Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
There’s little point in bolding words that were written by a BBC journalist. As you’ve correctly surmised, whether or not the shipping contractors directly own the ships they would use is a point of interest. That being the case, you would need to discover whether the DfT or any of the contractors (not the BBC) ever claimed they already directly owned any Ro-Ro ferries. From there you would need to determine whether or not it’s a matter of concern whether an experienced shipping company owns a ship or leases one to fulfil a particular contract.
Or you could just ditch the pursuit of facts and cling to the narrative that the stupid Tories wanted to give money to people who couldn’t do the job they needed done in an emergency.
|
Maybe Hansward will suit your delicate tastes?
https://hansard.parliament.uk/common...eaborneFreight
Quote:
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
A third, smaller contract, which is potentially worth £13.8 million, was awarded to Seaborne Freight, a new British operator, to provide a new service between the port of Ramsgate and Ostend. Let me stress that no money will be paid to any of these operators unless and until they are actually operating ferries on the routes we have contracted. No money will be paid until they are operating the ferries. No payment will be made unless the ships are sailing, and of course, in a no-deal scenario, money will be recouped through the sale of tickets on those ships.
|
So Seaborne Freight had no ferries and it seems the invisible backer may have none either? So yes, they did want to give money to people who couldn’t do the job they needed done in an emergency.
Just admit it, go on ..
