As is the norm, this will again be …

Comment posted Jackie Baillie MSP calls on SPT to ‘get a grip’ on Kilcreggan ferry situation by Councillor George Freeman.

As is the norm, this will again be ignored by SPT.

There have been calls for investigations on a number of occasions – nothing happens.

The matter has been raised with Ministers in the Scottish Government – nothing happens.

A motion was agreed in the Scottish Parliament – nothing happens.

Meeting have been held with the SPT Chief Executive and other senior SPT officials – nothing happens (I refused to go to the last meeting the the SPT Chief Executive as I stated that, based on previous experience, it would be a waste of time and nothing would happen.

I await information from Audit Scotland on the investigation that I requested into the tendering and contract award process. Audit Scotland did arrange for KPMG as SPT’s external auditors to look into this matter and to report back to them. The timescale for them responding back to me is before the end of the month.

Although external auditors often have cosy relationships with the internal auditors of the organisations that they audit, I am hopeful that KPMG will act totally responsibly and report the clear facts to Audit Scotland.

Unless we get action soon, this matter will be taken to the Ombudsman and further. Further motions to the Council are also being considered. We are not going to rest until this issue has been resolved.

Councillor George Freeman also commented

  • Noted the comments from Harry above. I have already informed him that I have previoulsy requested a copy of the Pier Master’s report from Council officers. I have also ignored the second set of comments from Local River Worker 2 above unless he or she can identify theselves and not hide behind a pseudonym.
  • I have attended meetings with the SPT Chief Executive and almost every Tom, Dick and Harry on this subject over the past 5 months.

    The last meeting was a waste of time for everyone who attended as is clear from all the correpondence I continue to receive on this matter.

    I have led on this subject since day 1 and have only received thanks and support from everyone for all that I have been doing. This has also been the case at all of the public meetings that I have spoken at on this subject. This is the first negative comment I have had from thousands of emails on the subject over the past 5 months.

    This makes me wonder who Hamish Beaton is? He is certainly not from my area or at least he is not on the Electoral Register for my area. This is why he is probably not aware of all that has been going on with regards to this subject.

  • MCA have been contacted on numerous occasions and have been fully involved in this saga.

Recent comments by Councillor George Freeman

  • General Election part of the political Gallipoli of indy versus union
    RitchieMac, as you will be aware, the number of submarines changes as new Astute Class boats come into service and boats go out of service. Although it is irrelevant as to whether there are 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18 submarines, the point I was making is that the SNP will insist on referring to the 4 Trident boats only so as to try and down play the number of jobs that are at risk and the massive loss to the Argyll & Bute economy.
    Although the jobs numbers quoted may be a few hundred or so either way, it is noted that you have not challenged the approximate figures quoted and you have not tried to say that only 550 jobs are at risk if the SNP get their way which is the official line that the SNP continues to quote. You have also failed to comment on the line Brendan O’Hara argues “that the site could remain a base for existing submarines”. This is certainly NOT SNP policy.
    Do you agree with Brendan O’Hara that “Faslane and its current capacity is there and will stay”? How can this be? This is just a comment to try and gain a few extra votes.
    As part of the Maritime Change Programme, all of the UK’s submarine fleet is due to be based at Faslane. That is the reason for the additional jobs that are due to be created. As far as submarine numbers are concerned, there currently 4 Trident Class boats, 4 Trafalgar Class boats (was 5 but Tireless has just been laid-up), including the new boats in the pipeline, there will be 6 Astute Class boats and there are 7 boats laid-up at Rosyth. We can then add on to that the DSRV (Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle). At no stage did I say that there would be 17 submarines at any given time.
    If you want to play with numbers as the SNP continually do, then based on the above numbers, there are 20 (if you only include 2 Trafalgar Class boats) that are currently based in Scotland or are due to be based in Scotland (excluding Tireless which is now laid-up in Devonport) that the SNP do not want here.
    From what Brendan O’Hara now says, nothing will change and these will all remain in Scotland? Can this man be believed?
  • General Election part of the political Gallipoli of indy versus union
    INFORMATION ON FASLANE & TRIDENT

    I note that some of For Argyll’s contributors were recently taking my name in vain and trying to attribute a number of comments on FA to me. Some of your contributors assumed that as information on Trident and Faslane had been placed on FA, this information must have come from me. Not so. I do have a wide range of information on this subject that I provide to many people and organisations so as to try and counter the misinformation that comes from the SNP and others who are opposed to Trident.

    I note that Brendan O’Hara, the SNP candidate for Argyll & Bute, has been quoted in the Press and Journal (P&J) on their Complete Guide to Voting report where he is trying to mislead the electorate. When referring to Trident and Faslane, the P&J reports that: “SNP candidate Brendan O’Hara, lives in Helensburgh and is well aware of the issues. He argues that the site could remain a base for existing submarines without the need to spend £100 billion on replacing Trident” “There is a common misconception that that the SNP will close Faslane, which is not the case at all” he said. “As much as I personally would like to see all nuclear weapons removed from Scottish soil, that is not on the agenda. So Faslane and its current capacity is there and will stay” he said.

    Although they do not like it being discussed in public, the SNP and Scottish CND have confirmed that they want all nuclear powered submarines removed from Scotland and not just the 4 Trident boats. Taking into account the new Astute Class boats, we are talking about a total of 17 submarines and not just the 4 that the SNP would have us believe.

    On Jobs, a Scottish Enterprise ECOS Study confirmed that a total of 10,598 jobs were dependent on Faslane. That figure does not include the additional 2,000 that are due to be created as a result of the Maritime Change Programme which would bring the total up to approximately 12,500 jobs. Dr Philips O’Brien of the University of Glasgow confirmed that compared with other similar sized countries, if Scotland was to get rid of Trident and have its own conventional forces, the total number of jobs that would be left would be 2,000. These would be split with 1,000 based on the east coast and 1,000 at Faslane. A loss of over 11,000 jobs in Argyll & Bute.

    The SNP are keen to highlight that the Trident replacement would cost £100 billion. What they do not say is that figure would be spread over the next 40 years (£2.5 billion per year). What they also keep quiet is that the welfare budget over the same period will be £10,380 billion (£260 billion per year). The cost of the Trident replacement is therefore less than 1% of the estimated welfare budget over the same period.

    Apart from the jobs that would be lost within Argyll & Bute if the SNP were to get their way, Argyll & Bute Council would potentially lose massive sums of Non Domestic Rates (NDR) and Council Tax income. The rateable value of MoD properties at Faslane, Coulport etc is over £17 million. Based on the current poundage rate, this would generate a potential annual loss of over £7.5 million in NDR to Argyll & Bute Council. If we then include the Council Tax or Contribution in Lieu of Rates that the Council receives from the living accommodation within Faslane, that financial loss is pushed up to approximately £8.5 million per year.

    These losses do not take into account the massive losses / costs that would be generated as a result of the massive redundancies that would result from the removal of all submarines from Faslane.

    I believe that these facts must be taken into account when people cast their votes tomorrow.

  • Castle Toward a gone deal
    Firstly I should say that I agree with much of what John Semple and Integrity say above (but not all). I should also say that some of the comments from individuals above are totally misguided and/or misinformed. As far as yesterday’s Council meeting is concerned, I believe that it is worthwhile clarifying a few issues.

    I have produced many motions and amendments for Council and Committee meetings over the years, both as an opposition councillor and as an administration councillor. Many of these were straight forward and did not require advice from Council officers. Where an issue is even slightly complicated, sensitive or very important such as the Castle Toward issue, I would always take advice from Council officers on the competency of my draft motion/amendment well in advance of the meeting. Officers are always willing to give such advice to any councillor, be they part of the administration or not. I would never take the risk of turning up at a meeting with a motion or amendment that could be ruled incompetent. That would be a waste of everybody’s time and would not help me to achieve the result I was looking for.

    It should be remembered that it is the Provost who rules on the competency of any motion or amendment. Advice will always be provided by the appropriate officers but the final decision is the Provosts. As far as yesterday is concerned, the view of the Legal Manager was provided before officers gave final advice on the competency of Cllr Breslin’s amendment to the Provost. Clear reasons were given as to why officers considered that the amendment was not competent. The Provost is in a no win situation whatever his decision. It would be a brave Provost or Chair of a Committee who would go against the advice of officers as they would have difficulty in justifying their decision.

    I was most surprised to discover that Cllr Breslin had not taken advice from officers on the competency of his proposed amendment long before yesterday’s meeting. That is a massive risk to take, especially on such an important and controversial issue. Personally, I would never have taken that risk and would have obtained advice from officers so that I was confident that my motion / amendment was not going to be ruled as incompetent at the Council meeting. Even if I was to lose the vote, it would ensure that the issue was debated and that I managed to get my views across in public. If Cllr Breslin did consider seeking advice from officers, I can appreciate why he may have decided not to do that.

    As Alan Stewart of SCCDC and many councillors (including Cllr Breslin) and Council officers will be aware, I spent a great deal of time working on Business Plans and valuations in the lead up to yesterday’s meeting and had prepared a wide range of questions/comments that I intended raising at the meeting. Unfortunately, because there was no competent amendment, I did not get the opportunity to raise any of these issues.

    After the Provost had ruled Cllr Breslin’s amendment not to be competent, he asked if there were any other amendments. I was surprised that at that stage, none of those councillors (such as Cllr Marshall, Cllr Blair, Cllr Strong, Cllr Dance or Cllr Breslin), some with years of experience, who had clearly expressed support in the past for the sale of Castle Toward to SCCDC at the reduced price, did not bring forward another amendment. There was no need for them to provide a detailed amendment. All they had to do was to move that the matter be continued to another day. Although they may still have lost the vote, that would have allowed the matter to be debated in public and would have given them the opportunity to have a roll call vote which would have recorded the names of every councillor and how they voted. Unfortunately, they did not take that opportunity.

    My understanding is that the record will now show that the decision taken by the Council yesterday on Castle Toward was a unanimous decision of the Council.

    I hope that this helps to clarify a number of issues with regards to yesterday’s Council meeting.

  • Castle Toward: the smoking gun
    Newsroom states in her report that: “It is being said that members of the council’s administration were told by senior officers only last week that they had no option but to sell at the District Valuer’s price”.

    For the avoidance of any doubt, as a current member of the Council’s Administration, I can categorically state that no such statement has ever been made by any Council officer or Member of the Council at any meeting that I have attended.

  • Council Planning Committee meeting on 21st January promises to be lively – as 2 MSPs call for postponement
    Integrity, I agree. When dealing with any planning application, especially those such as wind farms, fish farms and nuclear facilities that tend to attract a large number of representations (often from out with the UK), councillors are reminded that it is up to them to decide how much weight they apply to individual representations.
    I would normally give much more weight to an objection or letter of support from someone who lives next to a proposed development and will see it on a daily basis than one from someone living at the other end of the country or in another country who is unlikely ever to see the development. I can only speak for myself but I am sure that the same applies with most councillors.
    Many of the objections that were received against this planning application were clearly “political comment” and were highlighted as such by Planning Officers in their report to Committee and were certainly not material to the determination of the application. All the objections and the Planning Officer’s report are available on the Council website for anyone to view.

powered by SEO Super Comments

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

26 Responses to As is the norm, this will again be …

  1. Jackie Baillie MSP is a well regarded and canny politician, but is her plea for the SPT to ‘get a grip’ realistic, or should it be a plea to the Holyrood government to face up to the need to get a very firm (and reforming) grip on SPT itself?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. The ferry left Kilcreggan To go Gorock whilst still Berthed.

    When it returned later that day fro Gourock it only had one engine working … it then made two more journeys but had to be repaired because the MCA was informed that day so it had to be fixed.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. There is an anonymous reporting system MARS run by http://www.nautinst.org/en/forums/mars/index.cfm It is designed just for such incidents, where the management and crew close ranks to refute any situation which may lead to an accident or not be in the interest of best practice.
    The Mariners’ Alerting and Reporting Scheme is primarily a confidential reporting system run by The Nautical Institute to allow full reporting of accidents (and near misses) without fear of identification or litigation. As a free service to the industry, MARS reports also regularly comprise alerts condensed from official industry sources, so that issues resulting from recent incidents can be efficiently relayed to the mariner on board, and is a valuable risk assessment, work planning, loss prevention tool and training aid for crew and management.
    They want to hear about any unsafe practices, dangerous occurrences, personal accidents, near miss situations or equipment failures which you have experienced, and any methods adopted to prevent repetitions. Within the context of ship operations, the scheme is unlimited, international in outlook, and open to commercial, naval, fishing and pleasure users.
    Email your report to them, or print the MARS hardcopy form and, if required, the continuation form, record your report on these forms and send to:
    MARS Editor – Confidential
    The Nautical Institute
    202 Lambeth Road
    London
    SE1 7LQ, UK
    MARS@nautinst.org
    MCA and all nautical bodies support MARS. If SPT think that dangerous occurances can be swept under the carpet then they should think again.
    Ferry tries to leave terminal with a line ashore made fast is less than comic these days

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. As a passenger on the ferry at this time, it was a terrifying experience as we were catapulted back into our seats with the shock of the vessel hitting the pier as we returned to untie the ropes. As a daily commuter I have sadly become accustomed to such levels of profiency on this service.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. “We can see no immediately supportable scenario in what they are saying here”

    Apart from the loose mooring line visible in the photo, the blue one in the water?

    As for structural damage to the pier I would expect the rope to fail first, if it didn’t then they need to condemn the entire structure as unsafe.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • AWS
      I think that the blue lines are meant to be left secured to the pier in a manner that permits the V/L to come alongside and the line retrieved from the pier decking and the V/L hove alongside and made fast. Therefore, the fact that the blue line is in the water means that the undocking procedure has failed.
      Piers are designed to take a limited amount of pounding, unlike a solid structure. In fact the pier’s stiffening is designed primarily to resist a compression impact. Clearly, as reported here, if the V/L steams away at speed then like a tug there will be a bollard pull of several tonnes. Having stood on the poop or foc’sle when a rope parts, I can tell you it is a most unpleasant experience, with the potential for serious injury or death. This instant is a dangerous occurrance, given the proximity of the open aft shelter passenger space to the mooring ropes and the likely hood of a warp or line parting and whipping inboard and must be reported to the MCA as an unsafe maneuver, coupled by what sound like a breakdown in the ship’s management, command and control.
      I guess Argyll Council will be interested to inspect this maneuver given the likely hood of damage to their structure.
      I would also propose that SPT’s corporate communications department do not have the maritime expertise to adjudge what is dangerous maneuver (or do they just ban passengers from photographing ships and posting to the internet or rubbishing their clients about what they saw and reported? Clearly disciples of the Argyll method of information management) – that is why it is best left to the experts – the MCA.
      Maritime and Coastguard Agency
      Navy Buildings
      Eldon Street
      Greenock
      Inverclyde
      PA16 7QY
      Tel : 01475 729988

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • I fully agree that the MCA are those best qualified to make judgements on this matter. I was only trying to highlight that the pictures did support more having occurred than the report states.
        I don’t think this could be treated as anything less than a ‘near miss’ in reporting terms as there is a loose mooring line and as you state had the other line parted the consequences could have been more severe.
        I would still expect the pier to be a far more robust structure than implied, it was built in a bygone age to accommodate vessels of far greater size and power than the current ferry. Having observed the Waverley use a mooring line to assist in ‘reversing’ around the corner of Helensburgh Pier gives an idea of just how much force these structures can withstand.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Time this was wrapped up. It is over subsidised for the amount of passengers being carried on runs regularly. Or the service should be reduced to only cover peak times.

    It is embarassing that such a small part of SPT’s decent network is causing so much public debate and finger pointing.

    Anyone who has cause for concern in relationship to the seamanship/competency of the crew and or vessel should contact the MCA as they accepted this vessel for this run.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Local River Worker 2
      I think that you’l find that the SPT is a not for profit organisation that cannot balance it’s books without a central Government grant. It is also mandated by the Scottish Government to provide a minimum level of local transport across its region. All it’s services are cross subsidized, some more than others. The ferry is there to provide access to essential services on both banks of the clyde, the fact that it runs at all is amazing given the inept management and their inability to advertise the ferry’s benefits. It need not be this way, there is a demand, and with imaginative marketing this demand can be increased, bringing tourists and jobs to a beautiful part of the river. It’s just that this SPT quango lacks vision and enterprise. They have a strange creed, if doesn’t break even axe it, good old Dr Beeching stuff, and look at the legacy he left us. It’s good to see what kids in Argyll can do on the internet, both advertising Argyll and tying the bureaucratics up in knots at the same time – magic, it’s a pity that the adults weren’t as creative. It’s a great wee ferry but badly run and managed, with an ageing boat, but this can be changed given the will to succeed.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. As is the norm, this will again be ignored by SPT.

    There have been calls for investigations on a number of occasions – nothing happens.

    The matter has been raised with Ministers in the Scottish Government – nothing happens.

    A motion was agreed in the Scottish Parliament – nothing happens.

    Meeting have been held with the SPT Chief Executive and other senior SPT officials – nothing happens (I refused to go to the last meeting the the SPT Chief Executive as I stated that, based on previous experience, it would be a waste of time and nothing would happen.

    I await information from Audit Scotland on the investigation that I requested into the tendering and contract award process. Audit Scotland did arrange for KPMG as SPT’s external auditors to look into this matter and to report back to them. The timescale for them responding back to me is before the end of the month.

    Although external auditors often have cosy relationships with the internal auditors of the organisations that they audit, I am hopeful that KPMG will act totally responsibly and report the clear facts to Audit Scotland.

    Unless we get action soon, this matter will be taken to the Ombudsman and further. Further motions to the Council are also being considered. We are not going to rest until this issue has been resolved.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Councilor George Freeman
      “Meeting have been held with the SPT Chief Executive and other senior SPT officials – nothing happens (I refused to go to the last meeting the the SPT Chief Executive as I stated that, based on previous experience, it would be a waste of time and nothing would happen.”

      A waste of whose time Councilor Freeman? You are elected to represent the people. Surly it is necessary to meet with the SPT to understand and challenge their position.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • I have attended meetings with the SPT Chief Executive and almost every Tom, Dick and Harry on this subject over the past 5 months.

        The last meeting was a waste of time for everyone who attended as is clear from all the correpondence I continue to receive on this matter.

        I have led on this subject since day 1 and have only received thanks and support from everyone for all that I have been doing. This has also been the case at all of the public meetings that I have spoken at on this subject. This is the first negative comment I have had from thousands of emails on the subject over the past 5 months.

        This makes me wonder who Hamish Beaton is? He is certainly not from my area or at least he is not on the Electoral Register for my area. This is why he is probably not aware of all that has been going on with regards to this subject.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Flattered that you took the time to inspect the Electrol Register? No, not from your area. My interest stems from the days I used the Gourock Helensburgh ferry, it made travelling from Cowal to Dumbarton easier and enjoyable. I think the withdrawal of the Helensburgh service was fundamentally flawed, and I can see the same approach to the remaining service being applied by SPT, which will lead to its eventual withdrwal on the grounds that it is poorly used. So there are three issues. Firstly There is the current safety concerns which need raising with MCA – I have given the phone number. In addition there is a confidential reporting system MARS again I have given contact details. Secondly there’s the SPT. There is a Government policy that SPT must provide services to the community. OK my view is that SPT take the easy path in that if the service is borderline necessary, then they appear to let it wither to the point where they can say it is unjustified and close it. I believe that that the service needs to be run and SPT needs to promote it as the last ferry that permits a middle reach circular route of the Clyde. Furthermore – I believe that the Helensburgh section should be reinstated and the route integrated into bus rail timetable, linking the North and the South banks with integrated transport hubs of Helensburgh to Gourock. That these transport system should not work in isolated “silos” but be integrated.
          Thirdly. Yes I did have a pop at you Councillor Freeman, no personal malice intended, and I guess you are busy with much on your plate but you have to ask “what have I achieved by what I do”. I would have thought that you need to take every opportunity to put your and the wider community case to SPT until they are sick of hearing from you, and your mates. The actions taken so far indicated that you will get the brush off until some ombudsman intervenes or the issue is kicked into the long grass. Perhaps a disservice to you, but that is the conclusion I reached from what you said. Now If I’m wrong and SPT bend to the will of the people then I apologise. After all they said that the Tarbert Portavadie ferry was a dead loss now just compare and contrast the money spent in that region and the new jobs generated. Oh, and by the way, I will use the service, even if just to pop across for an ice cream on a sunny day and I’ll bring my mates too.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • ‘There is a government policy that SPT must provide services to the community’ – it’s not that long ago that some of the SPT leadership seemed more focused on providing services to themselves, and can anyone tell me whether there’s been a thorough cleanout of this authority? Is it now fit for purpose, and capable of rising to the challenge of doing more than just ‘managing’ the decline of a potentially very valuable ferry system?

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. I was there – we were moving forward under power, the crew were shouting a the skipper to stop, we kept going until the rope snapped taut and stopped the boat. And they claim this was deliberate? What if the rope had snapped and whipped back – it could have killed someone. Unfortunately for those of us using the boat on a daily basis, we are becoming used to such incidents – surely not a good state of affairs?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • SPT has chosen to accept the operator’s version rather than that of the passengers. Presumably the pier master who is working out his extended notice will have witnessed this and sent in a report. Perhaps For Argyll can contact the council to ascertain what was in his report and if it corroborates the version given by the passengers ask what action the authority has taken to lodge a complaint with SPT and also to make the MCA aware of it’s concern for the safety of passengers. If no action is contemplated one can then ask the reason behind retaining the pier master for an extended period when the operator is not being charged the normal landing dues!

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Local River Worker – you say this ferry is under used. Before the Helensburgh run was stopped I decided to go to Helensburgh on the ferry, but when I went to catch it was asked if I was returning on the bus? I asked why and was told the ferry did not come back again that day. What exact use is this. Many more people would make use of the ferry if the times were thought out a bit more cleverly. In light of the recent fiascos I am extremely nervous about travelling on it especially in rougher weather which it is obvious from recent episodes that this boat and crew are not prepared for.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Happy with the subsidised method of SPTs affair, unhappy with how much this one particular route is subsidised……. Not difficult to realise when you hear 3 crew on a passage with no passengers regularly as I do.
    If the tide height at Helensburgh doesn’t work into the route; so be it. This cannot be changed and a bus return journey is better than a ferry aground off Helensburgh ‘obviously’.
    This route is not utilised to its fullest potential and will not be under the current structure so should therefore be wrapped up. No private company will operate this service as it cannot be profitable. We cannot afford to subsidise this route and many other things we continue to support. On the bus or in your car, it’s harsh but true.
    Generally no one visits Kilcgreggan or Gourock specifically so these are just thoroughfares. Lets get a service going from where it is required to a destination (Helensburgh to Greenock may be an idea) of note, this may almost pay off.
    I would catch that twice daily.
    Contact the MCA/MAIB reference any semanship/unsafe operations concerns, it is their job to follow this up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. councillor it is your job to represent you constituents not decide if and when you should represent them.
    If you couldn’t find the meeting effective you have described your own input brilliantly – our leaders should be able to guide debate not get bogged down in the pettiness.
    You have failed in this debate and have show so by not partaking – I’m furious by your lack of strength regarding this and you will fail to get me to vote on your/party behalf again.
    Where do you stand on Helensburgh CHORD – or is there a fence involved again when you feel this is necessary. Lets get it done before it never happens – a bunch of kids could have done better and quicker regarding the process given the authority. My major concern is the next thing we hear is appropriate funding is not in place and lets vote or consult again and again and again – then appropriate funding is not available – end of debate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. This route provides a number of essential transport links – for students, workers, shopping, accessing hospitals. As long as SPT take their stance that they don’t want to run it then it will never be a proper service and will continue to decline – however this is no reason to advocate getting rid of the route rather a reason for getting rid of SPT! Local river workers post suggests to me that we should be looking at increasing river routes and traffic rather than reducing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Noted the comments from Harry above. I have already informed him that I have previoulsy requested a copy of the Pier Master’s report from Council officers. I have also ignored the second set of comments from Local River Worker 2 above unless he or she can identify theselves and not hide behind a pseudonym.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. What’s ridiculous is all the brou-ha-ha going on about CHORD funding in H’burgh, funding which was supposed to enhance the seaside aspects of all the towns involved, but no money to go to preserving the pier and the ferry service. I live in Kilcreggan, and when I told my friends in H’burgh how sad I was that the ferry service between H’burgh, K’gan and Gourock was to be cancelled, they were amazed to find out that there was a ferry leaving from H’burgh!!! The ferry was never marketed as a tourist attraction, and it should be reinstated and marketed by the Tourist Office in H’burgh as a way of enjoying the upper Firth of Clyde. Use some of that CHORD money that’s going to be wasted on seafront fripperies that will disappear in the first winter storm of 2012-13. Timetable should be rejigged to facilitate commuter traffic in the a.m. and p.m. between the three destinations. And find a DECENT boat, not one run by the seat of its trousers, by a boatyard with a reputation of financial insecurity.

    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.