dilligaf Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Albert Tatlock said: 15 minutes ago, dilligaf said: That is just about the best post you have made in the 7 or 8 years I've been on here. Concise and 100% accurate. Use the search facility. You'll find at least 2000 of them since 2006. Seriously though, B4mbi can talk till he's blue in the face for years and he won't convince me that there is an argument to that post of yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 12 hours ago, Barrie Stevens said: . For a long time ships, especially ships for charter and dry bulk cargo, had been built long and narrow as a proviso that they might have had to transit the Panama Canal. This was a restriction. However, until recently not many ships were using the canal and so now its locks have been widened to take ships of broader beam and greater tonnage. Douglas harbour is in much the same position. This is great. Barrie compares Douglas harbour to the Panama Canal. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Barry is, as usual, talking through his "Panama Canal" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manximus Aururaneus Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 3 hours ago, Albert Tatlock said: Thank goodness for commonsense people such as Dr Ross Klein. The manx government need a serious reality check already over so many failed, overspent, and over-specified projects. The spend and return on a cruise terminal makes the proposal absolute madness. If it's profitable let business people do it...not taxpayers. La La Land. That is an entirely reasonable and sensible post Albert - but, to counter, if 'Business People' were indeed prepared to 'do it' - then would it be a reasonable pre-requisite, that IOMG, not being prepared to take the risk themselves (on behalf of taxpayers), should then 'butt out' of controlling decisions and let said private operators make the core decisions? Seems to me that IOMG want all of the say but none of the responsibility for success / failure - do they have it within them to let that go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 9 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said: That is an entirely reasonable and sensible post Albert - but, to counter, if 'Business People' were indeed prepared to 'do it' - then would it be a reasonable pre-requisite, that IOMG, not being prepared to take the risk themselves (on behalf of taxpayers), should then 'butt out' of controlling decisions and let said private operators make the core decisions? Seems to me that IOMG want all of the say but none of the responsibility for success / failure - do they have it within them to let that go? To be fair though. The Gov. not only run the show, they own it. They should always control it no matter who funds the development. Not that I think there ever will be one. I hope not anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 7 hours ago, TheTeapot said: This is great. Barrie compares Douglas harbour to the Panama Canal. No. Read it again. And say something constructive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 6 hours ago, dilligaf said: Barry is, as usual, talking through his "Panama Canal" Read it again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 20 hours ago, homarus said: Looking at how this topic from the beginning it seems that Governments well paid and taxpayer insulated dreamers along with the well connectedmovers and shakers behind the scenes are determined to progress this fairy tale come hell or high water . First they show the stupid plebs a pretty picture with a proposed berth opposite the tower of refuge ,they when pointed out that they would have to dynamite half the existing pier structures and bay to make it work ,they proclaim ! "" Ah but the cruise liner berth was never meant for there ,it's going to be a pontoon structure outside the existing breakwater "". Again when pointed out that the new proposed location for the pontoon structure is smack in the middle of the tidal flow and prevailing winds and is dangerous they say! "" Ah but it's not going to be a pontoon structure but permanent "" When the feedback from the public remains negative pointing out that if it's such a winner that they should not need any taxpayer funding ,they then then change tack again ! "" Ah but it's not just a cruise liner berth but a proposed full port redevelopment "" They are like scum sucking bottom feeding shape shifting barnacles this lot , and a symptom of all that has been wrong and wasteful with this Island over decades, but they're hanging on for dear life because they can almost taste the money, and as per time honored proven model will be long gone by the time the shit hits the fan . Say it again ,in proposed location it's a dangerous plan . P.S. I've included the smiley as I don't want to seem too negative! Don't know anything about this subject really, but I do know that the above post whether true or not is exactly the same MO as was used with the airport. That justification went from ahh 2.5 million passengers by whenever, cannot maintain current facilities, needed for large planes, will not be able to fly into the UK and when all those were shown to be absolute tosh it went to well without it we are not operating safely !. Now we can't get the large planes through security thats causing bottlenecks oh and the passenger figures have never increased in ten years, all predicted by the naysayers who wanted the money spent more wisely ! Same scenario developing I reckon. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 If there is money to be made selling appalling tat to gullible silver cruisers then it would be foolish not to give it a serious look. However I personally believe you would have to shift an awful lot of fridge magnets to recoup the investment..... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 3 hours ago, asitis said: Don't know anything about this subject really, but I do know that the above post whether true or not is exactly the same MO as was used with the airport. That justification went from ahh 2.5 million passengers by whenever, cannot maintain current facilities, needed for large planes, will not be able to fly into the UK and when all those were shown to be absolute tosh it went to well without it we are not operating safely !. Now we can't get the large planes through security thats causing bottlenecks oh and the passenger figures have never increased in ten years, all predicted by the naysayers who wanted the money spent more wisely ! Same scenario developing I reckon. Yes, it seems the bad ideas from the airport expansion have sort-of carried themselves over to the harbour. I wonder how that happened...? 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 51 minutes ago, P.K. said: If there is money to be made selling appalling tat to gullible silver cruisers then it would be foolish not to give it a serious look. However I personally believe you would have to shift an awful lot of fridge magnets to recoup the investment..... It wouldn't just be fridge magnets, cruise people eat out and take local tours too. It would open a new area of enterprise for local tour guides (not that many of them are local but you know what I mean). If it wasn't for the power of the sea, it would be a great idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarne Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 They don't take local tours as such. The cruise ship organises tours, and the people pay the cruise company £50 quid for coach trip to Ramsey and back. We do not need to spend a penny more than what we have now. Cruise ships can use tenders - as they do now, and as they do across the world. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Tarne said: They don't take local tours as such. The cruise ship organises tours, and the people pay the cruise company £50 quid for coach trip to Ramsey and back. We do not need to spend a penny more than what we have now. Cruise ships can use tenders - as they do now, and as they do across the world. That's absolutely true, but there is a big middle ground in all this. 26 minutes ago, thebees said: It wouldn't just be fridge magnets, cruise people eat out and take local tours too. It would open a new area of enterprise for local tour guides (not that many of them are local but you know what I mean). If it wasn't for the power of the sea, it would be a great idea. As I understand was explained at the PAG meeting by Dr Klein, there are cruise ships . . . and there are cruise ships. Most of course have already paid for good grub on board so aren't going to have a pizza in Papparazzi. Others - which are generally smaller and ideal for IoM - are more cultural based and want to see the history of a place and might spend a few days ashore. We see such as them alongside the King Edward pier. There is a hope that some visitors may return on a more traditional visit, but hey, if you can go anywhere in the world the Isle of Man is hardly going to be a must see again location. I would suggest the most important thing to consider is that big is not always better. And besides the Isle of Man cannot generally cope with sudden influx of crowds - this has been shown to be detrimental to many locatiosn. Smaller, niche, is what the Island should be thinking. See Tarne post^ Edited November 29, 2017 by gettafa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, P.K. said: Yes, it seems the bad ideas from the airport expansion have sort-of carried themselves over to the harbour. I wonder how that happened...? We occasionally [often] have buffoons as the big fish in a small pond. Making highly paid fuck up decisions. And because they have become so ego-bound they will not listen to reason, their lackeys around them insulating them from any criticism. That is what happens. Again and again and again. Edited November 29, 2017 by gettafa 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 40 minutes ago, thebees said: It wouldn't just be fridge magnets, cruise people eat out and take local tours too. It would open a new area of enterprise for local tour guides (not that many of them are local but you know what I mean). If it wasn't for the power of the sea, it would be a great idea. free food onboard or a overpriced manky whitby manx kipper..... tough choice...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.