch of water in the world (IoW ferry crossing). How can Liverpool compete with that? It's only "Twopence to Cross the Mersey"

Is it possible that renewing the face of Liverpool dockside & reviving the city's old port business would generate jobs & actually increase the city's tax & NI contributions?

Perhaps more scousers & other northerners venture on cruises if Liverpool's business expanded. Hmm on second thoughts lets not allow this to happen & keep them in their place eh? Keep them focused on developing footballers instead maybe?

OK so they may not be playing by the rules but who in business doesn't try & bend the rules to suit themselves? I have to admit I am from Liverpool and support the development. There isn't the money in the city to haul itself out of depression. With so many of the residents unemployed tax payers money is going to be poured into the city regardless.

For those afraid that Liverpool's attempt to revive it's seafaring industry will "poach" business from Southampton, ensure that business down south remains in demand: book a cruise departing from Southampton for your holiday in future.
What is wrong with Cunard running cruises from Liverpool? I don't know if they still own it but they've always had a building down by the docks of Liverpool. Indeed I've never heard it referred to anything other than "The Cunard Building" If statistics are to be believed Liverpool has 30% of its people out of work. Suggests business isn't exactly booming so is it any wonder they do not have enough private revenue for development? The exchange rate of hubcaps ain't what it used to be either. Southampton still has two tides, two entrances & deeper docklands. It's still going to be a prestigious portal city. I don't imagine they'll lose too much business to be honest. Besides they've got the great claim that it's home to the most expensive stretch of water in the world (IoW ferry crossing). How can Liverpool compete with that? It's only "Twopence to Cross the Mersey" Is it possible that renewing the face of Liverpool dockside & reviving the city's old port business would generate jobs & actually increase the city's tax & NI contributions? Perhaps more scousers & other northerners venture on cruises if Liverpool's business expanded. Hmm on second thoughts lets not allow this to happen & keep them in their place eh? Keep them focused on developing footballers instead maybe? OK so they may not be playing by the rules but who in business doesn't try & bend the rules to suit themselves? I have to admit I am from Liverpool and support the development. There isn't the money in the city to haul itself out of depression. With so many of the residents unemployed tax payers money is going to be poured into the city regardless. For those afraid that Liverpool's attempt to revive it's seafaring industry will "poach" business from Southampton, ensure that business down south remains in demand: book a cruise departing from Southampton for your holiday in future. ruby83
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Sun 11 Sep 11

Lone Ranger. says...

Edwick wrote:
Loosehead

Once again you spout but do not read.

I said International flights to airports which means those flights coming in from the USA, Canada and other parts of the world not from EUROPE !
.
You are quite right ....... He does that most of the time.
.
He is applying for the position of a bin man as well.
[quote][p][bold]Edwick[/bold] wrote: Loosehead Once again you spout but do not read. I said International flights to airports which means those flights coming in from the USA, Canada and other parts of the world not from EUROPE ! .[/p][/quote]You are quite right ....... He does that most of the time. . He is applying for the position of a bin man as well. Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

5:39pm Sun 11 Sep 11

Bayman says...

Liverpool was raped by the south

In the 1970s:
* The city opened a rapid-transit underground rail network, with room to greatly expand very quickly - these create economic growth and give kudos.
* The city centre had large parts rebuit with a new tower erected.
* New hotels were being built.
* New large office blocks being built.
* Private housing was being built all over the city region.
* Public housing was being built wiping out Victorian slums with the hill at Everton resembling a mini-Manhattan covered in tower blocks - the world's largest residential block was built in the city in 1966.
* Motorways were being run into the city from many angles and outer city loop motorways being built.
* A new Mersey road tunnel was opened in 1971, supplementing the existing road tunnel, running right onto a motorway - a motorway served the city centre directly.
* The city opened a massive new container dock with the world's largest dock gates accommodating the world's largest container ships at the time, in preparation of the coming shift in shipping patterns.
* Car factories had set up in the city (not our traditional business).
* The city was expanding the airport to claw back its passenger trade. The Air Ministry ran the airport from WW2. * The best airport in the UK in 1945, the London based Air Ministry neglected it and after protests only handed it back to the city in 1961, after Manchester stole the lead in people shifting - Liverpool's traditional business.
* Banking and insurance was big in the city with some of the UKs biggest insurance companies based in the city, giving the city a sizable financial services sector.
* The Post Office Giro Bank was setup in a new large complex.
* The public sector was well represented with new tax offices setup.
* The city was top in mail order.
* The city was top in gambling - football pools.
* The region was large in detergent manufacture.
* The region was large in oil refining.
* Passenger rail links were extensive in the region and nationwide. The UKs very first Inter-City train left from Lime St station in 1966.
* Freight rail links were extensive. All port areas were served by rail.
* The city was well represented in music and the arts with a world-wide reputation being viewed as the pinnacle of popular music.
* The city had a positive world-wide reputation all around.

Everything was looking good. The city looked ahead and proactively did the right things in the 1960/70s rapidly changing with the times with a mixed economy and a predominately commercial city as well. Liverpool was not a one industry industrial vertical sector city volatile to the whims of the world market. The city put in all the essential building blocks to seamlessly move to the next stage. All was looking highly optimistically to the future.

Yet in a few years the city was destitute. Ask why? No it wasn't because a few dockers, who were very few of the total working population, were on strike.
Hint: LOOK SOUTH.
Liverpool was raped by the south In the 1970s: * The city opened a rapid-transit underground rail network, with room to greatly expand very quickly - these create economic growth and give kudos. * The city centre had large parts rebuit with a new tower erected. * New hotels were being built. * New large office blocks being built. * Private housing was being built all over the city region. * Public housing was being built wiping out Victorian slums with the hill at Everton resembling a mini-Manhattan covered in tower blocks - the world's largest residential block was built in the city in 1966. * Motorways were being run into the city from many angles and outer city loop motorways being built. * A new Mersey road tunnel was opened in 1971, supplementing the existing road tunnel, running right onto a motorway - a motorway served the city centre directly. * The city opened a massive new container dock with the world's largest dock gates accommodating the world's largest container ships at the time, in preparation of the coming shift in shipping patterns. * Car factories had set up in the city (not our traditional business). * The city was expanding the airport to claw back its passenger trade. The Air Ministry ran the airport from WW2. * The best airport in the UK in 1945, the London based Air Ministry neglected it and after protests only handed it back to the city in 1961, after Manchester stole the lead in people shifting - Liverpool's traditional business. * Banking and insurance was big in the city with some of the UKs biggest insurance companies based in the city, giving the city a sizable financial services sector. * The Post Office Giro Bank was setup in a new large complex. * The public sector was well represented with new tax offices setup. * The city was top in mail order. * The city was top in gambling - football pools. * The region was large in detergent manufacture. * The region was large in oil refining. * Passenger rail links were extensive in the region and nationwide. The UKs very first Inter-City train left from Lime St station in 1966. * Freight rail links were extensive. All port areas were served by rail. * The city was well represented in music and the arts with a world-wide reputation being viewed as the pinnacle of popular music. * The city had a positive world-wide reputation all around. Everything was looking good. The city looked ahead and proactively did the right things in the 1960/70s rapidly changing with the times with a mixed economy and a predominately commercial city as well. Liverpool was not a one industry industrial vertical sector city volatile to the whims of the world market. The city put in all the essential building blocks to seamlessly move to the next stage. All was looking highly optimistically to the future. Yet in a few years the city was destitute. Ask why? No it wasn't because a few dockers, who were very few of the total working population, were on strike. Hint: LOOK SOUTH. Bayman
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Sun 11 Sep 11

Bayman says...

The publicly funded rail upgrade from Southampton to the Midlands has nothing to do with the cruise industry directly - it does disprove the myth that Southampton's wealth is based solely on private investment.

If a city can gain a grant for improvements they will go for it and Liverpool should not be seen as being unusual in that respect.

Liverpool city has proposed a pay-back scheme for the part of the grant that was subject to the unfair pre-condition of the replacement cruise liner terminal. If the government accepts it, that will be the end of the matter. The city should pay NOTHING back.

As for the rail gauge improvement works being in the national interest as many in the south have said, that is a matter of skewed southern views. The London Olympics are sold to us as being in the national interest, however generally, improvements in the north of England are said to be in the regional interest only.

Development of cruise liner facilities at Liverpool are in the 'national interest' It will put many millions of people within one hours drive or short train journey from a cruise liner port and enhance the UK cruise industry.
The publicly funded rail upgrade from Southampton to the Midlands has nothing to do with the cruise industry directly - it does disprove the myth that Southampton's wealth is based solely on private investment. If a city can gain a grant for improvements they will go for it and Liverpool should not be seen as being unusual in that respect. Liverpool city has proposed a pay-back scheme for the part of the grant that was subject to the unfair pre-condition of the replacement cruise liner terminal. If the government accepts it, that will be the end of the matter. The city should pay NOTHING back. As for the rail gauge improvement works being in the national interest as many in the south have said, that is a matter of skewed southern views. The London Olympics are sold to us as being in the national interest, however generally, improvements in the north of England are said to be in the regional interest only. Development of cruise liner facilities at Liverpool are in the 'national interest' It will put many millions of people within one hours drive or short train journey from a cruise liner port and enhance the UK cruise industry. Bayman
  • Score: 0

6:09pm Sun 11 Sep 11

Bayman says...

The moving of the 1930s Queen's Mary & Elizabeth to Southampton was to do with government grants and stripping commercial Liverpool.

White Star laid the keel for the 60,000 ton Oceanic iii, a move advanced design than the Queen Mary.

The 1929 Great Depression was on and transatlantic passenger numbers dropped. Work on the Queen Mary completely stopped in December 1931 with thousands of workers laid-off from John Brown's in Glasgow. At the same time, construction of White Star Line's Oceanic III at Belfast was halted. Only the keel of Oceanic III had been laid, and the decision was taken to cancel the order. The keel was later used in smaller the Britannic. White Star were in trouble with Lord Kylsant prosecuted for filing false corporate prospectus to stockholders and spent one year in jail.

In Glasgow the hull of the Queen Mary still lay rusting hulk after two years. HMG helped fund the completion of the ship. But HMG put a condition, Cunard and White Star must merge as part of the deal. HMG would provide £10million, £3m to complete the Queen Mary. The White Star Line was totally against such a merger, and attempted to get an injunction to stop the proposal, but failed. In May 1934 they were forced to merge.

As HMG's money was put in to the company they specified conditions. One was to keep the lucrative royal mail contract all large liners had to use southern ports. Exyanded the graving docks at Liverpool were halted because of the HMG conditions.

Instead of two rival, large, Liverpool based, liner companies the UK had one and it was in the pockets of the London and south centric government.

The travelling time from London to New York was quicker via Liverpool, via the direct Riverside station at liner terminal. Liverpoolo is 100 N miles nearer NY. Express trains would leave Euston and terminate at the Riverside station next to the Pier Head liners. Passengers would move from the train to the liners totally under cover. Also, most of the trans-Atlantic passengers were not from London. Many people in say the Midlands, had to get to Southampton via London - highly inconvenient compared to seamless direct access Liverpool and its extensive rail connections.

The stripping, or hand-cuffing, of Liverpool still goes on. The city has had enough.
The moving of the 1930s Queen's Mary & Elizabeth to Southampton was to do with government grants and stripping commercial Liverpool. White Star laid the keel for the 60,000 ton Oceanic iii, a move advanced design than the Queen Mary. The 1929 Great Depression was on and transatlantic passenger numbers dropped. Work on the Queen Mary completely stopped in December 1931 with thousands of workers laid-off from John Brown's in Glasgow. At the same time, construction of White Star Line's Oceanic III at Belfast was halted. Only the keel of Oceanic III had been laid, and the decision was taken to cancel the order. The keel was later used in smaller the Britannic. White Star were in trouble with Lord Kylsant prosecuted for filing false corporate prospectus to stockholders and spent one year in jail. In Glasgow the hull of the Queen Mary still lay rusting hulk after two years. HMG helped fund the completion of the ship. But HMG put a condition, Cunard and White Star must merge as part of the deal. HMG would provide £10million, £3m to complete the Queen Mary. The White Star Line was totally against such a merger, and attempted to get an injunction to stop the proposal, but failed. In May 1934 they were forced to merge. As HMG's money was put in to the company they specified conditions. One was to keep the lucrative royal mail contract all large liners had to use southern ports. Exyanded the graving docks at Liverpool were halted because of the HMG conditions. Instead of two rival, large, Liverpool based, liner companies the UK had one and it was in the pockets of the London and south centric government. The travelling time from London to New York was quicker via Liverpool, via the direct Riverside station at liner terminal. Liverpoolo is 100 N miles nearer NY. Express trains would leave Euston and terminate at the Riverside station next to the Pier Head liners. Passengers would move from the train to the liners totally under cover. Also, most of the trans-Atlantic passengers were not from London. Many people in say the Midlands, had to get to Southampton via London - highly inconvenient compared to seamless direct access Liverpool and its extensive rail connections. The stripping, or hand-cuffing, of Liverpool still goes on. The city has had enough. Bayman
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Sun 11 Sep 11

georgetheseventh says...

loosehead wrote:
georgetheseventh wrote:
Loosehead...try using your LITTLE brain..maybe do some 'research' for once..Tony Blair's government told Lpool they would not get a penny to stage the fantastic..European Capital Of Culture..we did it all on our own.
Now..a lot of people up here have been researching just how many millions your area has received under so called New Labour......didnt you do WELL....??????????
So all you can do is belittle some one who disagrees with you? I personally have nothing against scousers or Liverpool as a city but lets get it right it might not be the whole population of Liverpool but your football fans have a tea leaf reputation( light fingered). As for the grants we've recieved what grants? also council rents paid for by the tenants in any city goes to the government the local authority has to pay for repairs & modernisation the government is suppose to pay back a large chunk of the rents collected but in the South the last Labour Government cut back the moneys they send back to those councils instead sending it to the North.Call me what you like every post from the Southampton area is pay back the loans & fine but then you all disagree with that don't you? As for a little brain maybe I got that from my scouse father? But that would be a pathetic swipe at scousers & unlike you I will not belittle you
My god loosehead..you are also a liar..along with a few others on here who claim to be from Lpool and/or have friend/relatives living here. You people think a long way from home is 'anywhere' south of Brum Now lets put all your childishness to Bo-Boes and just await the final announcement...ps..I already know what that is by the way..sad your little 'rag' hasnt the same sources of info......bye xx
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]georgetheseventh[/bold] wrote: Loosehead...try using your LITTLE brain..maybe do some 'research' for once..Tony Blair's government told Lpool they would not get a penny to stage the fantastic..European Capital Of Culture..we did it all on our own. Now..a lot of people up here have been researching just how many millions your area has received under so called New Labour......didnt you do WELL....??????????[/p][/quote]So all you can do is belittle some one who disagrees with you? I personally have nothing against scousers or Liverpool as a city but lets get it right it might not be the whole population of Liverpool but your football fans have a tea leaf reputation( light fingered). As for the grants we've recieved what grants? also council rents paid for by the tenants in any city goes to the government the local authority has to pay for repairs & modernisation the government is suppose to pay back a large chunk of the rents collected but in the South the last Labour Government cut back the moneys they send back to those councils instead sending it to the North.Call me what you like every post from the Southampton area is pay back the loans & fine but then you all disagree with that don't you? As for a little brain maybe I got that from my scouse father? But that would be a pathetic swipe at scousers & unlike you I will not belittle you[/p][/quote]My god loosehead..you are also a liar..along with a few others on here who claim to be from Lpool and/or have friend/relatives living here. You people think a long way from home is 'anywhere' south of Brum Now lets put all your childishness to Bo-Boes and just await the final announcement...ps..I already know what that is by the way..sad your little 'rag' hasnt the same sources of info......bye xx georgetheseventh
  • Score: 0

9:02pm Sun 11 Sep 11

loosehead says...

georgetheseventh wrote:
loosehead wrote:
georgetheseventh wrote:
Loosehead...try using your LITTLE brain..maybe do some 'research' for once..Tony Blair's government told Lpool they would not get a penny to stage the fantastic..European Capital Of Culture..we did it all on our own.
Now..a lot of people up here have been researching just how many millions your area has received under so called New Labour......didnt you do WELL....??????????
So all you can do is belittle some one who disagrees with you? I personally have nothing against scousers or Liverpool as a city but lets get it right it might not be the whole population of Liverpool but your football fans have a tea leaf reputation( light fingered). As for the grants we've recieved what grants? also council rents paid for by the tenants in any city goes to the government the local authority has to pay for repairs & modernisation the government is suppose to pay back a large chunk of the rents collected but in the South the last Labour Government cut back the moneys they send back to those councils instead sending it to the North.Call me what you like every post from the Southampton area is pay back the loans & fine but then you all disagree with that don't you? As for a little brain maybe I got that from my scouse father? But that would be a pathetic swipe at scousers & unlike you I will not belittle you
My god loosehead..you are also a liar..along with a few others on here who claim to be from Lpool and/or have friend/relatives living here. You people think a long way from home is 'anywhere' south of Brum Now lets put all your childishness to Bo-Boes and just await the final announcement...ps..I already know what that is by the way..sad your little 'rag' hasnt the same sources of info......bye xx
I don't claim to be from Liverpool.My father & my older brother & sisters do come from Liverpool. My cousin Jamie McManus family lives in Liverpool my younger sister goes up & visits my cousins in Liverpool.my older sister has all there telephone numbers & addresses. my other older sister meets up with the Liverpool supporters side of the family & at the Charity shield ( 76) when Saints played Liverpool & we lost 1-0 I was sat with my mates when this sort of liverpudlian accent & rattle said ello up the pool, this was my sister & up to that point my mates never knew my dad & older family was from there so please tell me where you get your information from that I'm a liar & I have no family up there? If you think this is a sad rag what the hell are you doing on here? If Mike Penning gives it your way then the Conservatives have had it in what should be there heartland I for one will be voting UKIP .please post your apology to me for calling me a liar when you know absolutely nothing about me
[quote][p][bold]georgetheseventh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]georgetheseventh[/bold] wrote: Loosehead...try using your LITTLE brain..maybe do some 'research' for once..Tony Blair's government told Lpool they would not get a penny to stage the fantastic..European Capital Of Culture..we did it all on our own. Now..a lot of people up here have been researching just how many millions your area has received under so called New Labour......didnt you do WELL....??????????[/p][/quote]So all you can do is belittle some one who disagrees with you? I personally have nothing against scousers or Liverpool as a city but lets get it right it might not be the whole population of Liverpool but your football fans have a tea leaf reputation( light fingered). As for the grants we've recieved what grants? also council rents paid for by the tenants in any city goes to the government the local authority has to pay for repairs & modernisation the government is suppose to pay back a large chunk of the rents collected but in the South the last Labour Government cut back the moneys they send back to those councils instead sending it to the North.Call me what you like every post from the Southampton area is pay back the loans & fine but then you all disagree with that don't you? As for a little brain maybe I got that from my scouse father? But that would be a pathetic swipe at scousers & unlike you I will not belittle you[/p][/quote]My god loosehead..you are also a liar..along with a few others on here who claim to be from Lpool and/or have friend/relatives living here. You people think a long way from home is 'anywhere' south of Brum Now lets put all your childishness to Bo-Boes and just await the final announcement...ps..I already know what that is by the way..sad your little 'rag' hasnt the same sources of info......bye xx[/p][/quote]I don't claim to be from Liverpool.My father & my older brother & sisters do come from Liverpool. My cousin Jamie McManus family lives in Liverpool my younger sister goes up & visits my cousins in Liverpool.my older sister has all there telephone numbers & addresses. my other older sister meets up with the Liverpool supporters side of the family & at the Charity shield ( 76) when Saints played Liverpool & we lost 1-0 I was sat with my mates when this sort of liverpudlian accent & rattle said ello up the pool, this was my sister & up to that point my mates never knew my dad & older family was from there so please tell me where you get your information from that I'm a liar & I have no family up there? If you think this is a sad rag what the hell are you doing on here? If Mike Penning gives it your way then the Conservatives have had it in what should be there heartland I for one will be voting UKIP .please post your apology to me for calling me a liar when you know absolutely nothing about me loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:22pm Mon 12 Sep 11

MerseyMart says...

If the sight of Queen Elizabeth 'sends shivers through the Southampton cruise liner industry' then you are going to be paralytic with terror on Thursday when Queen Mary 2 arrives - and don't even think about 2015 when QM2, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth are planned to visit at the same time to celebrate 175 years of the Cunard line.

The fact is though that there is nothing unusual about Cunard liners visiting Liverpool - they used to come before the cruise liner facility was built - QE2 was a fairly regular visitor - even though they had to anchor in mid-stream and ferry their passengers to the shore using tender vessels.

I listened to an interview with a Cunard chief on Radio Merseyside last week and certainly didn't get the impression that they were planning to abandon Southampton any time soon. He emphasised that, whilst Liverpool was their spirtual home - the place where they started - Southampton was their established home port. Still, he didn't rule out the possibility of Cunard voyages starting and ending at Liverpool.
If the sight of Queen Elizabeth 'sends shivers through the Southampton cruise liner industry' then you are going to be paralytic with terror on Thursday when Queen Mary 2 arrives - and don't even think about 2015 when QM2, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth are planned to visit at the same time to celebrate 175 years of the Cunard line. The fact is though that there is nothing unusual about Cunard liners visiting Liverpool - they used to come before the cruise liner facility was built - QE2 was a fairly regular visitor - even though they had to anchor in mid-stream and ferry their passengers to the shore using tender vessels. I listened to an interview with a Cunard chief on Radio Merseyside last week and certainly didn't get the impression that they were planning to abandon Southampton any time soon. He emphasised that, whilst Liverpool was their spirtual home - the place where they started - Southampton was their established home port. Still, he didn't rule out the possibility of Cunard voyages starting and ending at Liverpool. MerseyMart
  • Score: 0

9:11pm Mon 12 Sep 11

Common sense 1 says...

Let Cunard go.
They and their passengers provide little benefit to our retail outlets and only provide money for the Port Authority.
When they want to return we will just charge them double !
Let Cunard go. They and their passengers provide little benefit to our retail outlets and only provide money for the Port Authority. When they want to return we will just charge them double ! Common sense 1
  • Score: 0

9:13pm Mon 12 Sep 11

loosehead says...

MerseyMart wrote:
If the sight of Queen Elizabeth 'sends shivers through the Southampton cruise liner industry' then you are going to be paralytic with terror on Thursday when Queen Mary 2 arrives - and don't even think about 2015 when QM2, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth are planned to visit at the same time to celebrate 175 years of the Cunard line.

The fact is though that there is nothing unusual about Cunard liners visiting Liverpool - they used to come before the cruise liner facility was built - QE2 was a fairly regular visitor - even though they had to anchor in mid-stream and ferry their passengers to the shore using tender vessels.

I listened to an interview with a Cunard chief on Radio Merseyside last week and certainly didn't get the impression that they were planning to abandon Southampton any time soon. He emphasised that, whilst Liverpool was their spirtual home - the place where they started - Southampton was their established home port. Still, he didn't rule out the possibility of Cunard voyages starting and ending at Liverpool.
Mersey mart.there are only three cunard ships would this make Liverpools turnaround ambitions viable? Peels port are proposing a second terminal if you get the go ahead what cruise company are you targeting? we hear about Cunard's heartland being Liverpool but surely these three ships wouldn't be enough to make a good enough return on your investment would they? Now you can see the anxiety that the other cruise ports have about Liverpool's turnaround ambitions? even with all the cruise ships coming to this city we have to have a container port as well to make the port profitable have you got a container facility? What I've tried to say is there's a cake that if too many people want a slice of it they wouldn't get much cake.you have so many cruise ships if these get spread out amongst the ports with cruise ship aspirations then no one will benefit as they will all run at a loss.just remember this not only do Liverpool want this but so does Avonmouth & Poole sooner or later a port will go bust & all the attached hotel & supply companies will go under do you not feel we should not try to stop this happening to us ? well we'll find out this week
[quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: If the sight of Queen Elizabeth 'sends shivers through the Southampton cruise liner industry' then you are going to be paralytic with terror on Thursday when Queen Mary 2 arrives - and don't even think about 2015 when QM2, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth are planned to visit at the same time to celebrate 175 years of the Cunard line. The fact is though that there is nothing unusual about Cunard liners visiting Liverpool - they used to come before the cruise liner facility was built - QE2 was a fairly regular visitor - even though they had to anchor in mid-stream and ferry their passengers to the shore using tender vessels. I listened to an interview with a Cunard chief on Radio Merseyside last week and certainly didn't get the impression that they were planning to abandon Southampton any time soon. He emphasised that, whilst Liverpool was their spirtual home - the place where they started - Southampton was their established home port. Still, he didn't rule out the possibility of Cunard voyages starting and ending at Liverpool.[/p][/quote]Mersey mart.there are only three cunard ships would this make Liverpools turnaround ambitions viable? Peels port are proposing a second terminal if you get the go ahead what cruise company are you targeting? we hear about Cunard's heartland being Liverpool but surely these three ships wouldn't be enough to make a good enough return on your investment would they? Now you can see the anxiety that the other cruise ports have about Liverpool's turnaround ambitions? even with all the cruise ships coming to this city we have to have a container port as well to make the port profitable have you got a container facility? What I've tried to say is there's a cake that if too many people want a slice of it they wouldn't get much cake.you have so many cruise ships if these get spread out amongst the ports with cruise ship aspirations then no one will benefit as they will all run at a loss.just remember this not only do Liverpool want this but so does Avonmouth & Poole sooner or later a port will go bust & all the attached hotel & supply companies will go under do you not feel we should not try to stop this happening to us ? well we'll find out this week loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:15pm Mon 12 Sep 11

loosehead says...

Common sense 1 wrote:
Let Cunard go.
They and their passengers provide little benefit to our retail outlets and only provide money for the Port Authority.
When they want to return we will just charge them double !
Common sense that would be only three ships but can we guarantee we would keep P&O & all the other Carnival line ships?
[quote][p][bold]Common sense 1[/bold] wrote: Let Cunard go. They and their passengers provide little benefit to our retail outlets and only provide money for the Port Authority. When they want to return we will just charge them double ![/p][/quote]Common sense that would be only three ships but can we guarantee we would keep P&O & all the other Carnival line ships? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:43pm Mon 12 Sep 11

arizonan says...

In reply to all this nonsense about ports going bust, the cruise market is still expanding.
There is a new market in people who will not, or cannot use the,'outskirt' ports of the UK, Newcastle,Harwich, Dover and Southampton.
Look at the map of the UK, Liverpool is the most centrally located, easy to get to port in the kingdom.
Why do think all the other ports formed the UK cruise port alliance to try and stop 1 port with no turnaround market and a landing stage.?.
In reply to all this nonsense about ports going bust, the cruise market is still expanding. There is a new market in people who will not, or cannot use the,'outskirt' ports of the UK, Newcastle,Harwich, Dover and Southampton. Look at the map of the UK, Liverpool is the most centrally located, easy to get to port in the kingdom. Why do think all the other ports formed the UK cruise port alliance to try and stop 1 port with no turnaround market and a landing stage.?. arizonan
  • Score: 0

10:22pm Mon 12 Sep 11

MerseyMart says...

loosehead wrote:
MerseyMart wrote: If the sight of Queen Elizabeth 'sends shivers through the Southampton cruise liner industry' then you are going to be paralytic with terror on Thursday when Queen Mary 2 arrives - and don't even think about 2015 when QM2, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth are planned to visit at the same time to celebrate 175 years of the Cunard line. The fact is though that there is nothing unusual about Cunard liners visiting Liverpool - they used to come before the cruise liner facility was built - QE2 was a fairly regular visitor - even though they had to anchor in mid-stream and ferry their passengers to the shore using tender vessels. I listened to an interview with a Cunard chief on Radio Merseyside last week and certainly didn't get the impression that they were planning to abandon Southampton any time soon. He emphasised that, whilst Liverpool was their spirtual home - the place where they started - Southampton was their established home port. Still, he didn't rule out the possibility of Cunard voyages starting and ending at Liverpool.
Mersey mart.there are only three cunard ships would this make Liverpools turnaround ambitions viable? Peels port are proposing a second terminal if you get the go ahead what cruise company are you targeting? we hear about Cunard's heartland being Liverpool but surely these three ships wouldn't be enough to make a good enough return on your investment would they? Now you can see the anxiety that the other cruise ports have about Liverpool's turnaround ambitions? even with all the cruise ships coming to this city we have to have a container port as well to make the port profitable have you got a container facility? What I've tried to say is there's a cake that if too many people want a slice of it they wouldn't get much cake.you have so many cruise ships if these get spread out amongst the ports with cruise ship aspirations then no one will benefit as they will all run at a loss.just remember this not only do Liverpool want this but so does Avonmouth & Poole sooner or later a port will go bust & all the attached hotel & supply companies will go under do you not feel we should not try to stop this happening to us ? well we'll find out this week
Loosehead,
You really read into things what you want to read don't you? I was actually saying that though Cunard might start some cruises from Liverpool, their base, for the foreseeable future will be Southampton. There is no way that all three Cunard liners are going to suddenly move to Liverpool. However, all three have visited Liverpool in the past and will probably do so again in the future.

Thinking about it, there is a possibly deliberate ambiguity in the headline of this article. Cunard 'using Liverpool' does imply that they intend to move all their ships up here - whereas what they are really saying is that they would consider using Liverpool for the odd cruise.

There are quite a number of cruise liner companies other than Cunard for Liverpool to target - probably the first will be Fred Olsen, who decided to switch their Liverpool option to Southampton because of the inadequacy of our present terminal - something that probably didn't cause too much moral outrage in Southampton.

Now, as Liverpool is not very likely to be allowed to use taxpayers money to subsidise ships calling at our liner terminal, then the only reason that Cunard, Fred Olsen, whoever will divert ships from Southampton to Liverpool will be because they can make more money by doing that. If the cruise liners make more money then that is surely good for the cruise industry and so how do you justify saying that nobody will benefit?

(I hasten to add that there is no chance that Liverpool will be allowed to subsidise liners using the port - at least certainly not with taxpayer's money).

Oh and, by the way, Liverpool does have a container port so the cruise ships can pick up a few boxes on the way out.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: If the sight of Queen Elizabeth 'sends shivers through the Southampton cruise liner industry' then you are going to be paralytic with terror on Thursday when Queen Mary 2 arrives - and don't even think about 2015 when QM2, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth are planned to visit at the same time to celebrate 175 years of the Cunard line. The fact is though that there is nothing unusual about Cunard liners visiting Liverpool - they used to come before the cruise liner facility was built - QE2 was a fairly regular visitor - even though they had to anchor in mid-stream and ferry their passengers to the shore using tender vessels. I listened to an interview with a Cunard chief on Radio Merseyside last week and certainly didn't get the impression that they were planning to abandon Southampton any time soon. He emphasised that, whilst Liverpool was their spirtual home - the place where they started - Southampton was their established home port. Still, he didn't rule out the possibility of Cunard voyages starting and ending at Liverpool.[/p][/quote]Mersey mart.there are only three cunard ships would this make Liverpools turnaround ambitions viable? Peels port are proposing a second terminal if you get the go ahead what cruise company are you targeting? we hear about Cunard's heartland being Liverpool but surely these three ships wouldn't be enough to make a good enough return on your investment would they? Now you can see the anxiety that the other cruise ports have about Liverpool's turnaround ambitions? even with all the cruise ships coming to this city we have to have a container port as well to make the port profitable have you got a container facility? What I've tried to say is there's a cake that if too many people want a slice of it they wouldn't get much cake.you have so many cruise ships if these get spread out amongst the ports with cruise ship aspirations then no one will benefit as they will all run at a loss.just remember this not only do Liverpool want this but so does Avonmouth & Poole sooner or later a port will go bust & all the attached hotel & supply companies will go under do you not feel we should not try to stop this happening to us ? well we'll find out this week[/p][/quote]Loosehead, You really read into things what you want to read don't you? I was actually saying that though Cunard might start some cruises from Liverpool, their base, for the foreseeable future will be Southampton. There is no way that all three Cunard liners are going to suddenly move to Liverpool. However, all three have visited Liverpool in the past and will probably do so again in the future. Thinking about it, there is a possibly deliberate ambiguity in the headline of this article. Cunard 'using Liverpool' does imply that they intend to move all their ships up here - whereas what they are really saying is that they would consider using Liverpool for the odd cruise. There are quite a number of cruise liner companies other than Cunard for Liverpool to target - probably the first will be Fred Olsen, who decided to switch their Liverpool option to Southampton because of the inadequacy of our present terminal - something that probably didn't cause too much moral outrage in Southampton. Now, as Liverpool is not very likely to be allowed to use taxpayers money to subsidise ships calling at our liner terminal, then the only reason that Cunard, Fred Olsen, whoever will divert ships from Southampton to Liverpool will be because they can make more money by doing that. If the cruise liners make more money then that is surely good for the cruise industry and so how do you justify saying that nobody will benefit? (I hasten to add that there is no chance that Liverpool will be allowed to subsidise liners using the port - at least certainly not with taxpayer's money). Oh and, by the way, Liverpool does have a container port so the cruise ships can pick up a few boxes on the way out. MerseyMart
  • Score: 0

6:44am Tue 13 Sep 11

loosehead says...

MerseyMart wrote:
loosehead wrote:
MerseyMart wrote: If the sight of Queen Elizabeth 'sends shivers through the Southampton cruise liner industry' then you are going to be paralytic with terror on Thursday when Queen Mary 2 arrives - and don't even think about 2015 when QM2, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth are planned to visit at the same time to celebrate 175 years of the Cunard line. The fact is though that there is nothing unusual about Cunard liners visiting Liverpool - they used to come before the cruise liner facility was built - QE2 was a fairly regular visitor - even though they had to anchor in mid-stream and ferry their passengers to the shore using tender vessels. I listened to an interview with a Cunard chief on Radio Merseyside last week and certainly didn't get the impression that they were planning to abandon Southampton any time soon. He emphasised that, whilst Liverpool was their spirtual home - the place where they started - Southampton was their established home port. Still, he didn't rule out the possibility of Cunard voyages starting and ending at Liverpool.
Mersey mart.there are only three cunard ships would this make Liverpools turnaround ambitions viable? Peels port are proposing a second terminal if you get the go ahead what cruise company are you targeting? we hear about Cunard's heartland being Liverpool but surely these three ships wouldn't be enough to make a good enough return on your investment would they? Now you can see the anxiety that the other cruise ports have about Liverpool's turnaround ambitions? even with all the cruise ships coming to this city we have to have a container port as well to make the port profitable have you got a container facility? What I've tried to say is there's a cake that if too many people want a slice of it they wouldn't get much cake.you have so many cruise ships if these get spread out amongst the ports with cruise ship aspirations then no one will benefit as they will all run at a loss.just remember this not only do Liverpool want this but so does Avonmouth & Poole sooner or later a port will go bust & all the attached hotel & supply companies will go under do you not feel we should not try to stop this happening to us ? well we'll find out this week
Loosehead,
You really read into things what you want to read don't you? I was actually saying that though Cunard might start some cruises from Liverpool, their base, for the foreseeable future will be Southampton. There is no way that all three Cunard liners are going to suddenly move to Liverpool. However, all three have visited Liverpool in the past and will probably do so again in the future.

Thinking about it, there is a possibly deliberate ambiguity in the headline of this article. Cunard 'using Liverpool' does imply that they intend to move all their ships up here - whereas what they are really saying is that they would consider using Liverpool for the odd cruise.

There are quite a number of cruise liner companies other than Cunard for Liverpool to target - probably the first will be Fred Olsen, who decided to switch their Liverpool option to Southampton because of the inadequacy of our present terminal - something that probably didn't cause too much moral outrage in Southampton.

Now, as Liverpool is not very likely to be allowed to use taxpayers money to subsidise ships calling at our liner terminal, then the only reason that Cunard, Fred Olsen, whoever will divert ships from Southampton to Liverpool will be because they can make more money by doing that. If the cruise liners make more money then that is surely good for the cruise industry and so how do you justify saying that nobody will benefit?

(I hasten to add that there is no chance that Liverpool will be allowed to subsidise liners using the port - at least certainly not with taxpayer's money).

Oh and, by the way, Liverpool does have a container port so the cruise ships can pick up a few boxes on the way out.
I didn't know about your container port so thank you. Now look there are people who want you to pay back all grants you've received for this terminal but most just want the grant you received from the UK paid back in full then fine let's get on with life. It's not long before we hear the verdict so let's wait & see
[quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: If the sight of Queen Elizabeth 'sends shivers through the Southampton cruise liner industry' then you are going to be paralytic with terror on Thursday when Queen Mary 2 arrives - and don't even think about 2015 when QM2, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth are planned to visit at the same time to celebrate 175 years of the Cunard line. The fact is though that there is nothing unusual about Cunard liners visiting Liverpool - they used to come before the cruise liner facility was built - QE2 was a fairly regular visitor - even though they had to anchor in mid-stream and ferry their passengers to the shore using tender vessels. I listened to an interview with a Cunard chief on Radio Merseyside last week and certainly didn't get the impression that they were planning to abandon Southampton any time soon. He emphasised that, whilst Liverpool was their spirtual home - the place where they started - Southampton was their established home port. Still, he didn't rule out the possibility of Cunard voyages starting and ending at Liverpool.[/p][/quote]Mersey mart.there are only three cunard ships would this make Liverpools turnaround ambitions viable? Peels port are proposing a second terminal if you get the go ahead what cruise company are you targeting? we hear about Cunard's heartland being Liverpool but surely these three ships wouldn't be enough to make a good enough return on your investment would they? Now you can see the anxiety that the other cruise ports have about Liverpool's turnaround ambitions? even with all the cruise ships coming to this city we have to have a container port as well to make the port profitable have you got a container facility? What I've tried to say is there's a cake that if too many people want a slice of it they wouldn't get much cake.you have so many cruise ships if these get spread out amongst the ports with cruise ship aspirations then no one will benefit as they will all run at a loss.just remember this not only do Liverpool want this but so does Avonmouth & Poole sooner or later a port will go bust & all the attached hotel & supply companies will go under do you not feel we should not try to stop this happening to us ? well we'll find out this week[/p][/quote]Loosehead, You really read into things what you want to read don't you? I was actually saying that though Cunard might start some cruises from Liverpool, their base, for the foreseeable future will be Southampton. There is no way that all three Cunard liners are going to suddenly move to Liverpool. However, all three have visited Liverpool in the past and will probably do so again in the future. Thinking about it, there is a possibly deliberate ambiguity in the headline of this article. Cunard 'using Liverpool' does imply that they intend to move all their ships up here - whereas what they are really saying is that they would consider using Liverpool for the odd cruise. There are quite a number of cruise liner companies other than Cunard for Liverpool to target - probably the first will be Fred Olsen, who decided to switch their Liverpool option to Southampton because of the inadequacy of our present terminal - something that probably didn't cause too much moral outrage in Southampton. Now, as Liverpool is not very likely to be allowed to use taxpayers money to subsidise ships calling at our liner terminal, then the only reason that Cunard, Fred Olsen, whoever will divert ships from Southampton to Liverpool will be because they can make more money by doing that. If the cruise liners make more money then that is surely good for the cruise industry and so how do you justify saying that nobody will benefit? (I hasten to add that there is no chance that Liverpool will be allowed to subsidise liners using the port - at least certainly not with taxpayer's money). Oh and, by the way, Liverpool does have a container port so the cruise ships can pick up a few boxes on the way out.[/p][/quote]I didn't know about your container port so thank you. Now look there are people who want you to pay back all grants you've received for this terminal but most just want the grant you received from the UK paid back in full then fine let's get on with life. It's not long before we hear the verdict so let's wait & see loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:55am Tue 13 Sep 11

Pedant says...

I have just returned from my first visit to Liverpool. Whilst there I saw the Queen Elizabeth depart. Thousands lined the quayside in front of the iconic waterfront buildings which are part of the city centre.
It is difficult to compare the merits or otherwise of the two cities. As a cruise destination Liverpool wins hands down. The waterfront, the numerous hotels, the shopping, the museums, the cathedrals, the architecture etc etc are all magnificent. It is a "proper" city which has the waterfront as an integral part of the centre. But as a cruise departure/arrival port then maybe Southampton has the edge.
Having said that my visit to the Liverpool Maritime Museum in the superbly restored historic docks was a bit of an eye opener. There was the original builders model of the Titanic with "Titanic-Liverpool" on the stern plus a lot of historical background material that Southampton appears to have conveniently overlooked.
I have just returned from my first visit to Liverpool. Whilst there I saw the Queen Elizabeth depart. Thousands lined the quayside in front of the iconic waterfront buildings which are part of the city centre. It is difficult to compare the merits or otherwise of the two cities. As a cruise destination Liverpool wins hands down. The waterfront, the numerous hotels, the shopping, the museums, the cathedrals, the architecture etc etc are all magnificent. It is a "proper" city which has the waterfront as an integral part of the centre. But as a cruise departure/arrival port then maybe Southampton has the edge. Having said that my visit to the Liverpool Maritime Museum in the superbly restored historic docks was a bit of an eye opener. There was the original builders model of the Titanic with "Titanic-Liverpool" on the stern plus a lot of historical background material that Southampton appears to have conveniently overlooked. Pedant
  • Score: 0

7:19pm Tue 13 Sep 11

Rob_Soton says...

Pedant wrote:
I have just returned from my first visit to Liverpool. Whilst there I saw the Queen Elizabeth depart. Thousands lined the quayside in front of the iconic waterfront buildings which are part of the city centre.
It is difficult to compare the merits or otherwise of the two cities. As a cruise destination Liverpool wins hands down. The waterfront, the numerous hotels, the shopping, the museums, the cathedrals, the architecture etc etc are all magnificent. It is a "proper" city which has the waterfront as an integral part of the centre. But as a cruise departure/arrival port then maybe Southampton has the edge.
Having said that my visit to the Liverpool Maritime Museum in the superbly restored historic docks was a bit of an eye opener. There was the original builders model of the Titanic with "Titanic-Liverpool" on the stern plus a lot of historical background material that Southampton appears to have conveniently overlooked.
Agree 100% Few months ago I was up in Liverpool for the first time in years and the city puts Southampton to shame. Just a nice place to go for all sorts from Museums to shoppings to long weekends etc.

Southampton doesn't come close to it. The only chance southampton has is a proper revamp of the whole docks i.e. moving all the car containers further down the docks and making the while waterside area used.
Those saying its not possible - it is, just needs a major revamp which is what Liverpool had to do for the city centre. They closed down a huge area of the city for a few years while the whole thing was redeveloped.

Our liverpool friends want to come down to visit..when they do we will be going over to Portsmouth not out in Southampton thats for sure
[quote][p][bold]Pedant[/bold] wrote: I have just returned from my first visit to Liverpool. Whilst there I saw the Queen Elizabeth depart. Thousands lined the quayside in front of the iconic waterfront buildings which are part of the city centre. It is difficult to compare the merits or otherwise of the two cities. As a cruise destination Liverpool wins hands down. The waterfront, the numerous hotels, the shopping, the museums, the cathedrals, the architecture etc etc are all magnificent. It is a "proper" city which has the waterfront as an integral part of the centre. But as a cruise departure/arrival port then maybe Southampton has the edge. Having said that my visit to the Liverpool Maritime Museum in the superbly restored historic docks was a bit of an eye opener. There was the original builders model of the Titanic with "Titanic-Liverpool" on the stern plus a lot of historical background material that Southampton appears to have conveniently overlooked.[/p][/quote]Agree 100% Few months ago I was up in Liverpool for the first time in years and the city puts Southampton to shame. Just a nice place to go for all sorts from Museums to shoppings to long weekends etc. Southampton doesn't come close to it. The only chance southampton has is a proper revamp of the whole docks i.e. moving all the car containers further down the docks and making the while waterside area used. Those saying its not possible - it is, just needs a major revamp which is what Liverpool had to do for the city centre. They closed down a huge area of the city for a few years while the whole thing was redeveloped. Our liverpool friends want to come down to visit..when they do we will be going over to Portsmouth not out in Southampton thats for sure Rob_Soton
  • Score: 0

8:11pm Tue 13 Sep 11

Tom Liverpool says...

loosehead wrote:
MerseyMart wrote:
loosehead wrote:
MerseyMart wrote: If the sight of Queen Elizabeth 'sends shivers through the Southampton cruise liner industry' then you are going to be paralytic with terror on Thursday when Queen Mary 2 arrives - and don't even think about 2015 when QM2, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth are planned to visit at the same time to celebrate 175 years of the Cunard line. The fact is though that there is nothing unusual about Cunard liners visiting Liverpool - they used to come before the cruise liner facility was built - QE2 was a fairly regular visitor - even though they had to anchor in mid-stream and ferry their passengers to the shore using tender vessels. I listened to an interview with a Cunard chief on Radio Merseyside last week and certainly didn't get the impression that they were planning to abandon Southampton any time soon. He emphasised that, whilst Liverpool was their spirtual home - the place where they started - Southampton was their established home port. Still, he didn't rule out the possibility of Cunard voyages starting and ending at Liverpool.
Mersey mart.there are only three cunard ships would this make Liverpools turnaround ambitions viable? Peels port are proposing a second terminal if you get the go ahead what cruise company are you targeting? we hear about Cunard's heartland being Liverpool but surely these three ships wouldn't be enough to make a good enough return on your investment would they? Now you can see the anxiety that the other cruise ports have about Liverpool's turnaround ambitions? even with all the cruise ships coming to this city we have to have a container port as well to make the port profitable have you got a container facility? What I've tried to say is there's a cake that if too many people want a slice of it they wouldn't get much cake.you have so many cruise ships if these get spread out amongst the ports with cruise ship aspirations then no one will benefit as they will all run at a loss.just remember this not only do Liverpool want this but so does Avonmouth & Poole sooner or later a port will go bust & all the attached hotel & supply companies will go under do you not feel we should not try to stop this happening to us ? well we'll find out this week
Loosehead,
You really read into things what you want to read don't you? I was actually saying that though Cunard might start some cruises from Liverpool, their base, for the foreseeable future will be Southampton. There is no way that all three Cunard liners are going to suddenly move to Liverpool. However, all three have visited Liverpool in the past and will probably do so again in the future.

Thinking about it, there is a possibly deliberate ambiguity in the headline of this article. Cunard 'using Liverpool' does imply that they intend to move all their ships up here - whereas what they are really saying is that they would consider using Liverpool for the odd cruise.

There are quite a number of cruise liner companies other than Cunard for Liverpool to target - probably the first will be Fred Olsen, who decided to switch their Liverpool option to Southampton because of the inadequacy of our present terminal - something that probably didn't cause too much moral outrage in Southampton.

Now, as Liverpool is not very likely to be allowed to use taxpayers money to subsidise ships calling at our liner terminal, then the only reason that Cunard, Fred Olsen, whoever will divert ships from Southampton to Liverpool will be because they can make more money by doing that. If the cruise liners make more money then that is surely good for the cruise industry and so how do you justify saying that nobody will benefit?

(I hasten to add that there is no chance that Liverpool will be allowed to subsidise liners using the port - at least certainly not with taxpayer's money).

Oh and, by the way, Liverpool does have a container port so the cruise ships can pick up a few boxes on the way out.
I didn't know about your container port so thank you. Now look there are people who want you to pay back all grants you've received for this terminal but most just want the grant you received from the UK paid back in full then fine let's get on with life. It's not long before we hear the verdict so let's wait & see
Liverpools freight tonnage is about 30million tons at the moment much less than Southampton, but watch this space when the Post-Pan ships arrive at the new terminal to be built at Seaforth dock, which will not have lock gates.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: If the sight of Queen Elizabeth 'sends shivers through the Southampton cruise liner industry' then you are going to be paralytic with terror on Thursday when Queen Mary 2 arrives - and don't even think about 2015 when QM2, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth are planned to visit at the same time to celebrate 175 years of the Cunard line. The fact is though that there is nothing unusual about Cunard liners visiting Liverpool - they used to come before the cruise liner facility was built - QE2 was a fairly regular visitor - even though they had to anchor in mid-stream and ferry their passengers to the shore using tender vessels. I listened to an interview with a Cunard chief on Radio Merseyside last week and certainly didn't get the impression that they were planning to abandon Southampton any time soon. He emphasised that, whilst Liverpool was their spirtual home - the place where they started - Southampton was their established home port. Still, he didn't rule out the possibility of Cunard voyages starting and ending at Liverpool.[/p][/quote]Mersey mart.there are only three cunard ships would this make Liverpools turnaround ambitions viable? Peels port are proposing a second terminal if you get the go ahead what cruise company are you targeting? we hear about Cunard's heartland being Liverpool but surely these three ships wouldn't be enough to make a good enough return on your investment would they? Now you can see the anxiety that the other cruise ports have about Liverpool's turnaround ambitions? even with all the cruise ships coming to this city we have to have a container port as well to make the port profitable have you got a container facility? What I've tried to say is there's a cake that if too many people want a slice of it they wouldn't get much cake.you have so many cruise ships if these get spread out amongst the ports with cruise ship aspirations then no one will benefit as they will all run at a loss.just remember this not only do Liverpool want this but so does Avonmouth & Poole sooner or later a port will go bust & all the attached hotel & supply companies will go under do you not feel we should not try to stop this happening to us ? well we'll find out this week[/p][/quote]Loosehead, You really read into things what you want to read don't you? I was actually saying that though Cunard might start some cruises from Liverpool, their base, for the foreseeable future will be Southampton. There is no way that all three Cunard liners are going to suddenly move to Liverpool. However, all three have visited Liverpool in the past and will probably do so again in the future. Thinking about it, there is a possibly deliberate ambiguity in the headline of this article. Cunard 'using Liverpool' does imply that they intend to move all their ships up here - whereas what they are really saying is that they would consider using Liverpool for the odd cruise. There are quite a number of cruise liner companies other than Cunard for Liverpool to target - probably the first will be Fred Olsen, who decided to switch their Liverpool option to Southampton because of the inadequacy of our present terminal - something that probably didn't cause too much moral outrage in Southampton. Now, as Liverpool is not very likely to be allowed to use taxpayers money to subsidise ships calling at our liner terminal, then the only reason that Cunard, Fred Olsen, whoever will divert ships from Southampton to Liverpool will be because they can make more money by doing that. If the cruise liners make more money then that is surely good for the cruise industry and so how do you justify saying that nobody will benefit? (I hasten to add that there is no chance that Liverpool will be allowed to subsidise liners using the port - at least certainly not with taxpayer's money). Oh and, by the way, Liverpool does have a container port so the cruise ships can pick up a few boxes on the way out.[/p][/quote]I didn't know about your container port so thank you. Now look there are people who want you to pay back all grants you've received for this terminal but most just want the grant you received from the UK paid back in full then fine let's get on with life. It's not long before we hear the verdict so let's wait & see[/p][/quote]Liverpools freight tonnage is about 30million tons at the moment much less than Southampton, but watch this space when the Post-Pan ships arrive at the new terminal to be built at Seaforth dock, which will not have lock gates. Tom Liverpool
  • Score: 0

9:07pm Tue 13 Sep 11

loosehead says...

Tom Liverpool wrote:
loosehead wrote:
MerseyMart wrote:
loosehead wrote:
MerseyMart wrote: If the sight of Queen Elizabeth 'sends shivers through the Southampton cruise liner industry' then you are going to be paralytic with terror on Thursday when Queen Mary 2 arrives - and don't even think about 2015 when QM2, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth are planned to visit at the same time to celebrate 175 years of the Cunard line. The fact is though that there is nothing unusual about Cunard liners visiting Liverpool - they used to come before the cruise liner facility was built - QE2 was a fairly regular visitor - even though they had to anchor in mid-stream and ferry their passengers to the shore using tender vessels. I listened to an interview with a Cunard chief on Radio Merseyside last week and certainly didn't get the impression that they were planning to abandon Southampton any time soon. He emphasised that, whilst Liverpool was their spirtual home - the place where they started - Southampton was their established home port. Still, he didn't rule out the possibility of Cunard voyages starting and ending at Liverpool.
Mersey mart.there are only three cunard ships would this make Liverpools turnaround ambitions viable? Peels port are proposing a second terminal if you get the go ahead what cruise company are you targeting? we hear about Cunard's heartland being Liverpool but surely these three ships wouldn't be enough to make a good enough return on your investment would they? Now you can see the anxiety that the other cruise ports have about Liverpool's turnaround ambitions? even with all the cruise ships coming to this city we have to have a container port as well to make the port profitable have you got a container facility? What I've tried to say is there's a cake that if too many people want a slice of it they wouldn't get much cake.you have so many cruise ships if these get spread out amongst the ports with cruise ship aspirations then no one will benefit as they will all run at a loss.just remember this not only do Liverpool want this but so does Avonmouth & Poole sooner or later a port will go bust & all the attached hotel & supply companies will go under do you not feel we should not try to stop this happening to us ? well we'll find out this week
Loosehead,
You really read into things what you want to read don't you? I was actually saying that though Cunard might start some cruises from Liverpool, their base, for the foreseeable future will be Southampton. There is no way that all three Cunard liners are going to suddenly move to Liverpool. However, all three have visited Liverpool in the past and will probably do so again in the future.

Thinking about it, there is a possibly deliberate ambiguity in the headline of this article. Cunard 'using Liverpool' does imply that they intend to move all their ships up here - whereas what they are really saying is that they would consider using Liverpool for the odd cruise.

There are quite a number of cruise liner companies other than Cunard for Liverpool to target - probably the first will be Fred Olsen, who decided to switch their Liverpool option to Southampton because of the inadequacy of our present terminal - something that probably didn't cause too much moral outrage in Southampton.

Now, as Liverpool is not very likely to be allowed to use taxpayers money to subsidise ships calling at our liner terminal, then the only reason that Cunard, Fred Olsen, whoever will divert ships from Southampton to Liverpool will be because they can make more money by doing that. If the cruise liners make more money then that is surely good for the cruise industry and so how do you justify saying that nobody will benefit?

(I hasten to add that there is no chance that Liverpool will be allowed to subsidise liners using the port - at least certainly not with taxpayer's money).

Oh and, by the way, Liverpool does have a container port so the cruise ships can pick up a few boxes on the way out.
I didn't know about your container port so thank you. Now look there are people who want you to pay back all grants you've received for this terminal but most just want the grant you received from the UK paid back in full then fine let's get on with life. It's not long before we hear the verdict so let's wait & see
Liverpools freight tonnage is about 30million tons at the moment much less than Southampton, but watch this space when the Post-Pan ships arrive at the new terminal to be built at Seaforth dock, which will not have lock gates.
How does that compare to Felixstowe or the new shellhaven terminal which is the biggest & close to London( outskirts)?
[quote][p][bold]Tom Liverpool[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MerseyMart[/bold] wrote: If the sight of Queen Elizabeth 'sends shivers through the Southampton cruise liner industry' then you are going to be paralytic with terror on Thursday when Queen Mary 2 arrives - and don't even think about 2015 when QM2, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth are planned to visit at the same time to celebrate 175 years of the Cunard line. The fact is though that there is nothing unusual about Cunard liners visiting Liverpool - they used to come before the cruise liner facility was built - QE2 was a fairly regular visitor - even though they had to anchor in mid-stream and ferry their passengers to the shore using tender vessels. I listened to an interview with a Cunard chief on Radio Merseyside last week and certainly didn't get the impression that they were planning to abandon Southampton any time soon. He emphasised that, whilst Liverpool was their spirtual home - the place where they started - Southampton was their established home port. Still, he didn't rule out the possibility of Cunard voyages starting and ending at Liverpool.[/p][/quote]Mersey mart.there are only three cunard ships would this make Liverpools turnaround ambitions viable? Peels port are proposing a second terminal if you get the go ahead what cruise company are you targeting? we hear about Cunard's heartland being Liverpool but surely these three ships wouldn't be enough to make a good enough return on your investment would they? Now you can see the anxiety that the other cruise ports have about Liverpool's turnaround ambitions? even with all the cruise ships coming to this city we have to have a container port as well to make the port profitable have you got a container facility? What I've tried to say is there's a cake that if too many people want a slice of it they wouldn't get much cake.you have so many cruise ships if these get spread out amongst the ports with cruise ship aspirations then no one will benefit as they will all run at a loss.just remember this not only do Liverpool want this but so does Avonmouth & Poole sooner or later a port will go bust & all the attached hotel & supply companies will go under do you not feel we should not try to stop this happening to us ? well we'll find out this week[/p][/quote]Loosehead, You really read into things what you want to read don't you? I was actually saying that though Cunard might start some cruises from Liverpool, their base, for the foreseeable future will be Southampton. There is no way that all three Cunard liners are going to suddenly move to Liverpool. However, all three have visited Liverpool in the past and will probably do so again in the future. Thinking about it, there is a possibly deliberate ambiguity in the headline of this article. Cunard 'using Liverpool' does imply that they intend to move all their ships up here - whereas what they are really saying is that they would consider using Liverpool for the odd cruise. There are quite a number of cruise liner companies other than Cunard for Liverpool to target - probably the first will be Fred Olsen, who decided to switch their Liverpool option to Southampton because of the inadequacy of our present terminal - something that probably didn't cause too much moral outrage in Southampton. Now, as Liverpool is not very likely to be allowed to use taxpayers money to subsidise ships calling at our liner terminal, then the only reason that Cunard, Fred Olsen, whoever will divert ships from Southampton to Liverpool will be because they can make more money by doing that. If the cruise liners make more money then that is surely good for the cruise industry and so how do you justify saying that nobody will benefit? (I hasten to add that there is no chance that Liverpool will be allowed to subsidise liners using the port - at least certainly not with taxpayer's money). Oh and, by the way, Liverpool does have a container port so the cruise ships can pick up a few boxes on the way out.[/p][/quote]I didn't know about your container port so thank you. Now look there are people who want you to pay back all grants you've received for this terminal but most just want the grant you received from the UK paid back in full then fine let's get on with life. It's not long before we hear the verdict so let's wait & see[/p][/quote]Liverpools freight tonnage is about 30million tons at the moment much less than Southampton, but watch this space when the Post-Pan ships arrive at the new terminal to be built at Seaforth dock, which will not have lock gates.[/p][/quote]How does that compare to Felixstowe or the new shellhaven terminal which is the biggest & close to London( outskirts)? loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:59am Wed 14 Sep 11

georgetheseventh says...

Christ your a gang of 'whingeing' little kids...remember the song.....ITS MY PARTY AND I'LL CRY IF I WANT TO '........and check your facts sunshine as to how many Merseysiders went down with Titanic.
You 'STOLE' the liners from us with your conniving but you CANNOT change 'history'...fools...
fools..fools
Christ your a gang of 'whingeing' little kids...remember the song.....ITS MY PARTY AND I'LL CRY IF I WANT TO '........and check your facts sunshine as to how many Merseysiders went down with Titanic. You 'STOLE' the liners from us with your conniving but you CANNOT change 'history'...fools... fools..fools georgetheseventh
  • Score: 0

10:16am Wed 14 Sep 11

redsnapper says...

Face facts. Southampton City Council has totally failed to deliver the world class port with full supporting amenities,which this city should have.

Councillors have no vision and no ******* idea.

Just look how they let cheap and nasty takeaway tents surround the historical Bargate.

They are blind to opportunity.
Face facts. Southampton City Council has totally failed to deliver the world class port with full supporting amenities,which this city should have. Councillors have no vision and no ******* idea. Just look how they let cheap and nasty takeaway tents surround the historical Bargate. They are blind to opportunity. redsnapper
  • Score: 0

3:56pm Wed 14 Sep 11

loosehead says...

redsnapper wrote:
Face facts. Southampton City Council has totally failed to deliver the world class port with full supporting amenities,which this city should have.

Councillors have no vision and no ******* idea.

Just look how they let cheap and nasty takeaway tents surround the historical Bargate.

They are blind to opportunity.
Really ? I've seen many tourists shopping there.Labour was in when the developement of the western esplanade took place.now unless you want the whole of that area knocked down & the docks dug up & the walls taken down ( City Walls & then the docks built right next to the bargate we never were going to get as close to our docks as Liverpool even the old docks weren't good enough as the dockage there was to shallow so come on what would you do?
[quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: Face facts. Southampton City Council has totally failed to deliver the world class port with full supporting amenities,which this city should have. Councillors have no vision and no ******* idea. Just look how they let cheap and nasty takeaway tents surround the historical Bargate. They are blind to opportunity.[/p][/quote]Really ? I've seen many tourists shopping there.Labour was in when the developement of the western esplanade took place.now unless you want the whole of that area knocked down & the docks dug up & the walls taken down ( City Walls & then the docks built right next to the bargate we never were going to get as close to our docks as Liverpool even the old docks weren't good enough as the dockage there was to shallow so come on what would you do? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:20am Thu 15 Sep 11

CHARLIE TAYLOR says...

Ehhh, any body want to buy some plates,knives,forks,
spoons,ham,cheese, steaks,whisky,smoked
salmon,caviar,paint,
blankets,sheets,pill
ows,tablecloths---te
ll me what you want and I'll see if I can get it !!!
Ehhh, any body want to buy some plates,knives,forks, spoons,ham,cheese, steaks,whisky,smoked salmon,caviar,paint, blankets,sheets,pill ows,tablecloths---te ll me what you want and I'll see if I can get it !!! CHARLIE TAYLOR
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Mon 19 Sep 11

arizonan says...

The robbers in Lymington are the real deal, re.Echo news item 19th Sept.
The robbers in Lymington are the real deal, re.Echo news item 19th Sept. arizonan
  • Score: 0

4:21pm Mon 19 Sep 11

arizonan says...

The robbers in Lymington are the real deal, re.Echo news item 19th Sept.
The robbers in Lymington are the real deal, re.Echo news item 19th Sept. arizonan
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree