Shipping Containers Coming To Fargate

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Resident said:

So I take it that means not you either? 

 

And you so, that's 3 of us.

At least, I manage to post and add to the debate, whereas you 2, along with others try to stifle debate with supposedly clever remarks.

Anything to add about the shipping containers?

I thought not.

 

 

 

[harvey19]

3 hours ago, Planner1 said:

No they didn’t. There was no cost to local Council Tax payers.

 

The money came from a government grant. So the money came from all taxpayers, not just the local ones.

The grant money could have been used better.

Maybe central government will examine the way the money was wasted.

[S35_2o21]

1 hour ago, Organgrinder said:

And you so, that's 3 of us.

At least, I manage to post and add to the debate, whereas you 2, along with others try to stifle debate with supposedly clever remarks.

Anything to add about the shipping containers?

I thought not.

 

 

 

Was your comment about the shipping containers? I doubt it. The usual 'public sector bad, private sector good' stuff that we hear frequently. There's never any nuance, or alternative ideas proposed. Just more anti-public sector rhetoric. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, S35_2o21 said:

Was your comment about the shipping containers? I doubt it. The usual 'public sector bad, private sector good' stuff that we hear frequently. There's never any nuance, or alternative ideas proposed. Just more anti-public sector rhetoric. 

When we are discussing something that is being, or has been done, in the public sector, we are entitled to state our views whether they are anti public sector views or not.

As we  provide the money for everything the public sector does, we have a very concerned interest.

A further point is, I don't rate the private sector very highly either, so that is not the point I was making.

I was taking about the wasting of taxpayers money on silly schemes such as the shipping containers so, I was, in fact, staying on the subject,

whilst you, are not talking about the subject but criticising what I have posted.

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Organgrinder

[Resident]

10 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

And you so, that's 3 of us.

At least, I manage to post and add to the debate, whereas you 2, along with others try to stifle debate with supposedly clever remarks.

Anything to add about the shipping containers?

I thought not.

 

 

 

You say that like it's some form of "gotcha" and it really isn't.  If you read throught the thread again you note that I have contributed to the debate, even added some facts and figures, on several occasions. 

Your most recent posts don't add anything to the debate because you're only regurgitating what a few posters, including myself, have already stated. 

The post of yours that started this line wasn't about containers, nor was it intelligently answering the question that was posed to you, you used the question to attack another user.  Something that,denotes that you have nothing meaningful to add or no answer to the question so you attack the poster and not the post.

[hackey lad]

10 hours ago, harvey19 said:

The grant money could have been used better.

Maybe central government will examine the way the money was wasted.

Think they already know 

[Planner1]

19 hours ago, harvey19 said:

The grant money could have been used better.

Maybe central government will examine the way the money was wasted.

Many things could be done better with 20/20 hindsight.

 

The government funding is devolved to the Mayoral Combined Authority, who will have a project governance and reporting process. The government do audit them periodically to make sure they are running the funding programmes as they would want them to.

 

On this one, the containers are part of a much wider regeneration scheme for Fargate, so I’d guess it won’t be difficult to achieve an acceptable level of benefits even though the containers cost more than expected. They should have built in a good level of risk and contingency to the overall scheme budget, which should cover it.

[harvey19]

4 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Many things could be done better with 20/20 hindsight.

 

The government funding is devolved to the Mayoral Combined Authority, who will have a project governance and reporting process. The government do audit them periodically to make sure they are running the funding programmes as they would want them to.

 

On this one, the containers are part of a much wider regeneration scheme for Fargate, so I’d guess it won’t be difficult to achieve an acceptable level of benefits even though the containers cost more than expected. They should have built in a good level of risk and contingency to the overall scheme budget, which should cover it.

And maybe a penalty clause.

[Planner1]

4 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

And maybe a penalty clause.

There’s usually some kind of clawback clause to be used if the benefits / outputs of the scheme or programme aren’t achieved.

[Ashcroft]

I went for a walk yesterday evening around Neepsend where the quiet old buildings are and was amazed by the bars and pubs there now and this container park that was booming with people. https://steelyardinc.com/steel-yard-kelham/ You probably know this already but I was surprised.