Nobody nailed Mike Russell yet for the ‘bloody …

Comment posted Russell nails the ‘bloody disgrace’ of Craignure ferry gangway by Simon.

Nobody nailed Mike Russell yet for the ‘bloody disgrace’ that was Robslee and Hillhead???


No one going to have a go at the man responsible??

Recent comments by Simon

  • Castle Toward community ownership bid issues pursued
    I don’t know about anyone else but if I was asking for a one million pound reduction on an independent valuation price I think I might be trying to get alongside the sellers and understand their problems and their real difficulties rather than trying to publicly embarrass them with allegations.

    As I’ve said elsewhere this ‘attack dog’ policy is misguided, badly advised and surely can only be counter-productive. A project with significant potential might just wither on the vine because the increasingly politicised and polarised handling of this matter. I’ve also said previously that this decision is not an easy ask (Dick Walsh refers obliquely to just some of the difficulties)and that this group would be far better trying to understand and help resolve those problems instead of naively trying to publicly pressurise and embarrass individual councillors.

    On a very human level I must confess that if I was a councillor on the receiving end of manufactured emails and personal attacks I would be disinclined to give the group responsible my support.

  • An unexpected pairing to email in Day 8′s Save Castle Toward Advent Calendar
    In the event the council did sell the property at £1 million below valuation what would happen if(despite all the cosy assurances and claims that ‘it makes sound economic sense’) the project fails? What happens then? What happens to the property? Does it revert to the Council? Or, is it sold at a knockdown price to pay off debts?
  • Castle Toward: Councillor Breslin asks straight questions of Council Leader Walsh
    Aral. Are these jobs guaranteed? What if the project fails – does the property come back to us the council taxpayer? Can the council even give away a property valued at £1.75 million for £750k? What other project anywhere in Argyll has received this level of subsidy?

    I’m not being anti the local group but there are some serious questions here that need answered. And indulging in childish stunts or making personal attacks does NOTHING to advance their cause – neither does suggesting that I’m employed by ABC – I’m not.

    I do however have genuine concerns about this project and as a council tax-payer being asked to subsidise this group to the tune of £1 million I would ask – would everyone who backs them agree to underwrite the losses in the event the project fails?

    Would you Aral?

    I’ve already said I’m not involved with the council – are you involved directly/indirectly with the project Aral?

    I’m a neutral observer in this – are you?

  • Castle Toward: Councillor Breslin asks straight questions of Council Leader Walsh
    I posted this on another article and feel it is still relevant.

    ‘If ownership rather than lease is so important for their business plan then should they (the local group) not be concentrating their efforts on raising the money to pay the valuation determined by the District Valuer? Or appealing the valuation?

    That’s would seem to be a more constructive route than pushing this cheap gimmick of an ‘advent calendar’. A gimmick that does absolutely nothing to promote their case and quite obviously is nothing more than a blunt attempt to pressurise councillors.

    I don’t know who advised them to take this approach but it seems to be spectacularly inept and this orchestrated gimmick might yet prove to be counter-productive. Of course, the fact that it is being promoted by Newsie of this blog will of course do absolutely nothing to help their case

    If this group are serious about their project then surely they require to treat councillors equally seriously? They need to understand their position. They need to understand that a) even if the group had a cast-iron case this request of theirs is not easy to agree to and b) regardless of what it takes, they would be far better using their time to develop a more effective working relationship with the council and councillors rather than promoting such a childish stunt.

    Granting a group a discount of a £1 million is not a trivial matter and they are being silly beyond belief if they think otherwise’.

    I would only add that I’m also a Council tax payer, that is one of those who are paying the £20,000 per month to keep Toward Castle (valued at £1.75 million)secure. I am appalled at the attempts of some to reduce, what is a very difficult decision, to a personal attack on individual councillors within the Council.

    It seems that this issue has been engineered to become a political ‘hot potato’.

    Who benefits from that?? The local group????

  • Argyll Labour politicians warn of the anorexic ‘thin blue line’ of Police Scotland
    You are talking nonsense Jamie.

    I quoted “According to the Institute of Fiscal studies the impact of Osbourne’s Autumn statement is that we’ve had £35 billion of cuts with a further £55 billion of cuts yet to come”.

    You’re suggesting it’s all the SNP’s fault with their ‘vanity projects’.


    £55 billion pounds of SNP vanity projects??


powered by SEO Super Comments

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • LinkedIn
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • StumbleUpon
  • SphereIt
  • Reddit
  • Slashdot
  • Print

12 Responses to Nobody nailed Mike Russell yet for the ‘bloody …

  1. What a very sad piece from you newsroom.Disappointed you would use this as a SNP election advert but it is good to know where you stand.This shambles has affected locals and tourists alike and when calmac is funded by all taxpayers whatever way they vote to blatantly use it as a political stunt they obviously think our heads zip up the back.
    Power to all the ferry passengers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Neil – the articles on this site contain a mixture of ‘news’ and ‘comment’ and I would have thought most readers are well able to filter the two from one another and disregard the bits they don’t agree with. It’s not easy to ‘comment’ on an issue without someone somewhere perceiving it as bias, but in this case I’m struggling to see what you are so exercised about. The article is basically news – as in: “MSP calls on council to fix dodgy gangway” – the MSP’s party is not part of the story. This is followed by ‘comment’, echoing Mr Russell’s call on the council to do something about the problem. The bias here seems to me to be no more than ‘For Argyll’

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Cant see much wrong with the article. Regarding the ‘canny ship jumper’ Mary jean devon, i wonder how the canny electorate will view the yo-yo ing back and forth by this elected member in the name of self preservation.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. The responsibility for major ferry termini that form part of our national infrastructure seems to be shambolic.
    The likes of Craignure terminal shouldn’t be in the hands of a local council – especially one that treats it as a ‘cash cow’ at the expense of its own taxpayers.
    The government should take over ownership and responsibilty – and the liability for outstanding essential repair / replacement work should be deducted from the price paid to the council. I wonder if the arithmetic would look as favourable to our council as funding the work and keeping the annual revenue? It is our money, Mr Walsh.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • We felt that the question in the Draft Ferry Review, now in consultation – about whether or not CMAL should acquire all of the ports and harbours served by the state subsidised ferry services deserved a resounding ‘Yes’.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Yes – and with the proviso that a ferry operator can also be responsible for the shore staff, to avoid the situation that arose at Rothesay when Calmac found themselves at the mercy of a shore staff dispute with the council.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Terms used are a bit confusing. Calmac has to add a sum to each ticket sold on this run. It is also applied twice for the outward and return. If you carry on to Iona the same applies there. There is also a sum they have to add for each vehicle carried because piers are owned by council. berthing dues are another charge calmac pay to tie up at the pier.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Surely the point is that, whatever the form of ‘tax’, it’s all being levied by the council (as owner of the Craignure terminal) on the ferry users (either directly or indirectly via Calmac) but the council have failed to maintain fit-for-purpose passenger access to the ferry at Craignure. Money for nothing, just an extra tax on people who travel to and from an island.
      Bloody disgrace is putting it mildly, and when Walsh & co get kicked out they should be made to help people on & off the ferry, and carry their bags.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Nobody nailed Mike Russell yet for the ‘bloody disgrace’ that was Robslee and Hillhead???


    No one going to have a go at the man responsible??

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Surely now this will be a done deal. I know I argued against SNP colleagues in the hustings (my ONLY disagreement in 5 years of working with them) but their insistence that this was indeed ABC’s responsibility can surely mean only one thing???

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

All the latest comments (including yours) straight to your mailbox, everyday! Click here to subscribe.