Seaborne Freight

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 10:54 am

Antony Bamford runs this lot. I wonder if he plays the violin?

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:00 am

The ferry company without any ships! All above board nothing to see here!!!!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:04 am

Its been a brilliant couple of days following this one!

The T & Cs thingy was absolutely hilarious

basil6345789 · Post by **basil6345789** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:02 pm

How did this get past OJEU? Or did they just ignore it.
Anyone else doing so would've been locked in The Tower of Brussels.

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:04 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Its been a brilliant couple of days following this one!

The T & Cs thingy was absolutely hilarious

Taken from a takeaway company! Just shows what MP’s like Grayling think of the British public! One interest only lining their own grubby pockets and that of their friends.

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:40 pm

The fact that Christopher Grayling has managed to hold high govt office is one of the most bewildering enigmas of modern times.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:06 pm

They can lease a ship the same way that airlines lease aircraft!

Who are the civil servants who set up and ran the procurement exercise? What was the cost/performance split? Who recommended they get the contract and how poor where the other two tender bids??

ŽižkovClaret · Post by **ŽižkovClaret** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:15 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:They can lease a ship the same way that airlines lease aircraft!

Who are the civil servants who set up and ran the procurement exercise? What was the cost/performance split? Who recommended they get the contract and how poor where the other two tender bids??

They COULD.... if the ships are available. They don't strike me as the kind of things to just be laying idle waiting to be leased....

Maybe the odd one in **** state in a Russian base nestled between two rotting nuke subs, but in decent, serviceable nick? I doubt it

gawthorpe_view · Post by **gawthorpe_view** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:16 pm

basil6345789 wrote:How did this get past OJEU? Or did they just ignore it.
Anyone else doing so would've been locked in The Tower of Brussels.

As a post Brexit arrangement, it's probably exempt from OJEU rules.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:23 pm

Burnley Ace wrote:They can lease a ship the same way that airlines lease aircraft!

Who are the civil servants who set up and ran the procurement exercise? What was the cost/performance split? Who recommended they get the contract and how poor where the other two tender bids??

The suggestion seems to be that there wasn't really a tender process. One company (with no trading history or infrastructure and legal text copied from a fish & chip shop) was in the bidding for the contract and won it. The grinning simpleton that poses as our Transport secretary then hailed it as evidence of the government supporting start up businesses. The fact that the company in question has very close links to a major Tory donor is completely coincidental, as is the fact that no remotely sane person would trust such contingency plans to an organisation that has absolutely no experience in delivering the relevant services, at least without first encouraging established players in the market to bid for the contract.

I'm sure, however, that this is in no way whatsoever an attempt to funnel public monies back to certain individuals and that there is absolutely no transparent corruption in this country that is turning us into an international laughing stock.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:24 pm

I've been out of the field for a while (fifteen years! How time flies etc) , but there wasn't a surplus of suitable (ie fast enough with big enough capacity and also capable of getting into Ramsgate and Ostend) roll-on, roll-off ships for this. And as the vast majority of cross channel traffic is runners (ie lorris with drivers) then they will need roll on, roll off ships with enough passenger capacity as well.

If they haven't organised a charter for ship now, then they will be relying on the UK Govt to pay a massive subsidy to get them.

Anyone know what sort of frequency of service they are planning to operate with?

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:26 pm

people will still vote for these dickheads.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:28 pm

Yup, and part of the problem is that the alternatives don't appear to be any better.

The danger is that if these guys really are as dumb as they seem, and we then have to deal with fall out from them thinking they are a lot brighter than they actually are.

ŽižkovClaret · Post by **ŽižkovClaret** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:36 pm

Im thinking of leasing an old Herc to do aid drops. Any requests?

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:37 pm

When I first read about this my reaction was similar to most on hear, a mixture of disbelief and hilarity, but like many things that look wrong on first glance it is perhaps not that stupid an idea. Lots of companies provide services without actually owning the means to provide them. The first thing that comes to mind are facilitiers management companies. They look after offices, factories etc. making sure that pretty much the whole infrastructure is okay, plumbing, electrics, computers, structural and the like. They are a one stop shop for a companies needs so that any issues can be dealt with by one phone call. These companies don't usually employ computer technicians or builders or plumbers etc. but they have a list of outsource companies who they use to get the job done. Insurance brokers also may only specialise in one thing but can outsource any clients needs that don't come within their remit. So it CAN be done. How well this company does it if they are indeed needed at all (which is open to speculation as they would only be required as a worst case scenario) is anyone's guess.

Graying is still a d!ck though.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:41 pm

Yes, all true.

Perfectly possible to have a ferry company with no ships, no staff and no infrastructure and have it all leased to various third party companies.

If its a short term emergency thing, great.

But we will need this on March 29th 2019. That looks fairly unlikely at this moment in time, and even if it does work, its estimated that this company, DFDS (who defo know what they are doing!) and Brittany Ferries (ditto) will only take approx 10% of the need.

Thats still 90% of cross channel trade still is serious trouble.

Clarets4me · Post by **Clarets4me** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:43 pm

quoonbeatz wrote:people will still vote for these dickheads.

It's either that or the other load of d******ds, the Limp - Dumbs or the Watermelon party !!

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:43 pm

And unrelated but still Brexitty

Bit of a U-turn from Michael Gove. Well, when I say "a bit", I mean a bloody massive, huge one strangely not reported by those with a Brexit slant.

https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status ... 4881665026" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:58 pm

Ok, I know, its the Guardian! But its by James Felton who is very, very funny. And he's nailed this pretty well

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... zero-ships" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:19 pm

“To be fair to him, replacing a system that works with an untested ferry firm with zero ships or shipping experience is one of the most concise Brexit summaries we’ve seen so far. Assuming the government has abandoned Brexit and is now spending 100% of its time creating metaphors for how **** Brexit is going, credit where it’s due – this one is bang on.”

Excellent.

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:33 pm

Bacchus wrote:The suggestion seems to be that there wasn't really a tender process.

The Today programme stayed there were 3 tenders received.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:42 pm

You sure they are not the three from Seabourne, DFDS and Brittany Ferries for any help at all over the No Deal Brexit period?

Or is it specific to the Ramsgate-Ostend route?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 2:52 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:You sure they are not the three from Seabourne, DFDS and Brittany Ferries for any help at all over the No Deal Brexit period?

Or is it specific to the Ramsgate-Ostend route?

I think it's to be assumed that it's the 3 who got the contracts, otherwise the Seaborne lot wouldn't be in there. (ie they would have to iclude a British company)

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:06 pm

If the only reason they got the contract is that they are a British company and that turns out to be the rationale for all the decisions like this then we may be in even worse trouble than we thought.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:38 pm

Interesting to read Vox Political:

https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2019/01/ ... -no-ships/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The corruption behind the Tory freight deal with a shipping company that has no ships

The corruption, per Vox Pol, is based on Anthony Bamford being Tory party donor - and another guy called Mark Bamford who may be connected with Seaborne (he's a lawyer in the office where Seaborne is registered - lots of firms have a registered address in legal or accountancy firms offices) - and Vox Pol believes is Anthony Bamford's brother.

Vox Pol doesn't mention JCB - the multinational digger manufacturer owned by Anthony Bamford - and his family.

Vox Pol end their article with:

Note: Since writing this article I have been contacted by colleagues who believe there is no connection between Seaborne’s owners and Tory donors. That may be so, but the questions remain: Why did the Conservatives award a huge shipping contract to a firm that shows no ability to do the job? And why did they do this without any attempt at finding the best operator for the job?

As far as the "huge shipping contract" is concerned - the Seaborne contract is small relative to the two contracts to DFDS and Brittany (both established ferry operators) - and, there are other reports that Seaborne will receive no payment until the putative (is that the right word?) ferry service is in operation.

Of course, we all await further developments....

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:41 pm

Interesting, also, to take a look at Seaborne's website: https://seabornefreight.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, it's very basic - and obviously at "first draft" for a (possible) start up....

It's not so obvious to me that their T&Cs are copied/pasted from a food delivery service. I've not looked at what DFDS and Brittany say about customers of hauliers who use their services, but they may also say "we aren't responsible" if your delivery isn't what you expected.

Lancs, you say you were in the business. What is your view?

RMutt · Post by **RMutt** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:47 pm

How would the companies have been alerted to these potential contracts? Given that it seems you did not need an existing company, no experience in sea freight and no actual ships I would have thought a lot of business men and woman would have been interested in going for them.

ŽižkovClaret · Post by **ŽižkovClaret** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:51 pm

The irony of them making a tender, when they don't have a tender, nevermind the larger ship which might be served by one, is not lost.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 3:55 pm

I've been out of it for a while Paul (ferries about 15 years ago, UK-EU freight about ten years ago). Quite happy in my current role as book keeper dad!

Nothing wrong with the set up as a start up, and perfectly possible to have agencies running everything.

Only concern is the time it takes to get this sort of thing of the ground and of course, why were the major players not interested in the route in the first place?

Suggests that its not a viable concern medium to long term but I'm really guessing. Quick google search suggest there isn't a current operator.

No sane government would want a "No Deal" Brexit if it affects services to the extent this route would be needed so I do wonder if someone has seen a desperate govt and taken a chance.

But I worked for a company that started off pretty much the same way, and now has about twenty ferries and a lot more routes!

ŽižkovClaret · Post by **ŽižkovClaret** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:00 pm

I mean, Brexit day wont be peak ferry time so there could maybe be some spare capacity between then and summer season for the likes of P&O, but if so, surely they would take the business themselves and not lease, unless there was a fair premium?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 4:24 pm

Freight times are different to passenger times though.

Not 100% sure, but some European countries ban lorries from moving on certain days. So things like Sunday nights would be busy.

But Dover-Calais and the Eurotunnel are such high capacity they completely rely on quick turnarounds.

No wonder the Port of Dover had adverts in the 2017 Conservative Party Conference warning exactly about this, but like everyone else who knows what they are talking about, they have been ignored.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 6:34 pm

https://news.sky.com/story/jcb-chief-ba ... t-10881833" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This whole fiasco stinks.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:08 pm

evensteadiereddie wrote:https://news.sky.com/story/jcb-chief-ba ... t-10881833

And...?

Burnley Ace · Post by **Burnley Ace** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:15 pm

RMutt wrote:How would the companies have been alerted to these potential contracts?.

Adverts - it’s an EU rule that all government contracts are advertised and there is a specific website we’re all tenders are published

RMutt · Post by **RMutt** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:31 pm

Thanks Burnley Ace. I’ve had a look on GOV.UK. You can indeed search for ways to sell goods or services to the government. You can even set a an update alert to save you searching. They must have had a ‘possible ferry services needed because of brexit’ type update alert I suppose. The cynic in me assumed someone on the inside had given them a heads up.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:39 pm

RMutt wrote:Thanks Burnley Ace. I’ve had a look on GOV.UK. You can indeed search for ways to sell goods or services to the government. You can even set a an update alert to save you searching. They must have had a ‘possible ferry services needed because of brexit’ type update alert I suppose. The cynic in me assumed someone on the inside had given them a heads up.

Or, since they are clearly (however competently) looking to be in that game, they had their ear to the ground and, yes, talking to people "on the inside" about what was coming up. That's hardly surprising.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:15 am

Neither is the fact that the company's gaffer is one of the Tories' largest donors.............and you can't or won't see the connection.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:19 am

evensteadiereddie wrote:Neither is the fact that the company's gaffer is one of the Tories' largest donors.............and you can't or won't see the connection.

You've swallowed some guff in your time and repeated most of it here but your gullibility has reached new levels.

That's what comes of spending all your time in your own little echo chamber.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:11 pm

So what is it in this thread that either I or anybody has posted or swallowed -

- that is "guff". Bamford has a major holding in Seaborne Freight. Bamford has donated massively to the Tories. Bamford's company, to everyone's astonishment, receives millions of pounds' worth of taxpayers' money.
There can't possibly be any kind of connection, can there ?
You're naive, desperate or thick or all three.
And before you start bullcrapping about some left-wing, anti-Brexit agenda you might think I have, let me tell you I haven't. Sure, I voted Remain to avoid the disaster that's unfolding in front of us and is likely to for some time yet but we all voted for Brexit and it's happening.
I'm just absolutely delighted and relieved that my family and I are - apart from the odd visa every now and then - relatively financially bomb-proof if and when it all goes tits up.
And I did say "if""..............

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Sat Jan 05, 2019 6:19 pm

evensteadiereddie wrote:So what is it in this thread that either I or anybody has posted or swallowed - - that is "guff". Bamford has a major holding in Seaborne Freight. Bamford has donated massively to the Tories. Bamford's company, to everyone's astonishment, receives millions of pounds' worth of taxpayers' money.
There can't possibly be any kind of connection, can there ?
You're naive, desperate or thick or all three.
And before you start bullcrapping about some left-wing, anti-Brexit agenda you might think I have, let me tell you I haven't. Sure, I voted Remain to avoid the disaster that's unfolding in front of us and is likely to for some time yet but we all voted for Brexit and it's happening.
I'm just absolutely delighted and relieved that my family and I are - apart from the odd visa every now and then - relatively financially bomb-proof if and when it all goes tits up.
And I did say "if""..............

Are you finished now? It's simply too good that you would be this gullible, this likely to believe what you read simply because it confirms what you "know" and also be this truculent about it.

You're taking an extrapolation of an unproven insinuation, based on a mistake, twisting it to fit your view and then presenting it as "FACT". Other than erring at every step, you're bob on.

bfcjg · Post by **bfcjg** » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:04 pm

This deal sums up the whole Brexit fiasco. Surely a deal should have been struck before we gave notice then dubious deals like this wouldn't have been required.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:08 pm

bfcjg wrote:This deal sums up the whole Brexit fiasco. Surely a deal should have been struck before we gave notice then dubious deals like this wouldn't have been required.

That's a fair point but the Government would have been accused of making no-deal happen if their first move with two and a bit years to go was to strike deals for that scenario and hard to see how you could have had clear sight of the requirements at two+ years out; it's opaque enough at three months.

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:42 pm

It’s a perfectly legitimate deal. A f@ckwit cabinet member (somehow) and a Tory donor at the centre of it. We’ll of course await similar favouritism to other ‘start up British companies’!!

Pimlico_Claret · Post by **Pimlico_Claret** » Sat Jan 05, 2019 7:53 pm

thatdberight wrote:Or, since they are clearly (however competently) looking to be in that game, they had their ear to the ground and, yes, talking to people "on the inside" about what was coming up. That's hardly surprising.

I'm currently thinking of launching a new Premier league football team, my ears are on the ground, I'm talking to people(on the inside), and looking to be in that game, anyone care to invest?

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:07 pm

Pimlico_Claret wrote:I'm currently thinking of launching a new Premier league football team, my ears are on the ground, I'm talking to people(on the inside), and looking to be in that game, anyone care to invest?

Possibly. Show me your bona fides. I'm a bit worried you see the multibillion pound PL business as analogous to a £13m shipping contract, but let's see.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:17 pm

The big things that are wrong with this are twofold

- the timescale is not enough to get a ferry company up and running

- the medium and long term prospects for this company are not clear (the previous runner of the route collapsed in 2013)

It looks like a pretty cynical attempt to take a failed route and get it up and running again with government money, which won't be viable after the issues with Dover are sorted out (and of course, they might not ever happen at all)

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:35 pm

And Seabourne Freight, Brittany Ferries or DFDS won't help this lot one bit.

https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1 ... 3056489472" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Only frictionless trade Dover-Calais will

Pimlico_Claret · Post by **Pimlico_Claret** » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:41 pm

thatdberight wrote:Possibly. Show me your bona fides. I'm a bit worried you see the multibillion pound PL business as analogous to a £13m shipping contract, but let's see.

Maybe you should amend your username to thatberightwing

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:13 pm

There's always 3D printing Irn Bru and Graphene jelly. There's a lot of new technology companies in Glasgow right now, they make satellites from empty CD boxes.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:48 pm

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote:It’s a perfectly legitimate deal. A f@ckwit cabinet member (somehow) and a Tory donor at the centre of it. We’ll of course await similar favouritism to other ‘start up British companies’!!

Erm, no.