Stop driving away local job opportunities

Daily Echo: Stop driving away local job opportunities Stop driving away local job opportunities

COUNCILLOR David Harrison’s letter (January 7) typifies the incompetence, hypocrisy and Nimbyism that has bedevilled local politics around south Hampshire.

Political ineptitude and lack of vision has seen investment chased away by the kind of visionless ignorance and Luddism exemplified in his letter.

With wonderful irony and hubris he writes to the Echo to boast of how he won’t rest until more real job creation and investment opportunity is chased away to East Anglia to make way for another grazing patch for Canada geese and Hythe Marina dog walkers (both of which manage pretty well already).

As Waterside employers such as Polimeri, Hythe Naval Base, Husbands and now Marchwood Military Port are either closed or closing, Cllr Harrison writes to remind school leavers and the Waterside jobseekers that his contribution to their plight has been something less than zero. He is, by contrast, only too keen to offer as an alternative the heady prospect of ‘careers’ÿ driving an ice-cream van, or perhaps a summer car park attendant job, or maybe a spot of table waiting or bar work for the lucky few.

Any parent on Waterside today should ask themselves whether they share Cllr Harrison’s vision for their children’s future, or whether their children deserve to have a range of secure technology and industrial career opportunities in their own district.

I cannot think of a more pointless use of Dibden Bay than to do nothing at all with it.

The reality is that the New Forest brings in tourists, but Dibden Bay as grassy wilderness will not bring in one single extra visitor.

Conversely, did Fawley Refinery actually scare any visitors away? It did not – I have never in my life heard anyone say in any context that they would have come to the New Forest had it not been for industrial development on the Waterside.ÿ It is ironic that he even mentions the Waterside rail link, when his own political opposition to Dibden Bay port may actually lead to its total closure.

Still, perhaps ‘tourists’ÿ will come to walk along the old track bed, eh, councillor?

Andrew Kind, Locks Heath

Comments (50)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:27pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Linesman says...

Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep. Linesman
  • Score: 7

3:29pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Young Greybeard says...

Mr Kind has used a variety of 'kind' words to describe what he thinks of Councillor David Harrison.
I shall not waste words in expressing what I think of Mr Kind: clueless.

I suggest, sir, that you stick to what concerns you in Locks Heath and do not poke your nose into other peoples affairs. As Mr Harrison suggests, read the report and then, perhaps, come back with an informed opinion.

Linesman, nice response, said most of what was going through my mind as I read Mr Kind's letter.
Mr Kind has used a variety of 'kind' words to describe what he thinks of Councillor David Harrison. I shall not waste words in expressing what I think of Mr Kind: clueless. I suggest, sir, that you stick to what concerns you in Locks Heath and do not poke your nose into other peoples affairs. As Mr Harrison suggests, read the report and then, perhaps, come back with an informed opinion. Linesman, nice response, said most of what was going through my mind as I read Mr Kind's letter. Young Greybeard
  • Score: 3

3:54pm Fri 10 Jan 14

phil maccavity says...

Linesman
Interesting viewpoint and well put.
Bearing in mind the traditional sizeable Waterside employers from Calshot down through Fawley, Hythe and onto Marchwood have all fallen by the wayside, reduced numbers or are possibly threatened, what are the future job prospects for Waterside children?
New Forest Park Rangers or Leisure Park attendants?
Bearing in mind that the likes of Exxon, CEGB, Petro Chemical companies, Marchwood Military Port etc have all been happily operating industrial concerns on the Waterside from the late 1940's and it was the job opportunities offered here which brought in many of the more recent housing developments whose householders are now complaining about traffic congestion and the like.
Linesman Interesting viewpoint and well put. Bearing in mind the traditional sizeable Waterside employers from Calshot down through Fawley, Hythe and onto Marchwood have all fallen by the wayside, reduced numbers or are possibly threatened, what are the future job prospects for Waterside children? New Forest Park Rangers or Leisure Park attendants? Bearing in mind that the likes of Exxon, CEGB, Petro Chemical companies, Marchwood Military Port etc have all been happily operating industrial concerns on the Waterside from the late 1940's and it was the job opportunities offered here which brought in many of the more recent housing developments whose householders are now complaining about traffic congestion and the like. phil maccavity
  • Score: 1

4:13pm Fri 10 Jan 14

bigfella777 says...

I think his letter is very good, especially as Dibden bay is man made anyway and blast those Canada geese.
I think his letter is very good, especially as Dibden bay is man made anyway and blast those Canada geese. bigfella777
  • Score: -2

5:46pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Linesman says...

phil maccavity wrote:
Linesman
Interesting viewpoint and well put.
Bearing in mind the traditional sizeable Waterside employers from Calshot down through Fawley, Hythe and onto Marchwood have all fallen by the wayside, reduced numbers or are possibly threatened, what are the future job prospects for Waterside children?
New Forest Park Rangers or Leisure Park attendants?
Bearing in mind that the likes of Exxon, CEGB, Petro Chemical companies, Marchwood Military Port etc have all been happily operating industrial concerns on the Waterside from the late 1940's and it was the job opportunities offered here which brought in many of the more recent housing developments whose householders are now complaining about traffic congestion and the like.
You ask about the job prospects for Waterside children.

For a start, when Esso opened up in '51, nobody had a computer in their home, and the vast majority had never heard of the word.

Now, schoolchildren are working with computers at school, and a good many of their parents are working from home, using computers, so that is one opportunity that school leavers have that was not there when Esso and the docks had a massive work-force.

At that time, if people did not work locally, in factories, agriculture, shops or local businesses, they worked in Southampton. Some went to sea in the Merchant Navy or 'Joined up.'

At that time there were a lot of families that did not have a car, which is why they remained employed locally.

Now, it is not uncommon for people to commute to London, or other towns or cities. It is even possible to work abroad, something that was not even dreamed of by kids leaving school in the 50s.

There is always work, but invariably it has to be sought, it rarely comes looking.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: Linesman Interesting viewpoint and well put. Bearing in mind the traditional sizeable Waterside employers from Calshot down through Fawley, Hythe and onto Marchwood have all fallen by the wayside, reduced numbers or are possibly threatened, what are the future job prospects for Waterside children? New Forest Park Rangers or Leisure Park attendants? Bearing in mind that the likes of Exxon, CEGB, Petro Chemical companies, Marchwood Military Port etc have all been happily operating industrial concerns on the Waterside from the late 1940's and it was the job opportunities offered here which brought in many of the more recent housing developments whose householders are now complaining about traffic congestion and the like.[/p][/quote]You ask about the job prospects for Waterside children. For a start, when Esso opened up in '51, nobody had a computer in their home, and the vast majority had never heard of the word. Now, schoolchildren are working with computers at school, and a good many of their parents are working from home, using computers, so that is one opportunity that school leavers have that was not there when Esso and the docks had a massive work-force. At that time, if people did not work locally, in factories, agriculture, shops or local businesses, they worked in Southampton. Some went to sea in the Merchant Navy or 'Joined up.' At that time there were a lot of families that did not have a car, which is why they remained employed locally. Now, it is not uncommon for people to commute to London, or other towns or cities. It is even possible to work abroad, something that was not even dreamed of by kids leaving school in the 50s. There is always work, but invariably it has to be sought, it rarely comes looking. Linesman
  • Score: 4

5:58pm Fri 10 Jan 14

phil maccavity says...

Linesman
Again have to agree with your comments about the change in working practices and the decline in large company workforces
However if I read you correctly you appear to be suggesting that young people from the Waterside must either consider working from home, commute to London or other towns/cities, or work abroad.
These options may only suit a relatively small percentage of the Waterside youngsters
Whilst port related work does not require the large amount of manual labour as in previous years, generally speaking the full time jobs (both direct and indirect) are relatively secure and well paid and the commercial port here has been in existence for 175 years which is not a bad track record in todays turbulent times.
Linesman Again have to agree with your comments about the change in working practices and the decline in large company workforces However if I read you correctly you appear to be suggesting that young people from the Waterside must either consider working from home, commute to London or other towns/cities, or work abroad. These options may only suit a relatively small percentage of the Waterside youngsters Whilst port related work does not require the large amount of manual labour as in previous years, generally speaking the full time jobs (both direct and indirect) are relatively secure and well paid and the commercial port here has been in existence for 175 years which is not a bad track record in todays turbulent times. phil maccavity
  • Score: 2

6:22pm Fri 10 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Okay the waterside doesn't want Southampton encroaching on the waterside so will watersiders turn down work in Southampton?
no matter what idiot thinks other wise Southampton Totton Waterside even Eastliegh are all dependant on each other yet you'd think Hythe Marina was in another country.
Whyn is a guy who sits & types support for a Labour council now on here anti Southampton & anti jobs?
he says that's a myth? so the docks needs to increase it's footprint it has already dredged the waters near Dibden & Marchwood yet at least one idiot on here says they should dredge the Itchen?
more containers more machines to offload & load more cars need more drivers to off load or load yet he says no more jobs?
Okay take back the dredged material expand our side into the estuary & see exactly what happens over there
Okay the waterside doesn't want Southampton encroaching on the waterside so will watersiders turn down work in Southampton? no matter what idiot thinks other wise Southampton Totton Waterside even Eastliegh are all dependant on each other yet you'd think Hythe Marina was in another country. Whyn is a guy who sits & types support for a Labour council now on here anti Southampton & anti jobs? he says that's a myth? so the docks needs to increase it's footprint it has already dredged the waters near Dibden & Marchwood yet at least one idiot on here says they should dredge the Itchen? more containers more machines to offload & load more cars need more drivers to off load or load yet he says no more jobs? Okay take back the dredged material expand our side into the estuary & see exactly what happens over there loosehead
  • Score: -1

7:35pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Linesman says...

phil maccavity wrote:
Linesman
Again have to agree with your comments about the change in working practices and the decline in large company workforces
However if I read you correctly you appear to be suggesting that young people from the Waterside must either consider working from home, commute to London or other towns/cities, or work abroad.
These options may only suit a relatively small percentage of the Waterside youngsters
Whilst port related work does not require the large amount of manual labour as in previous years, generally speaking the full time jobs (both direct and indirect) are relatively secure and well paid and the commercial port here has been in existence for 175 years which is not a bad track record in todays turbulent times.
No! What I am saying is that today's children have opportunities that children of my generation did not have.
Horizons have broadened.
People took holidays in Bournemouth or Southsea, with the adventurous heading for the Channel Islands and crossing the channel was just a dream.
Compare that with now.

I agree with your comment about the decline in the manual labour requirement in the docks, and there may be some NOW that are relatively secure, but a decade ago there were many who thought theirs were relatively secure - but they were not. Times change, and people are the expensive commodity for employers, so they replace them with machines/computers where possible.

I agree, the docks have been in existence for 175 years - more than that actually, as the crusades set sail from Southampton as did the Mayflower - but there has been a considerable change since then. No longer do we have liners regularly crossing the Atlantic to New York, or Castle boats doing the South Africa run.

Cargo ships used to arrive, and there would be dock staff would be on hand to unload the nets containing goods lifted from the ship, which would then be transported to a warehouse to be stored to await collection,

Container ships arrive. The crane driver lifts the containers off, and stacks them as directed, ready for collection and onward movement. All would be logged on computers by someone in an office, watching events on the CCTV.

The reduction in the work-force at the refinery started in the early 60s, and has continued ever since, with the associated plants following suite.

At the same time, the population in the area has increased, not decreased, yet there has not been a dramatic increase in unemployment.

Why?

Because people are more mobile now than the used to be. They have adapted to modern living and learned new skills.

I would also think that they are better educated, and more aware of the environment than they were in the 50s when the enlarged refinery opened up, which is probably why those in that area appreciate the importance of the green field site at Dibden Bay.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: Linesman Again have to agree with your comments about the change in working practices and the decline in large company workforces However if I read you correctly you appear to be suggesting that young people from the Waterside must either consider working from home, commute to London or other towns/cities, or work abroad. These options may only suit a relatively small percentage of the Waterside youngsters Whilst port related work does not require the large amount of manual labour as in previous years, generally speaking the full time jobs (both direct and indirect) are relatively secure and well paid and the commercial port here has been in existence for 175 years which is not a bad track record in todays turbulent times.[/p][/quote]No! What I am saying is that today's children have opportunities that children of my generation did not have. Horizons have broadened. People took holidays in Bournemouth or Southsea, with the adventurous heading for the Channel Islands and crossing the channel was just a dream. Compare that with now. I agree with your comment about the decline in the manual labour requirement in the docks, and there may be some NOW that are relatively secure, but a decade ago there were many who thought theirs were relatively secure - but they were not. Times change, and people are the expensive commodity for employers, so they replace them with machines/computers where possible. I agree, the docks have been in existence for 175 years - more than that actually, as the crusades set sail from Southampton as did the Mayflower - but there has been a considerable change since then. No longer do we have liners regularly crossing the Atlantic to New York, or Castle boats doing the South Africa run. Cargo ships used to arrive, and there would be dock staff would be on hand to unload the nets containing goods lifted from the ship, which would then be transported to a warehouse to be stored to await collection, Container ships arrive. The crane driver lifts the containers off, and stacks them as directed, ready for collection and onward movement. All would be logged on computers by someone in an office, watching events on the CCTV. The reduction in the work-force at the refinery started in the early 60s, and has continued ever since, with the associated plants following suite. At the same time, the population in the area has increased, not decreased, yet there has not been a dramatic increase in unemployment. Why? Because people are more mobile now than the used to be. They have adapted to modern living and learned new skills. I would also think that they are better educated, and more aware of the environment than they were in the 50s when the enlarged refinery opened up, which is probably why those in that area appreciate the importance of the green field site at Dibden Bay. Linesman
  • Score: 4

8:03am Sat 11 Jan 14

The Wickham Man says...

Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste. The Wickham Man
  • Score: -2

8:23am Sat 11 Jan 14

Linesman says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard. Linesman
  • Score: 0

8:55am Sat 11 Jan 14

Wafudude says...

Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest. Wafudude
  • Score: -2

9:43am Sat 11 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk,
so what all the rest of us who want to see this whole area flourish & to see the creation of jobs are gullible?
so once again your right we're all wrong no?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, so what all the rest of us who want to see this whole area flourish & to see the creation of jobs are gullible? so once again your right we're all wrong no? loosehead
  • Score: 1

9:47am Sat 11 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
so do you think a military port being used as a port or a piece of reclaimed land being used for what it was intended for with both creating jobs is a good idea or not?
if you consider it's a good idea can't you get a few more locals to shout about it maybe write to Lewis?
if enough people tell him he's wrong then I'm sure he'll change his mind after all he needs your votes doesn't he?
What do you think of a few Hythe Marina NIMBY's stopping the creation of jobs?
[quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]so do you think a military port being used as a port or a piece of reclaimed land being used for what it was intended for with both creating jobs is a good idea or not? if you consider it's a good idea can't you get a few more locals to shout about it maybe write to Lewis? if enough people tell him he's wrong then I'm sure he'll change his mind after all he needs your votes doesn't he? What do you think of a few Hythe Marina NIMBY's stopping the creation of jobs? loosehead
  • Score: -3

9:51am Sat 11 Jan 14

loosehead says...

when we had a Tory council & all the ships were in & busses were put on for residents to see them the busses couldn't cope so the tourist boats helped out.
we were on board one with a lot of watersiders which one or two paid otherwise it was our city that paid.
they got chatting saying how they'd love the cruise ships to dock at Dibden but they didn't want ugly containers.
so the arguments against a container port are false & I'd love to see what would happen if it was to be a Cruise Terminal?
when we had a Tory council & all the ships were in & busses were put on for residents to see them the busses couldn't cope so the tourist boats helped out. we were on board one with a lot of watersiders which one or two paid otherwise it was our city that paid. they got chatting saying how they'd love the cruise ships to dock at Dibden but they didn't want ugly containers. so the arguments against a container port are false & I'd love to see what would happen if it was to be a Cruise Terminal? loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:26am Sat 11 Jan 14

Andy Locks Heath says...

I am the writer of the column and I'm glad it has stimulated such interest Please bear in mind that I wrote it in angry response to a disgraceful piece of complacent smugness by a local poltician (David Harrison) who typifies a kind of anti industrial snobbery that is as damaging as it is baseless. Any claims that I am somehow unqualified to comment because I don't live in Marchwood or Hythe are irrelevant, and Linesman I have advocated industrial development in "my" backyard (Chilling gravel extraction) to give just one example. I despise Nimbyism wherever it occurs. I'd like to respond to a couple of specific points. To illustrate the importance of primary capital intensive industry, a recent survey of a related industry( the cruise part of the Southampton port operation) by RTP consultants for Southampton City Council showed that around 50 jobs were directly sustained by ABP, but 717 jobs were sustained by the industry in the area and no less than 2,432 jobs were sustained through indirect distribution of subcontracts, wages and so on. These same ratios apply to all large capital intensive installations. - figures for Felixstowe for example will bear this out. Some jobs are similar, some overlap, some are different, but you could list literally hundreds of small businesses who do business on the basis of port operations, whether it is shipping, logistics, plant maintenance, IT, and so on and on even down to facilities management cleaning and catering. Wickham said something similar previously and he is right, and this is provable. Using the Esso/Exxon example you are wrong to simply count its own workforce. They don't even employ their own tanker drivers any more. (it was Hoyer last time I was there). When you talk of automation and computerisation, who maintains those systems? I work in a related sector so I have direct experience and knowledge of these factors and ratios. To the question of "where are the jobs" the answer exists in a single word - outsourcing. Of course the jobs are still there because there are far more jobs in the UK now than back in the day when small numbers of employers employed thousands of workers directly.
On another frequently used topic, anyone using the New Forest as a kind of Nimby shield against Dibden Bay development is quite simply being disingenuous at best. Waterside and Dibden Bay specifically is not geologically, culturally , historically ecologically or economically part of the New Forest. Even geographical proximity is barely relevant. There would be negligible impact of any kind west of the A326 and I challenge anyone to explain why they think there would be and to give examples. I wrote the column thinking about the students and school leavers along Waterside and Totton. What other use can there possibly be for this reclaimed brownfield wasteland that is worth denying them exciting diverse challenging jobs and real futures in their own district? There had better be more compelling reasons than have been shown by either Councillor Harrison or the ageing and selfish cliques who elected him. I hope a few more parents will remember his priorities at the next election.
I am the writer of the column and I'm glad it has stimulated such interest Please bear in mind that I wrote it in angry response to a disgraceful piece of complacent smugness by a local poltician (David Harrison) who typifies a kind of anti industrial snobbery that is as damaging as it is baseless. Any claims that I am somehow unqualified to comment because I don't live in Marchwood or Hythe are irrelevant, and Linesman I have advocated industrial development in "my" backyard (Chilling gravel extraction) to give just one example. I despise Nimbyism wherever it occurs. I'd like to respond to a couple of specific points. To illustrate the importance of primary capital intensive industry, a recent survey of a related industry( the cruise part of the Southampton port operation) by RTP consultants for Southampton City Council showed that around 50 jobs were directly sustained by ABP, but 717 jobs were sustained by the industry in the area and no less than 2,432 jobs were sustained through indirect distribution of subcontracts, wages and so on. These same ratios apply to all large capital intensive installations. - figures for Felixstowe for example will bear this out. Some jobs are similar, some overlap, some are different, but you could list literally hundreds of small businesses who do business on the basis of port operations, whether it is shipping, logistics, plant maintenance, IT, and so on and on even down to facilities management cleaning and catering. Wickham said something similar previously and he is right, and this is provable. Using the Esso/Exxon example you are wrong to simply count its own workforce. They don't even employ their own tanker drivers any more. (it was Hoyer last time I was there). When you talk of automation and computerisation, who maintains those systems? I work in a related sector so I have direct experience and knowledge of these factors and ratios. To the question of "where are the jobs" the answer exists in a single word - outsourcing. Of course the jobs are still there because there are far more jobs in the UK now than back in the day when small numbers of employers employed thousands of workers directly. On another frequently used topic, anyone using the New Forest as a kind of Nimby shield against Dibden Bay development is quite simply being disingenuous at best. Waterside and Dibden Bay specifically is not geologically, culturally , historically ecologically or economically part of the New Forest. Even geographical proximity is barely relevant. There would be negligible impact of any kind west of the A326 and I challenge anyone to explain why they think there would be and to give examples. I wrote the column thinking about the students and school leavers along Waterside and Totton. What other use can there possibly be for this reclaimed brownfield wasteland that is worth denying them exciting diverse challenging jobs and real futures in their own district? There had better be more compelling reasons than have been shown by either Councillor Harrison or the ageing and selfish cliques who elected him. I hope a few more parents will remember his priorities at the next election. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: -1

12:50pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
when we had a Tory council & all the ships were in & busses were put on for residents to see them the busses couldn't cope so the tourist boats helped out.
we were on board one with a lot of watersiders which one or two paid otherwise it was our city that paid.
they got chatting saying how they'd love the cruise ships to dock at Dibden but they didn't want ugly containers.
so the arguments against a container port are false & I'd love to see what would happen if it was to be a Cruise Terminal?
It does not surprise me that you are claiming that you talked to Waterside residents who happened to claim that they would love to see cruise ships docking a redeveloped Dibden Bay, what surprises me is that you did not claim that they were your relatives.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: when we had a Tory council & all the ships were in & busses were put on for residents to see them the busses couldn't cope so the tourist boats helped out. we were on board one with a lot of watersiders which one or two paid otherwise it was our city that paid. they got chatting saying how they'd love the cruise ships to dock at Dibden but they didn't want ugly containers. so the arguments against a container port are false & I'd love to see what would happen if it was to be a Cruise Terminal?[/p][/quote]It does not surprise me that you are claiming that you talked to Waterside residents who happened to claim that they would love to see cruise ships docking a redeveloped Dibden Bay, what surprises me is that you did not claim that they were your relatives. Linesman
  • Score: 1

1:06pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Linesman says...

Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
[quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do. Linesman
  • Score: 1

1:12pm Sun 12 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
when we had a Tory council & all the ships were in & busses were put on for residents to see them the busses couldn't cope so the tourist boats helped out.
we were on board one with a lot of watersiders which one or two paid otherwise it was our city that paid.
they got chatting saying how they'd love the cruise ships to dock at Dibden but they didn't want ugly containers.
so the arguments against a container port are false & I'd love to see what would happen if it was to be a Cruise Terminal?
It does not surprise me that you are claiming that you talked to Waterside residents who happened to claim that they would love to see cruise ships docking a redeveloped Dibden Bay, what surprises me is that you did not claim that they were your relatives.
I have not insulted you on these posts so why make me out to be a liar?
I actually had a row with that person as I said okay so we can keep the containers but you get to see the cruise ships what a bunch of hypocrites you are no Port our roads can't take it but wait a minute I go on cruises so yes let's have the even more traffic causing cruise ships at Dibden.
Linesman if you want to call me names or at the least imply I'm lying expect a lot back .
I still can't see with all that the residents of this city have lost & how those on the waterside have benefitted from these losses in the form of jobs how you can side with a load of Liberal NIMBY's?
what a great sotonian you are or are you from this city?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: when we had a Tory council & all the ships were in & busses were put on for residents to see them the busses couldn't cope so the tourist boats helped out. we were on board one with a lot of watersiders which one or two paid otherwise it was our city that paid. they got chatting saying how they'd love the cruise ships to dock at Dibden but they didn't want ugly containers. so the arguments against a container port are false & I'd love to see what would happen if it was to be a Cruise Terminal?[/p][/quote]It does not surprise me that you are claiming that you talked to Waterside residents who happened to claim that they would love to see cruise ships docking a redeveloped Dibden Bay, what surprises me is that you did not claim that they were your relatives.[/p][/quote]I have not insulted you on these posts so why make me out to be a liar? I actually had a row with that person as I said okay so we can keep the containers but you get to see the cruise ships what a bunch of hypocrites you are no Port our roads can't take it but wait a minute I go on cruises so yes let's have the even more traffic causing cruise ships at Dibden. Linesman if you want to call me names or at the least imply I'm lying expect a lot back . I still can't see with all that the residents of this city have lost & how those on the waterside have benefitted from these losses in the form of jobs how you can side with a load of Liberal NIMBY's? what a great sotonian you are or are you from this city? loosehead
  • Score: -1

1:14pm Sun 12 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.
oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.[/p][/quote]2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them? loosehead
  • Score: -1

7:04pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
when we had a Tory council & all the ships were in & busses were put on for residents to see them the busses couldn't cope so the tourist boats helped out.
we were on board one with a lot of watersiders which one or two paid otherwise it was our city that paid.
they got chatting saying how they'd love the cruise ships to dock at Dibden but they didn't want ugly containers.
so the arguments against a container port are false & I'd love to see what would happen if it was to be a Cruise Terminal?
It does not surprise me that you are claiming that you talked to Waterside residents who happened to claim that they would love to see cruise ships docking a redeveloped Dibden Bay, what surprises me is that you did not claim that they were your relatives.
I have not insulted you on these posts so why make me out to be a liar?
I actually had a row with that person as I said okay so we can keep the containers but you get to see the cruise ships what a bunch of hypocrites you are no Port our roads can't take it but wait a minute I go on cruises so yes let's have the even more traffic causing cruise ships at Dibden.
Linesman if you want to call me names or at the least imply I'm lying expect a lot back .
I still can't see with all that the residents of this city have lost & how those on the waterside have benefitted from these losses in the form of jobs how you can side with a load of Liberal NIMBY's?
what a great sotonian you are or are you from this city?
Do you have difficulty understanding the English language?

Where have I called you a liar?

I was surprised that you did not claim the persons that you spoke to were not related, as so often, to back up your statements. you make reference to what a relative has either done or said.

That fact that I was surprised is a statement about myself, NOT about you.

You speak of the benefits that the residents of Waterside have in being able to see cruise ships.

Waterside residents have been able to see ships entering and leaving Southampton docks for centuries, from the days of sailing ships. Ships that were a thing of beauty, like the Castle Line were there to be seen on a regular basis. I have yet to see a container ship, loaded or unloaded, that was a thing of beauty.

You state "All that the residents of this city have lost & how those on the Waterside have benefitted from these losses."

Explain!

Apart from the mini-refinery, that was known as AGWI up until the 40s and a relatively small industrial unit at Hythe that made MTBs during the war, plus a small shipyard at Marchwood. the Western shore of Southampton Water was practically all agricultural, and mirrored the Eastern shore.

The people in that area 'Lost' those green fields, the woodlands and farmland with the building of the refinery and associated industries, and the residents of Your city benefitted - every time they filled up their cars, or got on a diesel bus.

In answer to your question. No, I do not live in the City, and neither do I live in Waterside.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: when we had a Tory council & all the ships were in & busses were put on for residents to see them the busses couldn't cope so the tourist boats helped out. we were on board one with a lot of watersiders which one or two paid otherwise it was our city that paid. they got chatting saying how they'd love the cruise ships to dock at Dibden but they didn't want ugly containers. so the arguments against a container port are false & I'd love to see what would happen if it was to be a Cruise Terminal?[/p][/quote]It does not surprise me that you are claiming that you talked to Waterside residents who happened to claim that they would love to see cruise ships docking a redeveloped Dibden Bay, what surprises me is that you did not claim that they were your relatives.[/p][/quote]I have not insulted you on these posts so why make me out to be a liar? I actually had a row with that person as I said okay so we can keep the containers but you get to see the cruise ships what a bunch of hypocrites you are no Port our roads can't take it but wait a minute I go on cruises so yes let's have the even more traffic causing cruise ships at Dibden. Linesman if you want to call me names or at the least imply I'm lying expect a lot back . I still can't see with all that the residents of this city have lost & how those on the waterside have benefitted from these losses in the form of jobs how you can side with a load of Liberal NIMBY's? what a great sotonian you are or are you from this city?[/p][/quote]Do you have difficulty understanding the English language? Where have I called you a liar? I was surprised that you did not claim the persons that you spoke to were not related, as so often, to back up your statements. you make reference to what a relative has either done or said. That fact that I was surprised is a statement about myself, NOT about you. You speak of the benefits that the residents of Waterside have in being able to see cruise ships. Waterside residents have been able to see ships entering and leaving Southampton docks for centuries, from the days of sailing ships. Ships that were a thing of beauty, like the Castle Line were there to be seen on a regular basis. I have yet to see a container ship, loaded or unloaded, that was a thing of beauty. You state "All that the residents of this city have lost & how those on the Waterside have benefitted from these losses." Explain! Apart from the mini-refinery, that was known as AGWI up until the 40s and a relatively small industrial unit at Hythe that made MTBs during the war, plus a small shipyard at Marchwood. the Western shore of Southampton Water was practically all agricultural, and mirrored the Eastern shore. The people in that area 'Lost' those green fields, the woodlands and farmland with the building of the refinery and associated industries, and the residents of Your city benefitted - every time they filled up their cars, or got on a diesel bus. In answer to your question. No, I do not live in the City, and neither do I live in Waterside. Linesman
  • Score: 1

7:14pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.
oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?
There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown.

I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay.

They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.[/p][/quote]2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?[/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown. I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay. They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York. Linesman
  • Score: 1

9:30pm Sun 12 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.
oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?
There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown.

I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay.

They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.
your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know?
I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago.
I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today?
In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.[/p][/quote]2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?[/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown. I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay. They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.[/p][/quote]your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know? I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago. I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today? In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you? loosehead
  • Score: -1

10:58pm Sun 12 Jan 14

phil maccavity says...

Dibden Bay was acquired by the ten Govt owned BTDB in the late 1950's and filled in as a potential site for Soton Port expansion.
The population of Marchwood was 1,767 souls in 1961 an increase of 131 compared to 1951, so a fairly static population.
The population had increased by 249% by 2011 and similar increases had been recorded in Hythe and Dibden
Housing developments began in earliest in the late 1970;s and the likes of the Normandy Way area and Hythe Marina were completed in the 1980's
Interestingly it was due to the high demand for housing on the Waterside, due to the economic benefits accruing from Fawley and associated businesses, which led to the, then, privatised ABP deciding to sell off a corner of the Dibden Bay site for top of the range housing and marina. It was the well heeled (and largely new to the area) residents who were most vocal against further development of Dibden Bay.
Dibden Bay was acquired by the ten Govt owned BTDB in the late 1950's and filled in as a potential site for Soton Port expansion. The population of Marchwood was 1,767 souls in 1961 an increase of 131 compared to 1951, so a fairly static population. The population had increased by 249% by 2011 and similar increases had been recorded in Hythe and Dibden Housing developments began in earliest in the late 1970;s and the likes of the Normandy Way area and Hythe Marina were completed in the 1980's Interestingly it was due to the high demand for housing on the Waterside, due to the economic benefits accruing from Fawley and associated businesses, which led to the, then, privatised ABP deciding to sell off a corner of the Dibden Bay site for top of the range housing and marina. It was the well heeled (and largely new to the area) residents who were most vocal against further development of Dibden Bay. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

11:02pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.
oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?
There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown.

I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay.

They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.
your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know?
I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago.
I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today?
In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?
How do you know about Thailand?

Because you have family there.

If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area.

As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed.



A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.[/p][/quote]2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?[/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown. I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay. They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.[/p][/quote]your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know? I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago. I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today? In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?[/p][/quote]How do you know about Thailand? Because you have family there. If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area. As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed. A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood. Linesman
  • Score: 1

6:53am Mon 13 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.
oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?
There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown.

I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay.

They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.
your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know?
I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago.
I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today?
In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?
How do you know about Thailand?

Because you have family there.

If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area.

As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed.



A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.
No I lived there for at least a year so again getting your facts wrong?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.[/p][/quote]2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?[/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown. I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay. They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.[/p][/quote]your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know? I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago. I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today? In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?[/p][/quote]How do you know about Thailand? Because you have family there. If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area. As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed. A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.[/p][/quote]No I lived there for at least a year so again getting your facts wrong? loosehead
  • Score: -1

6:56am Mon 13 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.
oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?
There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown.

I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay.

They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.
your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know?
I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago.
I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today?
In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?
How do you know about Thailand?

Because you have family there.

If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area.

As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed.



A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.
only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive?
your a footie fan aren't you?
how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.[/p][/quote]2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?[/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown. I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay. They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.[/p][/quote]your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know? I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago. I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today? In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?[/p][/quote]How do you know about Thailand? Because you have family there. If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area. As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed. A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.[/p][/quote]only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive? your a footie fan aren't you? how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please! loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:53am Mon 13 Jan 14

Linesman says...

Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
And you speak for the majority?
[quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]And you speak for the majority? Linesman
  • Score: 0

9:57am Mon 13 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.
oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?
There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown.

I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay.

They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.
your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know?
I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago.
I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today?
In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?
How do you know about Thailand?

Because you have family there.

If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area.

As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed.



A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.
No I lived there for at least a year so again getting your facts wrong?
So your wife, who you claim comes from Thailand, has no relatives living there, or are you saying that they are HER relatives, and not yours by marriage?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.[/p][/quote]2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?[/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown. I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay. They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.[/p][/quote]your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know? I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago. I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today? In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?[/p][/quote]How do you know about Thailand? Because you have family there. If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area. As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed. A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.[/p][/quote]No I lived there for at least a year so again getting your facts wrong?[/p][/quote]So your wife, who you claim comes from Thailand, has no relatives living there, or are you saying that they are HER relatives, and not yours by marriage? Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:58am Mon 13 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.
oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?
There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown.

I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay.

They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.
your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know?
I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago.
I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today?
In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?
How do you know about Thailand?

Because you have family there.

If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area.

As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed.



A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.
only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive?
your a footie fan aren't you?
how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please!
Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion?

Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about?

You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving.

As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.[/p][/quote]2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?[/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown. I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay. They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.[/p][/quote]your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know? I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago. I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today? In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?[/p][/quote]How do you know about Thailand? Because you have family there. If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area. As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed. A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.[/p][/quote]only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive? your a footie fan aren't you? how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please![/p][/quote]Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion? Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about? You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving. As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor? Linesman
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Mon 13 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.
oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?
There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown.

I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay.

They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.
your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know?
I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago.
I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today?
In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?
How do you know about Thailand?

Because you have family there.

If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area.

As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed.



A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.
only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive?
your a footie fan aren't you?
how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please!
Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion?

Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about?

You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving.

As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?
you have just had a local saying you spout rubbish & this post proves it.
You are told in writing by your solicitors about future plans to have a docks at Dibden but move in then you complain about it & eventually stop it? why did you/they move in if they didn't want to live next to a docks should be the question not calling me names & I do feel that people have no right if they decide to take the route by the docks to then complain about traffic jams
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.[/p][/quote]2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?[/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown. I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay. They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.[/p][/quote]your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know? I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago. I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today? In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?[/p][/quote]How do you know about Thailand? Because you have family there. If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area. As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed. A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.[/p][/quote]only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive? your a footie fan aren't you? how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please![/p][/quote]Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion? Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about? You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving. As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?[/p][/quote]you have just had a local saying you spout rubbish & this post proves it. You are told in writing by your solicitors about future plans to have a docks at Dibden but move in then you complain about it & eventually stop it? why did you/they move in if they didn't want to live next to a docks should be the question not calling me names & I do feel that people have no right if they decide to take the route by the docks to then complain about traffic jams loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:09pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.
oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?
There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown.

I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay.

They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.
your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know?
I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago.
I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today?
In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?
How do you know about Thailand?

Because you have family there.

If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area.

As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed.



A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.
only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive?
your a footie fan aren't you?
how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please!
Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion?

Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about?

You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving.

As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?
you have just had a local saying you spout rubbish & this post proves it.
You are told in writing by your solicitors about future plans to have a docks at Dibden but move in then you complain about it & eventually stop it? why did you/they move in if they didn't want to live next to a docks should be the question not calling me names & I do feel that people have no right if they decide to take the route by the docks to then complain about traffic jams
If a solicitor said that was going to happen, and I had thought of buying in the area, then I would possibly reconsider.

However, if a solicitor said that, why has it not happened?

The plans were rejected by the local planning authority, which was New Forest District Council, and on appeal, that rejection was up-held.

I do not resort to name-calling, I leave that to you.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.[/p][/quote]2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?[/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown. I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay. They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.[/p][/quote]your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know? I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago. I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today? In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?[/p][/quote]How do you know about Thailand? Because you have family there. If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area. As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed. A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.[/p][/quote]only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive? your a footie fan aren't you? how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please![/p][/quote]Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion? Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about? You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving. As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?[/p][/quote]you have just had a local saying you spout rubbish & this post proves it. You are told in writing by your solicitors about future plans to have a docks at Dibden but move in then you complain about it & eventually stop it? why did you/they move in if they didn't want to live next to a docks should be the question not calling me names & I do feel that people have no right if they decide to take the route by the docks to then complain about traffic jams[/p][/quote]If a solicitor said that was going to happen, and I had thought of buying in the area, then I would possibly reconsider. However, if a solicitor said that, why has it not happened? The plans were rejected by the local planning authority, which was New Forest District Council, and on appeal, that rejection was up-held. I do not resort to name-calling, I leave that to you. Linesman
  • Score: 0

6:23pm Mon 13 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.
oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?
There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown.

I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay.

They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.
your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know?
I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago.
I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today?
In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?
How do you know about Thailand?

Because you have family there.

If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area.

As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed.



A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.
only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive?
your a footie fan aren't you?
how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please!
Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion?

Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about?

You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving.

As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?
you have just had a local saying you spout rubbish & this post proves it.
You are told in writing by your solicitors about future plans to have a docks at Dibden but move in then you complain about it & eventually stop it? why did you/they move in if they didn't want to live next to a docks should be the question not calling me names & I do feel that people have no right if they decide to take the route by the docks to then complain about traffic jams
If a solicitor said that was going to happen, and I had thought of buying in the area, then I would possibly reconsider.

However, if a solicitor said that, why has it not happened?

The plans were rejected by the local planning authority, which was New Forest District Council, and on appeal, that rejection was up-held.

I do not resort to name-calling, I leave that to you.
as these plans were just that plans & as I've bought & sold about 20 homes in my life time I know that any plans or future plans for an area the solicitor has to tell you & it comes up in his/her local searches.
the time these plans were put forward the Hythe Marina NIMBY brigade protested & a Labour government that had broken EU laws & given grant money for Shellhaven container Port blocked the expansion of what would have been competition for Gordon Browns Container Port.
so you see it was a Labour government trying to oust Johnson & gain seats in the South East that politically stopped Dibden
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.[/p][/quote]2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?[/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown. I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay. They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.[/p][/quote]your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know? I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago. I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today? In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?[/p][/quote]How do you know about Thailand? Because you have family there. If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area. As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed. A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.[/p][/quote]only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive? your a footie fan aren't you? how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please![/p][/quote]Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion? Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about? You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving. As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?[/p][/quote]you have just had a local saying you spout rubbish & this post proves it. You are told in writing by your solicitors about future plans to have a docks at Dibden but move in then you complain about it & eventually stop it? why did you/they move in if they didn't want to live next to a docks should be the question not calling me names & I do feel that people have no right if they decide to take the route by the docks to then complain about traffic jams[/p][/quote]If a solicitor said that was going to happen, and I had thought of buying in the area, then I would possibly reconsider. However, if a solicitor said that, why has it not happened? The plans were rejected by the local planning authority, which was New Forest District Council, and on appeal, that rejection was up-held. I do not resort to name-calling, I leave that to you.[/p][/quote]as these plans were just that plans & as I've bought & sold about 20 homes in my life time I know that any plans or future plans for an area the solicitor has to tell you & it comes up in his/her local searches. the time these plans were put forward the Hythe Marina NIMBY brigade protested & a Labour government that had broken EU laws & given grant money for Shellhaven container Port blocked the expansion of what would have been competition for Gordon Browns Container Port. so you see it was a Labour government trying to oust Johnson & gain seats in the South East that politically stopped Dibden loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.
oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?
There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown.

I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay.

They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.
your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know?
I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago.
I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today?
In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?
How do you know about Thailand?

Because you have family there.

If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area.

As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed.



A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.
only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive?
your a footie fan aren't you?
how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please!
Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion?

Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about?

You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving.

As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?
you have just had a local saying you spout rubbish & this post proves it.
You are told in writing by your solicitors about future plans to have a docks at Dibden but move in then you complain about it & eventually stop it? why did you/they move in if they didn't want to live next to a docks should be the question not calling me names & I do feel that people have no right if they decide to take the route by the docks to then complain about traffic jams
If a solicitor said that was going to happen, and I had thought of buying in the area, then I would possibly reconsider.

However, if a solicitor said that, why has it not happened?

The plans were rejected by the local planning authority, which was New Forest District Council, and on appeal, that rejection was up-held.

I do not resort to name-calling, I leave that to you.
as these plans were just that plans & as I've bought & sold about 20 homes in my life time I know that any plans or future plans for an area the solicitor has to tell you & it comes up in his/her local searches.
the time these plans were put forward the Hythe Marina NIMBY brigade protested & a Labour government that had broken EU laws & given grant money for Shellhaven container Port blocked the expansion of what would have been competition for Gordon Browns Container Port.
so you see it was a Labour government trying to oust Johnson & gain seats in the South East that politically stopped Dibden
Off at a tangent again.

Stick to the point.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.[/p][/quote]2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?[/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown. I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay. They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.[/p][/quote]your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know? I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago. I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today? In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?[/p][/quote]How do you know about Thailand? Because you have family there. If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area. As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed. A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.[/p][/quote]only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive? your a footie fan aren't you? how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please![/p][/quote]Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion? Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about? You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving. As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?[/p][/quote]you have just had a local saying you spout rubbish & this post proves it. You are told in writing by your solicitors about future plans to have a docks at Dibden but move in then you complain about it & eventually stop it? why did you/they move in if they didn't want to live next to a docks should be the question not calling me names & I do feel that people have no right if they decide to take the route by the docks to then complain about traffic jams[/p][/quote]If a solicitor said that was going to happen, and I had thought of buying in the area, then I would possibly reconsider. However, if a solicitor said that, why has it not happened? The plans were rejected by the local planning authority, which was New Forest District Council, and on appeal, that rejection was up-held. I do not resort to name-calling, I leave that to you.[/p][/quote]as these plans were just that plans & as I've bought & sold about 20 homes in my life time I know that any plans or future plans for an area the solicitor has to tell you & it comes up in his/her local searches. the time these plans were put forward the Hythe Marina NIMBY brigade protested & a Labour government that had broken EU laws & given grant money for Shellhaven container Port blocked the expansion of what would have been competition for Gordon Browns Container Port. so you see it was a Labour government trying to oust Johnson & gain seats in the South East that politically stopped Dibden[/p][/quote]Off at a tangent again. Stick to the point. Linesman
  • Score: 0

9:13pm Mon 13 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.
oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?
There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown.

I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay.

They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.
your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know?
I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago.
I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today?
In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?
How do you know about Thailand?

Because you have family there.

If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area.

As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed.



A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.
only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive?
your a footie fan aren't you?
how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please!
Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion?

Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about?

You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving.

As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?
you have just had a local saying you spout rubbish & this post proves it.
You are told in writing by your solicitors about future plans to have a docks at Dibden but move in then you complain about it & eventually stop it? why did you/they move in if they didn't want to live next to a docks should be the question not calling me names & I do feel that people have no right if they decide to take the route by the docks to then complain about traffic jams
If a solicitor said that was going to happen, and I had thought of buying in the area, then I would possibly reconsider.

However, if a solicitor said that, why has it not happened?

The plans were rejected by the local planning authority, which was New Forest District Council, and on appeal, that rejection was up-held.

I do not resort to name-calling, I leave that to you.
as these plans were just that plans & as I've bought & sold about 20 homes in my life time I know that any plans or future plans for an area the solicitor has to tell you & it comes up in his/her local searches.
the time these plans were put forward the Hythe Marina NIMBY brigade protested & a Labour government that had broken EU laws & given grant money for Shellhaven container Port blocked the expansion of what would have been competition for Gordon Browns Container Port.
so you see it was a Labour government trying to oust Johnson & gain seats in the South East that politically stopped Dibden
Off at a tangent again.

Stick to the point.
you said it was stopped by the local council & I know as well as you do it wasn't it was stopped by a Labour government official so I wasn't as you put it going off on a tangent
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.[/p][/quote]2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?[/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown. I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay. They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.[/p][/quote]your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know? I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago. I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today? In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?[/p][/quote]How do you know about Thailand? Because you have family there. If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area. As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed. A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.[/p][/quote]only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive? your a footie fan aren't you? how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please![/p][/quote]Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion? Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about? You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving. As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?[/p][/quote]you have just had a local saying you spout rubbish & this post proves it. You are told in writing by your solicitors about future plans to have a docks at Dibden but move in then you complain about it & eventually stop it? why did you/they move in if they didn't want to live next to a docks should be the question not calling me names & I do feel that people have no right if they decide to take the route by the docks to then complain about traffic jams[/p][/quote]If a solicitor said that was going to happen, and I had thought of buying in the area, then I would possibly reconsider. However, if a solicitor said that, why has it not happened? The plans were rejected by the local planning authority, which was New Forest District Council, and on appeal, that rejection was up-held. I do not resort to name-calling, I leave that to you.[/p][/quote]as these plans were just that plans & as I've bought & sold about 20 homes in my life time I know that any plans or future plans for an area the solicitor has to tell you & it comes up in his/her local searches. the time these plans were put forward the Hythe Marina NIMBY brigade protested & a Labour government that had broken EU laws & given grant money for Shellhaven container Port blocked the expansion of what would have been competition for Gordon Browns Container Port. so you see it was a Labour government trying to oust Johnson & gain seats in the South East that politically stopped Dibden[/p][/quote]Off at a tangent again. Stick to the point.[/p][/quote]you said it was stopped by the local council & I know as well as you do it wasn't it was stopped by a Labour government official so I wasn't as you put it going off on a tangent loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:51pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.
oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?
There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown.

I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay.

They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.
your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know?
I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago.
I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today?
In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?
How do you know about Thailand?

Because you have family there.

If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area.

As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed.



A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.
only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive?
your a footie fan aren't you?
how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please!
Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion?

Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about?

You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving.

As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?
you have just had a local saying you spout rubbish & this post proves it.
You are told in writing by your solicitors about future plans to have a docks at Dibden but move in then you complain about it & eventually stop it? why did you/they move in if they didn't want to live next to a docks should be the question not calling me names & I do feel that people have no right if they decide to take the route by the docks to then complain about traffic jams
If a solicitor said that was going to happen, and I had thought of buying in the area, then I would possibly reconsider.

However, if a solicitor said that, why has it not happened?

The plans were rejected by the local planning authority, which was New Forest District Council, and on appeal, that rejection was up-held.

I do not resort to name-calling, I leave that to you.
as these plans were just that plans & as I've bought & sold about 20 homes in my life time I know that any plans or future plans for an area the solicitor has to tell you & it comes up in his/her local searches.
the time these plans were put forward the Hythe Marina NIMBY brigade protested & a Labour government that had broken EU laws & given grant money for Shellhaven container Port blocked the expansion of what would have been competition for Gordon Browns Container Port.
so you see it was a Labour government trying to oust Johnson & gain seats in the South East that politically stopped Dibden
Off at a tangent again.

Stick to the point.
you said it was stopped by the local council & I know as well as you do it wasn't it was stopped by a Labour government official so I wasn't as you put it going off on a tangent
I said that the plans for the development of Dibden Bay were turned down by the New Forest District Council, which was the planning authority,

It went to appeal, and the decision was upheld.

These appeals are considered by Legal people who are based in Bristol, and are not appointed by the government.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.[/p][/quote]2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?[/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown. I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay. They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.[/p][/quote]your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know? I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago. I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today? In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?[/p][/quote]How do you know about Thailand? Because you have family there. If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area. As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed. A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.[/p][/quote]only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive? your a footie fan aren't you? how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please![/p][/quote]Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion? Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about? You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving. As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?[/p][/quote]you have just had a local saying you spout rubbish & this post proves it. You are told in writing by your solicitors about future plans to have a docks at Dibden but move in then you complain about it & eventually stop it? why did you/they move in if they didn't want to live next to a docks should be the question not calling me names & I do feel that people have no right if they decide to take the route by the docks to then complain about traffic jams[/p][/quote]If a solicitor said that was going to happen, and I had thought of buying in the area, then I would possibly reconsider. However, if a solicitor said that, why has it not happened? The plans were rejected by the local planning authority, which was New Forest District Council, and on appeal, that rejection was up-held. I do not resort to name-calling, I leave that to you.[/p][/quote]as these plans were just that plans & as I've bought & sold about 20 homes in my life time I know that any plans or future plans for an area the solicitor has to tell you & it comes up in his/her local searches. the time these plans were put forward the Hythe Marina NIMBY brigade protested & a Labour government that had broken EU laws & given grant money for Shellhaven container Port blocked the expansion of what would have been competition for Gordon Browns Container Port. so you see it was a Labour government trying to oust Johnson & gain seats in the South East that politically stopped Dibden[/p][/quote]Off at a tangent again. Stick to the point.[/p][/quote]you said it was stopped by the local council & I know as well as you do it wasn't it was stopped by a Labour government official so I wasn't as you put it going off on a tangent[/p][/quote]I said that the plans for the development of Dibden Bay were turned down by the New Forest District Council, which was the planning authority, It went to appeal, and the decision was upheld. These appeals are considered by Legal people who are based in Bristol, and are not appointed by the government. Linesman
  • Score: 0

6:16am Tue 14 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.
oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?
There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown.

I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay.

They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.
your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know?
I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago.
I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today?
In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?
How do you know about Thailand?

Because you have family there.

If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area.

As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed.



A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.
only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive?
your a footie fan aren't you?
how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please!
Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion?

Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about?

You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving.

As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?
you have just had a local saying you spout rubbish & this post proves it.
You are told in writing by your solicitors about future plans to have a docks at Dibden but move in then you complain about it & eventually stop it? why did you/they move in if they didn't want to live next to a docks should be the question not calling me names & I do feel that people have no right if they decide to take the route by the docks to then complain about traffic jams
If a solicitor said that was going to happen, and I had thought of buying in the area, then I would possibly reconsider.

However, if a solicitor said that, why has it not happened?

The plans were rejected by the local planning authority, which was New Forest District Council, and on appeal, that rejection was up-held.

I do not resort to name-calling, I leave that to you.
as these plans were just that plans & as I've bought & sold about 20 homes in my life time I know that any plans or future plans for an area the solicitor has to tell you & it comes up in his/her local searches.
the time these plans were put forward the Hythe Marina NIMBY brigade protested & a Labour government that had broken EU laws & given grant money for Shellhaven container Port blocked the expansion of what would have been competition for Gordon Browns Container Port.
so you see it was a Labour government trying to oust Johnson & gain seats in the South East that politically stopped Dibden
Off at a tangent again.

Stick to the point.
you said it was stopped by the local council & I know as well as you do it wasn't it was stopped by a Labour government official so I wasn't as you put it going off on a tangent
I said that the plans for the development of Dibden Bay were turned down by the New Forest District Council, which was the planning authority,

It went to appeal, and the decision was upheld.

These appeals are considered by Legal people who are based in Bristol, and are not appointed by the government.
sorry it went to the government minister so where did you get Bristol from?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.[/p][/quote]2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?[/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown. I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay. They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.[/p][/quote]your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know? I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago. I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today? In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?[/p][/quote]How do you know about Thailand? Because you have family there. If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area. As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed. A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.[/p][/quote]only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive? your a footie fan aren't you? how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please![/p][/quote]Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion? Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about? You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving. As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?[/p][/quote]you have just had a local saying you spout rubbish & this post proves it. You are told in writing by your solicitors about future plans to have a docks at Dibden but move in then you complain about it & eventually stop it? why did you/they move in if they didn't want to live next to a docks should be the question not calling me names & I do feel that people have no right if they decide to take the route by the docks to then complain about traffic jams[/p][/quote]If a solicitor said that was going to happen, and I had thought of buying in the area, then I would possibly reconsider. However, if a solicitor said that, why has it not happened? The plans were rejected by the local planning authority, which was New Forest District Council, and on appeal, that rejection was up-held. I do not resort to name-calling, I leave that to you.[/p][/quote]as these plans were just that plans & as I've bought & sold about 20 homes in my life time I know that any plans or future plans for an area the solicitor has to tell you & it comes up in his/her local searches. the time these plans were put forward the Hythe Marina NIMBY brigade protested & a Labour government that had broken EU laws & given grant money for Shellhaven container Port blocked the expansion of what would have been competition for Gordon Browns Container Port. so you see it was a Labour government trying to oust Johnson & gain seats in the South East that politically stopped Dibden[/p][/quote]Off at a tangent again. Stick to the point.[/p][/quote]you said it was stopped by the local council & I know as well as you do it wasn't it was stopped by a Labour government official so I wasn't as you put it going off on a tangent[/p][/quote]I said that the plans for the development of Dibden Bay were turned down by the New Forest District Council, which was the planning authority, It went to appeal, and the decision was upheld. These appeals are considered by Legal people who are based in Bristol, and are not appointed by the government.[/p][/quote]sorry it went to the government minister so where did you get Bristol from? loosehead
  • Score: 0

7:59am Tue 14 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Wafudude wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer.

He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not.

Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there.

When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services.

In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force.

Why?

Automation and computerisation.

The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason.

Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force.

Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again.

The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force.

ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.
You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.
Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea.

A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it.

IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port.

Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail.

Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them.

If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be?

My guess is that it would be,

Not In My Back Yard.
I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.
"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST."

Who has the Vested Interest?

Two groups of people.

1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet.

2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.

Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal.

Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different.

ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.
2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value.
oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?
There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown.

I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay.

They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.
your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know?
I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago.
I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today?
In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?
How do you know about Thailand?

Because you have family there.

If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area.

As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed.



A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.
only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive?
your a footie fan aren't you?
how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please!
Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion?

Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about?

You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving.

As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?
you have just had a local saying you spout rubbish & this post proves it.
You are told in writing by your solicitors about future plans to have a docks at Dibden but move in then you complain about it & eventually stop it? why did you/they move in if they didn't want to live next to a docks should be the question not calling me names & I do feel that people have no right if they decide to take the route by the docks to then complain about traffic jams
If a solicitor said that was going to happen, and I had thought of buying in the area, then I would possibly reconsider.

However, if a solicitor said that, why has it not happened?

The plans were rejected by the local planning authority, which was New Forest District Council, and on appeal, that rejection was up-held.

I do not resort to name-calling, I leave that to you.
as these plans were just that plans & as I've bought & sold about 20 homes in my life time I know that any plans or future plans for an area the solicitor has to tell you & it comes up in his/her local searches.
the time these plans were put forward the Hythe Marina NIMBY brigade protested & a Labour government that had broken EU laws & given grant money for Shellhaven container Port blocked the expansion of what would have been competition for Gordon Browns Container Port.
so you see it was a Labour government trying to oust Johnson & gain seats in the South East that politically stopped Dibden
Off at a tangent again.

Stick to the point.
you said it was stopped by the local council & I know as well as you do it wasn't it was stopped by a Labour government official so I wasn't as you put it going off on a tangent
I said that the plans for the development of Dibden Bay were turned down by the New Forest District Council, which was the planning authority,

It went to appeal, and the decision was upheld.

These appeals are considered by Legal people who are based in Bristol, and are not appointed by the government.
sorry it went to the government minister so where did you get Bristol from?
The government minister does not decide as they do not want it to be construed as a Political Decision.

The appeals process is considered by a specialist legal department which, it is my understand, in Bristol.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Wafudude[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Andrew Kind, who lives in the leafy suburbs of Locks Heath, would probably be one of the loudest complainers if a massive industrial development were proposed for his area, never mind what job opportunities it may offer. He mentions Fawley refinery, and asks whether it scared any visitors away, and concludes that it did not. Before ESSO moved in to buy the Cadland Estate, there was already a small refinery at Fawley, that went under the name of AGWI, so the current refinery is an extension to what was already there. When the new part was opened by Clement Attlee in 1951, it had a very large work-force, as did the factories that also located to the area, using the bye-products and providing the services. In the 60s the ESSO, as it was then, offered early retirement to many, and since then has continued to reduce its work-force. Why? Automation and computerisation. The associated companies also cut their work-force, or closed down entirely, for the same reason. Developing Dibden Bay as a container port will NOT produce many jobs, for exactly the same reason that factories at Fawley and Hythe have reduced their work-force. Yes, there will be short-term employment for those constructing the port, but the quicker that it is completed, the quicker they will be out of work again. The current container port does not have a great number of employees, and as any development of Dibden Bay would be administered by the current set-up, there is no reason to think there would be a requirement for a larger work-force. ABP are trying to sell the residents of Waterside, a dream, but fortunately those residents are not asleep.[/p][/quote]You are just another old timer like SOuthy who doesn't understand the concept of secondary job support. A prmary employer on a large diverse complex may only employ a few hundred but not only does the complex sustain many times more jobs on and offsite in contracts but the local wealth sustains a large number of tertiary jobs. You cealry don't understand economics or the dynamics of large industy, so I don;t know why you posted such a long pointless rambling waste.[/p][/quote]Yes, I am an Old Timer, as you care to label me, but with age comes wisdom and experience, and the ability to see through some of the 'sales talk' that has been put about in an attempt to 'sell' this idea. A good many gullible people swallow this sales talk, and as you appear to be located some considerable distance from the area in question, it would appear that you have accepted it. IF Dibden Bay were developed as has been proposed, I very much doubt that, as a Primary Employer, they would directly employ the Hundreds that you are claiming. That is certainly Not the case in the current container port. Local wealth creation. I very much doubt it would create any long-term jobs, and would be interested to read your opinion on what these 'large number of tertiary jobs' would entail. Like Andrew Kind, in the leafy suburbs or Locks Heath, from the leafy village of Wickham, it is safe distance Dibden to tell them that concreting over a massive green open space, would be beneficial for them. If a massive industrial complex were planned for Wickham, with the promise of hundreds of jobs being created, I wonder what your attitude would be? My guess is that it would be, Not In My Back Yard.[/p][/quote]I live in Dibden - Linesman, you are spouting absolute rubbish. I am guessing that you are of retirement age and therefore suggest that you do so, and leave the prosperity growth and development of our region to those that have a vested interest.[/p][/quote]"......and leave the prosperity growth and development of or region TO THOSE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST." Who has the Vested Interest? Two groups of people. 1) The share-holders of ABP who see a big return on the investment, and a nice annual dividend pay packet. 2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. Other than during the desecration of this open space during the construction process, the number of jobs created would be minimal. Since the container port opened in Souhampton, the number of people employed there in relation to the number of ships and containers being handled has considerably decreased, and there is no reason to assume that a development at Dibden Bay would be any different. ABP is there to make money, and people are an expense, which is why they find it cheaper to invest in automation, that does not take tea-breaks or paid holidays, instead of people, who do.[/p][/quote]2) People who have invested in homes in the area, who will see a considerable drop in value. oh! you mean those people who's solicitors would have informed them of ABP's plans before they bought the properties you now say will be effected by the very development they were informed about before buying them?[/p][/quote]There is a considerable difference between Plans and Permission being granted, as recent legal action has shown. I know it would not suit your argument, but there are plenty of people who bought their homes who bought their homes, or have lived in their homes when Dibden Bay WAS a Bay. They bought their homes when the Castle Line ran a regular service to South Africa and Cunard ran a regular service to New York.[/p][/quote]your not from Southampton or the waterside so how the hell do you know? I helped a person move into a house in Marchwood in one of the new estates built over there he like others received a letter from his solicitor talking about the plans for the Dibden Bay development by ABP that was over thirty years ago. I'd love to see the actual amount of houses there were at Dibden before the bay was filled in & then lets see how many of those residents are still alive today? In posts about Dibden bay by protestors ( before it was stopped) they admitted they had been told of the plans by ABP for this land to be used for dock related activities so again your talking out of where the sun doesn't shine so go to your area stand for council if your not already a councillor & tell the public your Anti Jobs & higher council taxes go on lets see how many people vote for you?[/p][/quote]How do you know about Thailand? Because you have family there. If you know the area, you would be well aware of Dibden church. which is centuries old, and you could check out the tombstones and the dates on them. That would give you a clue as to how long people have been living in the area. As I have said elsewhere, anyone can have plans for anything, but that does not mean that the plans will be passed. A bit longer than the thirty years that your pal has lived at Marchwood.[/p][/quote]only the ones who lived there before the river was dredged or the plans were put in place to infill the bay can say they're against it & exactly how many are still alive? your a footie fan aren't you? how many people moved next to the Dell only then to complain about match days? they had no right to do that as they must have known what they were moving to as did the residents of the new estates on the waterside so come on get real please![/p][/quote]Why should those who moved in after be denied the right to express an opinion? Is that your right-wing view of what democracy is all about? You use the example of people who bought houses near the Dell not having the right to complain about match-day problems. Certainly they had no grounds to complain about light pollution from the floodlights, or the noise of the crowd, but they had a right to expect traffic to be kept moving. As you have used that as an example, I assume that you are also saying that, as Southampton has been a shipping terminal for centuries, NOBODY has the right to complain about the traffic problems that the arrival of the cruise ships has been a contributory factor?[/p][/quote]you have just had a local saying you spout rubbish & this post proves it. You are told in writing by your solicitors about future plans to have a docks at Dibden but move in then you complain about it & eventually stop it? why did you/they move in if they didn't want to live next to a docks should be the question not calling me names & I do feel that people have no right if they decide to take the route by the docks to then complain about traffic jams[/p][/quote]If a solicitor said that was going to happen, and I had thought of buying in the area, then I would possibly reconsider. However, if a solicitor said that, why has it not happened? The plans were rejected by the local planning authority, which was New Forest District Council, and on appeal, that rejection was up-held. I do not resort to name-calling, I leave that to you.[/p][/quote]as these plans were just that plans & as I've bought & sold about 20 homes in my life time I know that any plans or future plans for an area the solicitor has to tell you & it comes up in his/her local searches. the time these plans were put forward the Hythe Marina NIMBY brigade protested & a Labour government that had broken EU laws & given grant money for Shellhaven container Port blocked the expansion of what would have been competition for Gordon Browns Container Port. so you see it was a Labour government trying to oust Johnson & gain seats in the South East that politically stopped Dibden[/p][/quote]Off at a tangent again. Stick to the point.[/p][/quote]you said it was stopped by the local council & I know as well as you do it wasn't it was stopped by a Labour government official so I wasn't as you put it going off on a tangent[/p][/quote]I said that the plans for the development of Dibden Bay were turned down by the New Forest District Council, which was the planning authority, It went to appeal, and the decision was upheld. These appeals are considered by Legal people who are based in Bristol, and are not appointed by the government.[/p][/quote]sorry it went to the government minister so where did you get Bristol from?[/p][/quote]The government minister does not decide as they do not want it to be construed as a Political Decision. The appeals process is considered by a specialist legal department which, it is my understand, in Bristol. Linesman
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Tue 14 Jan 14

aldermoorboy says...

Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.
Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

5:28pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Linesman says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.
That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.[/p][/quote]That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis. Linesman
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Tue 14 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.
That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.
not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it?
Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.[/p][/quote]That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.[/p][/quote]not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it? Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council! loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:50pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.
That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.
not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it?
Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council!
They are still borrowing.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.[/p][/quote]That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.[/p][/quote]not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it? Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council![/p][/quote]They are still borrowing. Linesman
  • Score: 0

9:56am Wed 15 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.
That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.
not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it?
Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council!
And end up with even more White Elephant buildings.

How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened?

How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.[/p][/quote]That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.[/p][/quote]not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it? Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council![/p][/quote]And end up with even more White Elephant buildings. How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened? How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power? Linesman
  • Score: 0

2:24pm Wed 15 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.
That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.
not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it?
Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council!
And end up with even more White Elephant buildings.

How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened?

How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?
Ask Councillor Burke why he praised the so called White Elephant being a Labour Councillor?
Pay day loans well that was bought up under Priministers question times & the figures are about the same now as under Labour?
What I don't get is why when most benefit payments & wages are now paid into the bank why haven't these people got overdraft facilities?
Surely any one with half a brain can see the amount of interest on two-three days overdraft is a lot less than with those sharks.
Instead of continuously blaming the government instead try looking at peoples priorities now. smart phones for all the kids as well as both parents costing £40 each a month,sky or Virgin tv. gas guzzling cars to take the kids round the corner to school or parents to work where a cheaper to run car or a bicycle would suffice.
There are people who genuinely need help but not at pay day lenders.
I can shop buy a car pay for a mortgage save money & pay for my wife to go & visit her parents in Thailand with £1,000 & I get £16,000 after tax so I'm not on super money so why are these people struggling? would it be any better under Labour with out increasing the debt?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.[/p][/quote]That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.[/p][/quote]not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it? Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council![/p][/quote]And end up with even more White Elephant buildings. How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened? How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?[/p][/quote]Ask Councillor Burke why he praised the so called White Elephant being a Labour Councillor? Pay day loans well that was bought up under Priministers question times & the figures are about the same now as under Labour? What I don't get is why when most benefit payments & wages are now paid into the bank why haven't these people got overdraft facilities? Surely any one with half a brain can see the amount of interest on two-three days overdraft is a lot less than with those sharks. Instead of continuously blaming the government instead try looking at peoples priorities now. smart phones for all the kids as well as both parents costing £40 each a month,sky or Virgin tv. gas guzzling cars to take the kids round the corner to school or parents to work where a cheaper to run car or a bicycle would suffice. There are people who genuinely need help but not at pay day lenders. I can shop buy a car pay for a mortgage save money & pay for my wife to go & visit her parents in Thailand with £1,000 & I get £16,000 after tax so I'm not on super money so why are these people struggling? would it be any better under Labour with out increasing the debt? loosehead
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.
That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.
not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it?
Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council!
And end up with even more White Elephant buildings.

How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened?

How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?
Ask Councillor Burke why he praised the so called White Elephant being a Labour Councillor?
Pay day loans well that was bought up under Priministers question times & the figures are about the same now as under Labour?
What I don't get is why when most benefit payments & wages are now paid into the bank why haven't these people got overdraft facilities?
Surely any one with half a brain can see the amount of interest on two-three days overdraft is a lot less than with those sharks.
Instead of continuously blaming the government instead try looking at peoples priorities now. smart phones for all the kids as well as both parents costing £40 each a month,sky or Virgin tv. gas guzzling cars to take the kids round the corner to school or parents to work where a cheaper to run car or a bicycle would suffice.
There are people who genuinely need help but not at pay day lenders.
I can shop buy a car pay for a mortgage save money & pay for my wife to go & visit her parents in Thailand with £1,000 & I get £16,000 after tax so I'm not on super money so why are these people struggling? would it be any better under Labour with out increasing the debt?
If, as you claim, most benefits are now paid into the bank, then the obvious reason why they cannot get overdraft facilities is because, if that is their only source of income, they would not be a good bet to be able to pay it off.

It is no help knowing that the bank's interest rate is lower than the Pay Day Loan firms, when those in desperate need cannot get the overdraft, and have had their benefit cut.

Banks are not charities - only to their top employees.

You appear to think that everyone on benefit, who happens to have a wife and children, puts the possession of smart phones for all of them, sky/virgin tv and a gas guzzling car. I was unaware of that, and must assume that it is confined to the area where you live, because that is certainly not the case where I live. It is also interesting to note that the number of people subscribing to SKY has declined over the past few years rather than increase.

So your income is £1,333 per month, or £307 a week. Presumably with no children at home, which makes life a lot less expensive.

I have no idea what your mortgage payments are your other outgoings, but I think that you would be far better off than someone on benefits with no savings.

I am fortunate in that I have never been out of work, but there is no guarantee that if I were leaving school now, that I would be as fortunate, and I have every sympathy tor those who have no work, because the majority do not want to be on benefit.

You ask whether it would be any better under Labour. I don't know. I could claim that it would be, and you could claim that it would not, but we will never know.

What we do know is, those in need are the ones that have been hardest hit in the last three years.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.[/p][/quote]That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.[/p][/quote]not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it? Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council![/p][/quote]And end up with even more White Elephant buildings. How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened? How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?[/p][/quote]Ask Councillor Burke why he praised the so called White Elephant being a Labour Councillor? Pay day loans well that was bought up under Priministers question times & the figures are about the same now as under Labour? What I don't get is why when most benefit payments & wages are now paid into the bank why haven't these people got overdraft facilities? Surely any one with half a brain can see the amount of interest on two-three days overdraft is a lot less than with those sharks. Instead of continuously blaming the government instead try looking at peoples priorities now. smart phones for all the kids as well as both parents costing £40 each a month,sky or Virgin tv. gas guzzling cars to take the kids round the corner to school or parents to work where a cheaper to run car or a bicycle would suffice. There are people who genuinely need help but not at pay day lenders. I can shop buy a car pay for a mortgage save money & pay for my wife to go & visit her parents in Thailand with £1,000 & I get £16,000 after tax so I'm not on super money so why are these people struggling? would it be any better under Labour with out increasing the debt?[/p][/quote]If, as you claim, most benefits are now paid into the bank, then the obvious reason why they cannot get overdraft facilities is because, if that is their only source of income, they would not be a good bet to be able to pay it off. It is no help knowing that the bank's interest rate is lower than the Pay Day Loan firms, when those in desperate need cannot get the overdraft, and have had their benefit cut. Banks are not charities - only to their top employees. You appear to think that everyone on benefit, who happens to have a wife and children, puts the possession of smart phones for all of them, sky/virgin tv and a gas guzzling car. I was unaware of that, and must assume that it is confined to the area where you live, because that is certainly not the case where I live. It is also interesting to note that the number of people subscribing to SKY has declined over the past few years rather than increase. So your income is £1,333 per month, or £307 a week. Presumably with no children at home, which makes life a lot less expensive. I have no idea what your mortgage payments are your other outgoings, but I think that you would be far better off than someone on benefits with no savings. I am fortunate in that I have never been out of work, but there is no guarantee that if I were leaving school now, that I would be as fortunate, and I have every sympathy tor those who have no work, because the majority do not want to be on benefit. You ask whether it would be any better under Labour. I don't know. I could claim that it would be, and you could claim that it would not, but we will never know. What we do know is, those in need are the ones that have been hardest hit in the last three years. Linesman
  • Score: 0

9:28pm Wed 15 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.
That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.
not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it?
Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council!
And end up with even more White Elephant buildings.

How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened?

How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?
Ask Councillor Burke why he praised the so called White Elephant being a Labour Councillor?
Pay day loans well that was bought up under Priministers question times & the figures are about the same now as under Labour?
What I don't get is why when most benefit payments & wages are now paid into the bank why haven't these people got overdraft facilities?
Surely any one with half a brain can see the amount of interest on two-three days overdraft is a lot less than with those sharks.
Instead of continuously blaming the government instead try looking at peoples priorities now. smart phones for all the kids as well as both parents costing £40 each a month,sky or Virgin tv. gas guzzling cars to take the kids round the corner to school or parents to work where a cheaper to run car or a bicycle would suffice.
There are people who genuinely need help but not at pay day lenders.
I can shop buy a car pay for a mortgage save money & pay for my wife to go & visit her parents in Thailand with £1,000 & I get £16,000 after tax so I'm not on super money so why are these people struggling? would it be any better under Labour with out increasing the debt?
If, as you claim, most benefits are now paid into the bank, then the obvious reason why they cannot get overdraft facilities is because, if that is their only source of income, they would not be a good bet to be able to pay it off.

It is no help knowing that the bank's interest rate is lower than the Pay Day Loan firms, when those in desperate need cannot get the overdraft, and have had their benefit cut.

Banks are not charities - only to their top employees.

You appear to think that everyone on benefit, who happens to have a wife and children, puts the possession of smart phones for all of them, sky/virgin tv and a gas guzzling car. I was unaware of that, and must assume that it is confined to the area where you live, because that is certainly not the case where I live. It is also interesting to note that the number of people subscribing to SKY has declined over the past few years rather than increase.

So your income is £1,333 per month, or £307 a week. Presumably with no children at home, which makes life a lot less expensive.

I have no idea what your mortgage payments are your other outgoings, but I think that you would be far better off than someone on benefits with no savings.

I am fortunate in that I have never been out of work, but there is no guarantee that if I were leaving school now, that I would be as fortunate, and I have every sympathy tor those who have no work, because the majority do not want to be on benefit.

You ask whether it would be any better under Labour. I don't know. I could claim that it would be, and you could claim that it would not, but we will never know.

What we do know is, those in need are the ones that have been hardest hit in the last three years.
i give up with you you can't think that your wrong so lose the chip off that shoulder try getting bought up in a family on welfare ( as I did) struggling because your fathers in prison & your mother has to stay at home to look after the young kids.
you at 11 have to do paper rounds log rounds & help the milkman because your mother smokes non stop & the money you earn pays towards the food on the table as my earnings did.
to go on about this lot being hard up is tantamount to a total joke
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.[/p][/quote]That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.[/p][/quote]not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it? Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council![/p][/quote]And end up with even more White Elephant buildings. How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened? How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?[/p][/quote]Ask Councillor Burke why he praised the so called White Elephant being a Labour Councillor? Pay day loans well that was bought up under Priministers question times & the figures are about the same now as under Labour? What I don't get is why when most benefit payments & wages are now paid into the bank why haven't these people got overdraft facilities? Surely any one with half a brain can see the amount of interest on two-three days overdraft is a lot less than with those sharks. Instead of continuously blaming the government instead try looking at peoples priorities now. smart phones for all the kids as well as both parents costing £40 each a month,sky or Virgin tv. gas guzzling cars to take the kids round the corner to school or parents to work where a cheaper to run car or a bicycle would suffice. There are people who genuinely need help but not at pay day lenders. I can shop buy a car pay for a mortgage save money & pay for my wife to go & visit her parents in Thailand with £1,000 & I get £16,000 after tax so I'm not on super money so why are these people struggling? would it be any better under Labour with out increasing the debt?[/p][/quote]If, as you claim, most benefits are now paid into the bank, then the obvious reason why they cannot get overdraft facilities is because, if that is their only source of income, they would not be a good bet to be able to pay it off. It is no help knowing that the bank's interest rate is lower than the Pay Day Loan firms, when those in desperate need cannot get the overdraft, and have had their benefit cut. Banks are not charities - only to their top employees. You appear to think that everyone on benefit, who happens to have a wife and children, puts the possession of smart phones for all of them, sky/virgin tv and a gas guzzling car. I was unaware of that, and must assume that it is confined to the area where you live, because that is certainly not the case where I live. It is also interesting to note that the number of people subscribing to SKY has declined over the past few years rather than increase. So your income is £1,333 per month, or £307 a week. Presumably with no children at home, which makes life a lot less expensive. I have no idea what your mortgage payments are your other outgoings, but I think that you would be far better off than someone on benefits with no savings. I am fortunate in that I have never been out of work, but there is no guarantee that if I were leaving school now, that I would be as fortunate, and I have every sympathy tor those who have no work, because the majority do not want to be on benefit. You ask whether it would be any better under Labour. I don't know. I could claim that it would be, and you could claim that it would not, but we will never know. What we do know is, those in need are the ones that have been hardest hit in the last three years.[/p][/quote]i give up with you you can't think that your wrong so lose the chip off that shoulder try getting bought up in a family on welfare ( as I did) struggling because your fathers in prison & your mother has to stay at home to look after the young kids. you at 11 have to do paper rounds log rounds & help the milkman because your mother smokes non stop & the money you earn pays towards the food on the table as my earnings did. to go on about this lot being hard up is tantamount to a total joke loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:54am Thu 16 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.
That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.
not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it?
Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council!
And end up with even more White Elephant buildings.

How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened?

How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?
Ask Councillor Burke why he praised the so called White Elephant being a Labour Councillor?
Pay day loans well that was bought up under Priministers question times & the figures are about the same now as under Labour?
What I don't get is why when most benefit payments & wages are now paid into the bank why haven't these people got overdraft facilities?
Surely any one with half a brain can see the amount of interest on two-three days overdraft is a lot less than with those sharks.
Instead of continuously blaming the government instead try looking at peoples priorities now. smart phones for all the kids as well as both parents costing £40 each a month,sky or Virgin tv. gas guzzling cars to take the kids round the corner to school or parents to work where a cheaper to run car or a bicycle would suffice.
There are people who genuinely need help but not at pay day lenders.
I can shop buy a car pay for a mortgage save money & pay for my wife to go & visit her parents in Thailand with £1,000 & I get £16,000 after tax so I'm not on super money so why are these people struggling? would it be any better under Labour with out increasing the debt?
If, as you claim, most benefits are now paid into the bank, then the obvious reason why they cannot get overdraft facilities is because, if that is their only source of income, they would not be a good bet to be able to pay it off.

It is no help knowing that the bank's interest rate is lower than the Pay Day Loan firms, when those in desperate need cannot get the overdraft, and have had their benefit cut.

Banks are not charities - only to their top employees.

You appear to think that everyone on benefit, who happens to have a wife and children, puts the possession of smart phones for all of them, sky/virgin tv and a gas guzzling car. I was unaware of that, and must assume that it is confined to the area where you live, because that is certainly not the case where I live. It is also interesting to note that the number of people subscribing to SKY has declined over the past few years rather than increase.

So your income is £1,333 per month, or £307 a week. Presumably with no children at home, which makes life a lot less expensive.

I have no idea what your mortgage payments are your other outgoings, but I think that you would be far better off than someone on benefits with no savings.

I am fortunate in that I have never been out of work, but there is no guarantee that if I were leaving school now, that I would be as fortunate, and I have every sympathy tor those who have no work, because the majority do not want to be on benefit.

You ask whether it would be any better under Labour. I don't know. I could claim that it would be, and you could claim that it would not, but we will never know.

What we do know is, those in need are the ones that have been hardest hit in the last three years.
i give up with you you can't think that your wrong so lose the chip off that shoulder try getting bought up in a family on welfare ( as I did) struggling because your fathers in prison & your mother has to stay at home to look after the young kids.
you at 11 have to do paper rounds log rounds & help the milkman because your mother smokes non stop & the money you earn pays towards the food on the table as my earnings did.
to go on about this lot being hard up is tantamount to a total joke
And of course, I suppose that you would claim that you would admit it when you were wrong.

If that is the case, why did you not admit that you were wrong when you claimed that I called you a liar?

It was patently obvious that I had not, and that you had interpreted perfectly straight forward English, into something that you thought that you could hold against me.

I gave you a perfectly truthful, logical explanation, but No, you would not accept it.

So you were brought up on welfare. In that case, I assume that you are speaking from experience when you claim that people on benefit have all the luxuries that those in employment cannot afford.

If you are not, then why can you not accept the FACT that it is only a very small minority that are benefit scroungers?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.[/p][/quote]That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.[/p][/quote]not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it? Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council![/p][/quote]And end up with even more White Elephant buildings. How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened? How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?[/p][/quote]Ask Councillor Burke why he praised the so called White Elephant being a Labour Councillor? Pay day loans well that was bought up under Priministers question times & the figures are about the same now as under Labour? What I don't get is why when most benefit payments & wages are now paid into the bank why haven't these people got overdraft facilities? Surely any one with half a brain can see the amount of interest on two-three days overdraft is a lot less than with those sharks. Instead of continuously blaming the government instead try looking at peoples priorities now. smart phones for all the kids as well as both parents costing £40 each a month,sky or Virgin tv. gas guzzling cars to take the kids round the corner to school or parents to work where a cheaper to run car or a bicycle would suffice. There are people who genuinely need help but not at pay day lenders. I can shop buy a car pay for a mortgage save money & pay for my wife to go & visit her parents in Thailand with £1,000 & I get £16,000 after tax so I'm not on super money so why are these people struggling? would it be any better under Labour with out increasing the debt?[/p][/quote]If, as you claim, most benefits are now paid into the bank, then the obvious reason why they cannot get overdraft facilities is because, if that is their only source of income, they would not be a good bet to be able to pay it off. It is no help knowing that the bank's interest rate is lower than the Pay Day Loan firms, when those in desperate need cannot get the overdraft, and have had their benefit cut. Banks are not charities - only to their top employees. You appear to think that everyone on benefit, who happens to have a wife and children, puts the possession of smart phones for all of them, sky/virgin tv and a gas guzzling car. I was unaware of that, and must assume that it is confined to the area where you live, because that is certainly not the case where I live. It is also interesting to note that the number of people subscribing to SKY has declined over the past few years rather than increase. So your income is £1,333 per month, or £307 a week. Presumably with no children at home, which makes life a lot less expensive. I have no idea what your mortgage payments are your other outgoings, but I think that you would be far better off than someone on benefits with no savings. I am fortunate in that I have never been out of work, but there is no guarantee that if I were leaving school now, that I would be as fortunate, and I have every sympathy tor those who have no work, because the majority do not want to be on benefit. You ask whether it would be any better under Labour. I don't know. I could claim that it would be, and you could claim that it would not, but we will never know. What we do know is, those in need are the ones that have been hardest hit in the last three years.[/p][/quote]i give up with you you can't think that your wrong so lose the chip off that shoulder try getting bought up in a family on welfare ( as I did) struggling because your fathers in prison & your mother has to stay at home to look after the young kids. you at 11 have to do paper rounds log rounds & help the milkman because your mother smokes non stop & the money you earn pays towards the food on the table as my earnings did. to go on about this lot being hard up is tantamount to a total joke[/p][/quote]And of course, I suppose that you would claim that you would admit it when you were wrong. If that is the case, why did you not admit that you were wrong when you claimed that I called you a liar? It was patently obvious that I had not, and that you had interpreted perfectly straight forward English, into something that you thought that you could hold against me. I gave you a perfectly truthful, logical explanation, but No, you would not accept it. So you were brought up on welfare. In that case, I assume that you are speaking from experience when you claim that people on benefit have all the luxuries that those in employment cannot afford. If you are not, then why can you not accept the FACT that it is only a very small minority that are benefit scroungers? Linesman
  • Score: 0

8:57am Thu 16 Jan 14

Linesman says...

Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.
That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.
not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it?
Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council!
And end up with even more White Elephant buildings.

How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened?

How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?
Ask Councillor Burke why he praised the so called White Elephant being a Labour Councillor?
Pay day loans well that was bought up under Priministers question times & the figures are about the same now as under Labour?
What I don't get is why when most benefit payments & wages are now paid into the bank why haven't these people got overdraft facilities?
Surely any one with half a brain can see the amount of interest on two-three days overdraft is a lot less than with those sharks.
Instead of continuously blaming the government instead try looking at peoples priorities now. smart phones for all the kids as well as both parents costing £40 each a month,sky or Virgin tv. gas guzzling cars to take the kids round the corner to school or parents to work where a cheaper to run car or a bicycle would suffice.
There are people who genuinely need help but not at pay day lenders.
I can shop buy a car pay for a mortgage save money & pay for my wife to go & visit her parents in Thailand with £1,000 & I get £16,000 after tax so I'm not on super money so why are these people struggling? would it be any better under Labour with out increasing the debt?
If, as you claim, most benefits are now paid into the bank, then the obvious reason why they cannot get overdraft facilities is because, if that is their only source of income, they would not be a good bet to be able to pay it off.

It is no help knowing that the bank's interest rate is lower than the Pay Day Loan firms, when those in desperate need cannot get the overdraft, and have had their benefit cut.

Banks are not charities - only to their top employees.

You appear to think that everyone on benefit, who happens to have a wife and children, puts the possession of smart phones for all of them, sky/virgin tv and a gas guzzling car. I was unaware of that, and must assume that it is confined to the area where you live, because that is certainly not the case where I live. It is also interesting to note that the number of people subscribing to SKY has declined over the past few years rather than increase.

So your income is £1,333 per month, or £307 a week. Presumably with no children at home, which makes life a lot less expensive.

I have no idea what your mortgage payments are your other outgoings, but I think that you would be far better off than someone on benefits with no savings.

I am fortunate in that I have never been out of work, but there is no guarantee that if I were leaving school now, that I would be as fortunate, and I have every sympathy tor those who have no work, because the majority do not want to be on benefit.

You ask whether it would be any better under Labour. I don't know. I could claim that it would be, and you could claim that it would not, but we will never know.

What we do know is, those in need are the ones that have been hardest hit in the last three years.
i give up with you you can't think that your wrong so lose the chip off that shoulder try getting bought up in a family on welfare ( as I did) struggling because your fathers in prison & your mother has to stay at home to look after the young kids.
you at 11 have to do paper rounds log rounds & help the milkman because your mother smokes non stop & the money you earn pays towards the food on the table as my earnings did.
to go on about this lot being hard up is tantamount to a total joke
And of course, I suppose that you would claim that you would admit it when you were wrong.

If that is the case, why did you not admit that you were wrong when you claimed that I called you a liar?

It was patently obvious that I had not, and that you had interpreted perfectly straight forward English, into something that you thought that you could hold against me.

I gave you a perfectly truthful, logical explanation, but No, you would not accept it.

So you were brought up on welfare. In that case, I assume that you are speaking from experience when you claim that people on benefit have all the luxuries that those in employment cannot afford.

If you are not, then why can you not accept the FACT that it is only a very small minority that are benefit scroungers?
ps. With all your extended family that you have spoken of, I assume that they would also have been keen to help your family out, or did they have the attitude that you have - that you were benefit scroungers?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.[/p][/quote]That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.[/p][/quote]not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it? Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council![/p][/quote]And end up with even more White Elephant buildings. How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened? How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?[/p][/quote]Ask Councillor Burke why he praised the so called White Elephant being a Labour Councillor? Pay day loans well that was bought up under Priministers question times & the figures are about the same now as under Labour? What I don't get is why when most benefit payments & wages are now paid into the bank why haven't these people got overdraft facilities? Surely any one with half a brain can see the amount of interest on two-three days overdraft is a lot less than with those sharks. Instead of continuously blaming the government instead try looking at peoples priorities now. smart phones for all the kids as well as both parents costing £40 each a month,sky or Virgin tv. gas guzzling cars to take the kids round the corner to school or parents to work where a cheaper to run car or a bicycle would suffice. There are people who genuinely need help but not at pay day lenders. I can shop buy a car pay for a mortgage save money & pay for my wife to go & visit her parents in Thailand with £1,000 & I get £16,000 after tax so I'm not on super money so why are these people struggling? would it be any better under Labour with out increasing the debt?[/p][/quote]If, as you claim, most benefits are now paid into the bank, then the obvious reason why they cannot get overdraft facilities is because, if that is their only source of income, they would not be a good bet to be able to pay it off. It is no help knowing that the bank's interest rate is lower than the Pay Day Loan firms, when those in desperate need cannot get the overdraft, and have had their benefit cut. Banks are not charities - only to their top employees. You appear to think that everyone on benefit, who happens to have a wife and children, puts the possession of smart phones for all of them, sky/virgin tv and a gas guzzling car. I was unaware of that, and must assume that it is confined to the area where you live, because that is certainly not the case where I live. It is also interesting to note that the number of people subscribing to SKY has declined over the past few years rather than increase. So your income is £1,333 per month, or £307 a week. Presumably with no children at home, which makes life a lot less expensive. I have no idea what your mortgage payments are your other outgoings, but I think that you would be far better off than someone on benefits with no savings. I am fortunate in that I have never been out of work, but there is no guarantee that if I were leaving school now, that I would be as fortunate, and I have every sympathy tor those who have no work, because the majority do not want to be on benefit. You ask whether it would be any better under Labour. I don't know. I could claim that it would be, and you could claim that it would not, but we will never know. What we do know is, those in need are the ones that have been hardest hit in the last three years.[/p][/quote]i give up with you you can't think that your wrong so lose the chip off that shoulder try getting bought up in a family on welfare ( as I did) struggling because your fathers in prison & your mother has to stay at home to look after the young kids. you at 11 have to do paper rounds log rounds & help the milkman because your mother smokes non stop & the money you earn pays towards the food on the table as my earnings did. to go on about this lot being hard up is tantamount to a total joke[/p][/quote]And of course, I suppose that you would claim that you would admit it when you were wrong. If that is the case, why did you not admit that you were wrong when you claimed that I called you a liar? It was patently obvious that I had not, and that you had interpreted perfectly straight forward English, into something that you thought that you could hold against me. I gave you a perfectly truthful, logical explanation, but No, you would not accept it. So you were brought up on welfare. In that case, I assume that you are speaking from experience when you claim that people on benefit have all the luxuries that those in employment cannot afford. If you are not, then why can you not accept the FACT that it is only a very small minority that are benefit scroungers?[/p][/quote]ps. With all your extended family that you have spoken of, I assume that they would also have been keen to help your family out, or did they have the attitude that you have - that you were benefit scroungers? Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:40am Thu 16 Jan 14

Linesman says...

Linesman wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.
That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.
not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it?
Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council!
And end up with even more White Elephant buildings.

How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened?

How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?
Ask Councillor Burke why he praised the so called White Elephant being a Labour Councillor?
Pay day loans well that was bought up under Priministers question times & the figures are about the same now as under Labour?
What I don't get is why when most benefit payments & wages are now paid into the bank why haven't these people got overdraft facilities?
Surely any one with half a brain can see the amount of interest on two-three days overdraft is a lot less than with those sharks.
Instead of continuously blaming the government instead try looking at peoples priorities now. smart phones for all the kids as well as both parents costing £40 each a month,sky or Virgin tv. gas guzzling cars to take the kids round the corner to school or parents to work where a cheaper to run car or a bicycle would suffice.
There are people who genuinely need help but not at pay day lenders.
I can shop buy a car pay for a mortgage save money & pay for my wife to go & visit her parents in Thailand with £1,000 & I get £16,000 after tax so I'm not on super money so why are these people struggling? would it be any better under Labour with out increasing the debt?
If, as you claim, most benefits are now paid into the bank, then the obvious reason why they cannot get overdraft facilities is because, if that is their only source of income, they would not be a good bet to be able to pay it off.

It is no help knowing that the bank's interest rate is lower than the Pay Day Loan firms, when those in desperate need cannot get the overdraft, and have had their benefit cut.

Banks are not charities - only to their top employees.

You appear to think that everyone on benefit, who happens to have a wife and children, puts the possession of smart phones for all of them, sky/virgin tv and a gas guzzling car. I was unaware of that, and must assume that it is confined to the area where you live, because that is certainly not the case where I live. It is also interesting to note that the number of people subscribing to SKY has declined over the past few years rather than increase.

So your income is £1,333 per month, or £307 a week. Presumably with no children at home, which makes life a lot less expensive.

I have no idea what your mortgage payments are your other outgoings, but I think that you would be far better off than someone on benefits with no savings.

I am fortunate in that I have never been out of work, but there is no guarantee that if I were leaving school now, that I would be as fortunate, and I have every sympathy tor those who have no work, because the majority do not want to be on benefit.

You ask whether it would be any better under Labour. I don't know. I could claim that it would be, and you could claim that it would not, but we will never know.

What we do know is, those in need are the ones that have been hardest hit in the last three years.
i give up with you you can't think that your wrong so lose the chip off that shoulder try getting bought up in a family on welfare ( as I did) struggling because your fathers in prison & your mother has to stay at home to look after the young kids.
you at 11 have to do paper rounds log rounds & help the milkman because your mother smokes non stop & the money you earn pays towards the food on the table as my earnings did.
to go on about this lot being hard up is tantamount to a total joke
And of course, I suppose that you would claim that you would admit it when you were wrong.

If that is the case, why did you not admit that you were wrong when you claimed that I called you a liar?

It was patently obvious that I had not, and that you had interpreted perfectly straight forward English, into something that you thought that you could hold against me.

I gave you a perfectly truthful, logical explanation, but No, you would not accept it.

So you were brought up on welfare. In that case, I assume that you are speaking from experience when you claim that people on benefit have all the luxuries that those in employment cannot afford.

If you are not, then why can you not accept the FACT that it is only a very small minority that are benefit scroungers?
ps. With all your extended family that you have spoken of, I assume that they would also have been keen to help your family out, or did they have the attitude that you have - that you were benefit scroungers?
I should have worded that differently and said, "......or did they have they have the same attitude to people on benefit that you appear to have - that all people on benefit are benefit scroungers?"
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.[/p][/quote]That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.[/p][/quote]not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it? Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council![/p][/quote]And end up with even more White Elephant buildings. How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened? How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?[/p][/quote]Ask Councillor Burke why he praised the so called White Elephant being a Labour Councillor? Pay day loans well that was bought up under Priministers question times & the figures are about the same now as under Labour? What I don't get is why when most benefit payments & wages are now paid into the bank why haven't these people got overdraft facilities? Surely any one with half a brain can see the amount of interest on two-three days overdraft is a lot less than with those sharks. Instead of continuously blaming the government instead try looking at peoples priorities now. smart phones for all the kids as well as both parents costing £40 each a month,sky or Virgin tv. gas guzzling cars to take the kids round the corner to school or parents to work where a cheaper to run car or a bicycle would suffice. There are people who genuinely need help but not at pay day lenders. I can shop buy a car pay for a mortgage save money & pay for my wife to go & visit her parents in Thailand with £1,000 & I get £16,000 after tax so I'm not on super money so why are these people struggling? would it be any better under Labour with out increasing the debt?[/p][/quote]If, as you claim, most benefits are now paid into the bank, then the obvious reason why they cannot get overdraft facilities is because, if that is their only source of income, they would not be a good bet to be able to pay it off. It is no help knowing that the bank's interest rate is lower than the Pay Day Loan firms, when those in desperate need cannot get the overdraft, and have had their benefit cut. Banks are not charities - only to their top employees. You appear to think that everyone on benefit, who happens to have a wife and children, puts the possession of smart phones for all of them, sky/virgin tv and a gas guzzling car. I was unaware of that, and must assume that it is confined to the area where you live, because that is certainly not the case where I live. It is also interesting to note that the number of people subscribing to SKY has declined over the past few years rather than increase. So your income is £1,333 per month, or £307 a week. Presumably with no children at home, which makes life a lot less expensive. I have no idea what your mortgage payments are your other outgoings, but I think that you would be far better off than someone on benefits with no savings. I am fortunate in that I have never been out of work, but there is no guarantee that if I were leaving school now, that I would be as fortunate, and I have every sympathy tor those who have no work, because the majority do not want to be on benefit. You ask whether it would be any better under Labour. I don't know. I could claim that it would be, and you could claim that it would not, but we will never know. What we do know is, those in need are the ones that have been hardest hit in the last three years.[/p][/quote]i give up with you you can't think that your wrong so lose the chip off that shoulder try getting bought up in a family on welfare ( as I did) struggling because your fathers in prison & your mother has to stay at home to look after the young kids. you at 11 have to do paper rounds log rounds & help the milkman because your mother smokes non stop & the money you earn pays towards the food on the table as my earnings did. to go on about this lot being hard up is tantamount to a total joke[/p][/quote]And of course, I suppose that you would claim that you would admit it when you were wrong. If that is the case, why did you not admit that you were wrong when you claimed that I called you a liar? It was patently obvious that I had not, and that you had interpreted perfectly straight forward English, into something that you thought that you could hold against me. I gave you a perfectly truthful, logical explanation, but No, you would not accept it. So you were brought up on welfare. In that case, I assume that you are speaking from experience when you claim that people on benefit have all the luxuries that those in employment cannot afford. If you are not, then why can you not accept the FACT that it is only a very small minority that are benefit scroungers?[/p][/quote]ps. With all your extended family that you have spoken of, I assume that they would also have been keen to help your family out, or did they have the attitude that you have - that you were benefit scroungers?[/p][/quote]I should have worded that differently and said, "......or did they have they have the same attitude to people on benefit that you appear to have - that all people on benefit are benefit scroungers?" Linesman
  • Score: 0

3:05pm Thu 16 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Linesman wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.
That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.
not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it?
Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council!
And end up with even more White Elephant buildings.

How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened?

How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?
Ask Councillor Burke why he praised the so called White Elephant being a Labour Councillor?
Pay day loans well that was bought up under Priministers question times & the figures are about the same now as under Labour?
What I don't get is why when most benefit payments & wages are now paid into the bank why haven't these people got overdraft facilities?
Surely any one with half a brain can see the amount of interest on two-three days overdraft is a lot less than with those sharks.
Instead of continuously blaming the government instead try looking at peoples priorities now. smart phones for all the kids as well as both parents costing £40 each a month,sky or Virgin tv. gas guzzling cars to take the kids round the corner to school or parents to work where a cheaper to run car or a bicycle would suffice.
There are people who genuinely need help but not at pay day lenders.
I can shop buy a car pay for a mortgage save money & pay for my wife to go & visit her parents in Thailand with £1,000 & I get £16,000 after tax so I'm not on super money so why are these people struggling? would it be any better under Labour with out increasing the debt?
If, as you claim, most benefits are now paid into the bank, then the obvious reason why they cannot get overdraft facilities is because, if that is their only source of income, they would not be a good bet to be able to pay it off.

It is no help knowing that the bank's interest rate is lower than the Pay Day Loan firms, when those in desperate need cannot get the overdraft, and have had their benefit cut.

Banks are not charities - only to their top employees.

You appear to think that everyone on benefit, who happens to have a wife and children, puts the possession of smart phones for all of them, sky/virgin tv and a gas guzzling car. I was unaware of that, and must assume that it is confined to the area where you live, because that is certainly not the case where I live. It is also interesting to note that the number of people subscribing to SKY has declined over the past few years rather than increase.

So your income is £1,333 per month, or £307 a week. Presumably with no children at home, which makes life a lot less expensive.

I have no idea what your mortgage payments are your other outgoings, but I think that you would be far better off than someone on benefits with no savings.

I am fortunate in that I have never been out of work, but there is no guarantee that if I were leaving school now, that I would be as fortunate, and I have every sympathy tor those who have no work, because the majority do not want to be on benefit.

You ask whether it would be any better under Labour. I don't know. I could claim that it would be, and you could claim that it would not, but we will never know.

What we do know is, those in need are the ones that have been hardest hit in the last three years.
i give up with you you can't think that your wrong so lose the chip off that shoulder try getting bought up in a family on welfare ( as I did) struggling because your fathers in prison & your mother has to stay at home to look after the young kids.
you at 11 have to do paper rounds log rounds & help the milkman because your mother smokes non stop & the money you earn pays towards the food on the table as my earnings did.
to go on about this lot being hard up is tantamount to a total joke
And of course, I suppose that you would claim that you would admit it when you were wrong.

If that is the case, why did you not admit that you were wrong when you claimed that I called you a liar?

It was patently obvious that I had not, and that you had interpreted perfectly straight forward English, into something that you thought that you could hold against me.

I gave you a perfectly truthful, logical explanation, but No, you would not accept it.

So you were brought up on welfare. In that case, I assume that you are speaking from experience when you claim that people on benefit have all the luxuries that those in employment cannot afford.

If you are not, then why can you not accept the FACT that it is only a very small minority that are benefit scroungers?
ps. With all your extended family that you have spoken of, I assume that they would also have been keen to help your family out, or did they have the attitude that you have - that you were benefit scroungers?
I should have worded that differently and said, "......or did they have they have the same attitude to people on benefit that you appear to have - that all people on benefit are benefit scroungers?"
funny i've never said that all people on benefits were scroungers so is that what your really thinking?
my father committed incest & my mum still kept in contact with him so my relatives disowned her & only contacted her when my gran was dying & needed a carer so again please find out who or what your talking about before posting?
I lived on school meals & bread & dripping for tea I was not allowed to play any sports after school so I could work in the jobs I've mentioned to help provide food at the week ends.
we had a black & White Telly no phones no computers & never went on holiday but we lived now not all but many expect to get all the most modern gadgets have sky or cable have cars you could go on .
I went to work earnt £5 a week as a so called apprentice( cheap labour) I worked weekends as my mother took the £5 to make up for the loss of family allowance yet I had to clothe myself & get to work & feed myself.
yet when I was on actually good money I drove her around I bought her things to make life more comfortable so sorry Linesman I come from a past that makes me very qualified to talk about the poor in society or the ones who just say "Gimme Gimme" all the time
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.[/p][/quote]That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.[/p][/quote]not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it? Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council![/p][/quote]And end up with even more White Elephant buildings. How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened? How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?[/p][/quote]Ask Councillor Burke why he praised the so called White Elephant being a Labour Councillor? Pay day loans well that was bought up under Priministers question times & the figures are about the same now as under Labour? What I don't get is why when most benefit payments & wages are now paid into the bank why haven't these people got overdraft facilities? Surely any one with half a brain can see the amount of interest on two-three days overdraft is a lot less than with those sharks. Instead of continuously blaming the government instead try looking at peoples priorities now. smart phones for all the kids as well as both parents costing £40 each a month,sky or Virgin tv. gas guzzling cars to take the kids round the corner to school or parents to work where a cheaper to run car or a bicycle would suffice. There are people who genuinely need help but not at pay day lenders. I can shop buy a car pay for a mortgage save money & pay for my wife to go & visit her parents in Thailand with £1,000 & I get £16,000 after tax so I'm not on super money so why are these people struggling? would it be any better under Labour with out increasing the debt?[/p][/quote]If, as you claim, most benefits are now paid into the bank, then the obvious reason why they cannot get overdraft facilities is because, if that is their only source of income, they would not be a good bet to be able to pay it off. It is no help knowing that the bank's interest rate is lower than the Pay Day Loan firms, when those in desperate need cannot get the overdraft, and have had their benefit cut. Banks are not charities - only to their top employees. You appear to think that everyone on benefit, who happens to have a wife and children, puts the possession of smart phones for all of them, sky/virgin tv and a gas guzzling car. I was unaware of that, and must assume that it is confined to the area where you live, because that is certainly not the case where I live. It is also interesting to note that the number of people subscribing to SKY has declined over the past few years rather than increase. So your income is £1,333 per month, or £307 a week. Presumably with no children at home, which makes life a lot less expensive. I have no idea what your mortgage payments are your other outgoings, but I think that you would be far better off than someone on benefits with no savings. I am fortunate in that I have never been out of work, but there is no guarantee that if I were leaving school now, that I would be as fortunate, and I have every sympathy tor those who have no work, because the majority do not want to be on benefit. You ask whether it would be any better under Labour. I don't know. I could claim that it would be, and you could claim that it would not, but we will never know. What we do know is, those in need are the ones that have been hardest hit in the last three years.[/p][/quote]i give up with you you can't think that your wrong so lose the chip off that shoulder try getting bought up in a family on welfare ( as I did) struggling because your fathers in prison & your mother has to stay at home to look after the young kids. you at 11 have to do paper rounds log rounds & help the milkman because your mother smokes non stop & the money you earn pays towards the food on the table as my earnings did. to go on about this lot being hard up is tantamount to a total joke[/p][/quote]And of course, I suppose that you would claim that you would admit it when you were wrong. If that is the case, why did you not admit that you were wrong when you claimed that I called you a liar? It was patently obvious that I had not, and that you had interpreted perfectly straight forward English, into something that you thought that you could hold against me. I gave you a perfectly truthful, logical explanation, but No, you would not accept it. So you were brought up on welfare. In that case, I assume that you are speaking from experience when you claim that people on benefit have all the luxuries that those in employment cannot afford. If you are not, then why can you not accept the FACT that it is only a very small minority that are benefit scroungers?[/p][/quote]ps. With all your extended family that you have spoken of, I assume that they would also have been keen to help your family out, or did they have the attitude that you have - that you were benefit scroungers?[/p][/quote]I should have worded that differently and said, "......or did they have they have the same attitude to people on benefit that you appear to have - that all people on benefit are benefit scroungers?"[/p][/quote]funny i've never said that all people on benefits were scroungers so is that what your really thinking? my father committed incest & my mum still kept in contact with him so my relatives disowned her & only contacted her when my gran was dying & needed a carer so again please find out who or what your talking about before posting? I lived on school meals & bread & dripping for tea I was not allowed to play any sports after school so I could work in the jobs I've mentioned to help provide food at the week ends. we had a black & White Telly no phones no computers & never went on holiday but we lived now not all but many expect to get all the most modern gadgets have sky or cable have cars you could go on . I went to work earnt £5 a week as a so called apprentice( cheap labour) I worked weekends as my mother took the £5 to make up for the loss of family allowance yet I had to clothe myself & get to work & feed myself. yet when I was on actually good money I drove her around I bought her things to make life more comfortable so sorry Linesman I come from a past that makes me very qualified to talk about the poor in society or the ones who just say "Gimme Gimme" all the time loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Linesman says...

loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Linesman wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Linesman wrote:
aldermoorboy wrote:
Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.
That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.
not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it?
Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council!
And end up with even more White Elephant buildings.

How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened?

How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?
Ask Councillor Burke why he praised the so called White Elephant being a Labour Councillor?
Pay day loans well that was bought up under Priministers question times & the figures are about the same now as under Labour?
What I don't get is why when most benefit payments & wages are now paid into the bank why haven't these people got overdraft facilities?
Surely any one with half a brain can see the amount of interest on two-three days overdraft is a lot less than with those sharks.
Instead of continuously blaming the government instead try looking at peoples priorities now. smart phones for all the kids as well as both parents costing £40 each a month,sky or Virgin tv. gas guzzling cars to take the kids round the corner to school or parents to work where a cheaper to run car or a bicycle would suffice.
There are people who genuinely need help but not at pay day lenders.
I can shop buy a car pay for a mortgage save money & pay for my wife to go & visit her parents in Thailand with £1,000 & I get £16,000 after tax so I'm not on super money so why are these people struggling? would it be any better under Labour with out increasing the debt?
If, as you claim, most benefits are now paid into the bank, then the obvious reason why they cannot get overdraft facilities is because, if that is their only source of income, they would not be a good bet to be able to pay it off.

It is no help knowing that the bank's interest rate is lower than the Pay Day Loan firms, when those in desperate need cannot get the overdraft, and have had their benefit cut.

Banks are not charities - only to their top employees.

You appear to think that everyone on benefit, who happens to have a wife and children, puts the possession of smart phones for all of them, sky/virgin tv and a gas guzzling car. I was unaware of that, and must assume that it is confined to the area where you live, because that is certainly not the case where I live. It is also interesting to note that the number of people subscribing to SKY has declined over the past few years rather than increase.

So your income is £1,333 per month, or £307 a week. Presumably with no children at home, which makes life a lot less expensive.

I have no idea what your mortgage payments are your other outgoings, but I think that you would be far better off than someone on benefits with no savings.

I am fortunate in that I have never been out of work, but there is no guarantee that if I were leaving school now, that I would be as fortunate, and I have every sympathy tor those who have no work, because the majority do not want to be on benefit.

You ask whether it would be any better under Labour. I don't know. I could claim that it would be, and you could claim that it would not, but we will never know.

What we do know is, those in need are the ones that have been hardest hit in the last three years.
i give up with you you can't think that your wrong so lose the chip off that shoulder try getting bought up in a family on welfare ( as I did) struggling because your fathers in prison & your mother has to stay at home to look after the young kids.
you at 11 have to do paper rounds log rounds & help the milkman because your mother smokes non stop & the money you earn pays towards the food on the table as my earnings did.
to go on about this lot being hard up is tantamount to a total joke
And of course, I suppose that you would claim that you would admit it when you were wrong.

If that is the case, why did you not admit that you were wrong when you claimed that I called you a liar?

It was patently obvious that I had not, and that you had interpreted perfectly straight forward English, into something that you thought that you could hold against me.

I gave you a perfectly truthful, logical explanation, but No, you would not accept it.

So you were brought up on welfare. In that case, I assume that you are speaking from experience when you claim that people on benefit have all the luxuries that those in employment cannot afford.

If you are not, then why can you not accept the FACT that it is only a very small minority that are benefit scroungers?
ps. With all your extended family that you have spoken of, I assume that they would also have been keen to help your family out, or did they have the attitude that you have - that you were benefit scroungers?
I should have worded that differently and said, "......or did they have they have the same attitude to people on benefit that you appear to have - that all people on benefit are benefit scroungers?"
funny i've never said that all people on benefits were scroungers so is that what your really thinking?
my father committed incest & my mum still kept in contact with him so my relatives disowned her & only contacted her when my gran was dying & needed a carer so again please find out who or what your talking about before posting?
I lived on school meals & bread & dripping for tea I was not allowed to play any sports after school so I could work in the jobs I've mentioned to help provide food at the week ends.
we had a black & White Telly no phones no computers & never went on holiday but we lived now not all but many expect to get all the most modern gadgets have sky or cable have cars you could go on .
I went to work earnt £5 a week as a so called apprentice( cheap labour) I worked weekends as my mother took the £5 to make up for the loss of family allowance yet I had to clothe myself & get to work & feed myself.
yet when I was on actually good money I drove her around I bought her things to make life more comfortable so sorry Linesman I come from a past that makes me very qualified to talk about the poor in society or the ones who just say "Gimme Gimme" all the time
I note that you still cannot admit that you were wrong when you complained that I had accused you of telling lies.

I have no idea of how old you are, but for you to have had a TV of any description, it must have happened after WWII, after a Labour Government had set about setting up the Welfare State. I say that, because there was no point in having a TV before 1945 as there was no TV service.

Just think yourself lucky that it happened at that time, and that it did not happen before the war when, as usual, Tory governments promised, but did not deliver.

Not much has changed in that respect.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: Develop it, it creates employment, our kids and grand kids will need the work to pay off Labour's debts.[/p][/quote]That this Tory-led government are adding to on a daily basis.[/p][/quote]not what is being said is it? inflation under control, employment up is wahat's being said isn't it? Vote Tory & get rid of this Shambolic council![/p][/quote]And end up with even more White Elephant buildings. How do the recent attendance figures at Royston Smith's Prestige White Elephant Museum compare with those during the first couple of months that it opened? How does the take-up of Pay Day Loans since Cameron took office compare with when Labour were in power?[/p][/quote]Ask Councillor Burke why he praised the so called White Elephant being a Labour Councillor? Pay day loans well that was bought up under Priministers question times & the figures are about the same now as under Labour? What I don't get is why when most benefit payments & wages are now paid into the bank why haven't these people got overdraft facilities? Surely any one with half a brain can see the amount of interest on two-three days overdraft is a lot less than with those sharks. Instead of continuously blaming the government instead try looking at peoples priorities now. smart phones for all the kids as well as both parents costing £40 each a month,sky or Virgin tv. gas guzzling cars to take the kids round the corner to school or parents to work where a cheaper to run car or a bicycle would suffice. There are people who genuinely need help but not at pay day lenders. I can shop buy a car pay for a mortgage save money & pay for my wife to go & visit her parents in Thailand with £1,000 & I get £16,000 after tax so I'm not on super money so why are these people struggling? would it be any better under Labour with out increasing the debt?[/p][/quote]If, as you claim, most benefits are now paid into the bank, then the obvious reason why they cannot get overdraft facilities is because, if that is their only source of income, they would not be a good bet to be able to pay it off. It is no help knowing that the bank's interest rate is lower than the Pay Day Loan firms, when those in desperate need cannot get the overdraft, and have had their benefit cut. Banks are not charities - only to their top employees. You appear to think that everyone on benefit, who happens to have a wife and children, puts the possession of smart phones for all of them, sky/virgin tv and a gas guzzling car. I was unaware of that, and must assume that it is confined to the area where you live, because that is certainly not the case where I live. It is also interesting to note that the number of people subscribing to SKY has declined over the past few years rather than increase. So your income is £1,333 per month, or £307 a week. Presumably with no children at home, which makes life a lot less expensive. I have no idea what your mortgage payments are your other outgoings, but I think that you would be far better off than someone on benefits with no savings. I am fortunate in that I have never been out of work, but there is no guarantee that if I were leaving school now, that I would be as fortunate, and I have every sympathy tor those who have no work, because the majority do not want to be on benefit. You ask whether it would be any better under Labour. I don't know. I could claim that it would be, and you could claim that it would not, but we will never know. What we do know is, those in need are the ones that have been hardest hit in the last three years.[/p][/quote]i give up with you you can't think that your wrong so lose the chip off that shoulder try getting bought up in a family on welfare ( as I did) struggling because your fathers in prison & your mother has to stay at home to look after the young kids. you at 11 have to do paper rounds log rounds & help the milkman because your mother smokes non stop & the money you earn pays towards the food on the table as my earnings did. to go on about this lot being hard up is tantamount to a total joke[/p][/quote]And of course, I suppose that you would claim that you would admit it when you were wrong. If that is the case, why did you not admit that you were wrong when you claimed that I called you a liar? It was patently obvious that I had not, and that you had interpreted perfectly straight forward English, into something that you thought that you could hold against me. I gave you a perfectly truthful, logical explanation, but No, you would not accept it. So you were brought up on welfare. In that case, I assume that you are speaking from experience when you claim that people on benefit have all the luxuries that those in employment cannot afford. If you are not, then why can you not accept the FACT that it is only a very small minority that are benefit scroungers?[/p][/quote]ps. With all your extended family that you have spoken of, I assume that they would also have been keen to help your family out, or did they have the attitude that you have - that you were benefit scroungers?[/p][/quote]I should have worded that differently and said, "......or did they have they have the same attitude to people on benefit that you appear to have - that all people on benefit are benefit scroungers?"[/p][/quote]funny i've never said that all people on benefits were scroungers so is that what your really thinking? my father committed incest & my mum still kept in contact with him so my relatives disowned her & only contacted her when my gran was dying & needed a carer so again please find out who or what your talking about before posting? I lived on school meals & bread & dripping for tea I was not allowed to play any sports after school so I could work in the jobs I've mentioned to help provide food at the week ends. we had a black & White Telly no phones no computers & never went on holiday but we lived now not all but many expect to get all the most modern gadgets have sky or cable have cars you could go on . I went to work earnt £5 a week as a so called apprentice( cheap labour) I worked weekends as my mother took the £5 to make up for the loss of family allowance yet I had to clothe myself & get to work & feed myself. yet when I was on actually good money I drove her around I bought her things to make life more comfortable so sorry Linesman I come from a past that makes me very qualified to talk about the poor in society or the ones who just say "Gimme Gimme" all the time[/p][/quote]I note that you still cannot admit that you were wrong when you complained that I had accused you of telling lies. I have no idea of how old you are, but for you to have had a TV of any description, it must have happened after WWII, after a Labour Government had set about setting up the Welfare State. I say that, because there was no point in having a TV before 1945 as there was no TV service. Just think yourself lucky that it happened at that time, and that it did not happen before the war when, as usual, Tory governments promised, but did not deliver. Not much has changed in that respect. Linesman
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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