adam277:
But they did have ships.Feel free to count them.
Seaborne freight only had the contract due to arklow backing them.
I suspect Seaborne was a subsidiary of Arklows made up with just to do this and keep Arklows name out of it. Soon as arklow pulled out due to the media hysteria the deal ended.Now you could argue why wasn’t Arklows involved made public then there would of been no issue. Well the contract had a clause in it, so Chris couldn’t say who was backing Seaborne freight.
So media hysteria wins again… Yay.
I counted how many ferries Arklow have.
Didn`t take very long, they have none.
Ferries can be chartered in, but on what time scale? The same questions about getting ferries apply to Arklow as to any other hirer: where and when can they get a ferry?
If there was a “no publicity” clause in the contract it was (former BBC news producer) Chris Grayling who signed it. What were Seabourne/Grayling trying to hide?
It is the job of the Fourth Estate to examine and question Government. If an ex-media worker who has risen to become a minister, and has all the support of those around him, couldnt see how this would look, then what is he apart from incompetent? "Media hysteria"? If a Minister signs up a start up company then he should say "Look, its a long shot, but its worth a punt" and stand by it. Its his choice and up to him to defend his position. If he tied his own hands with confidentiality clauses HE is to blame.
The media are doing their job, and if they see a company has it`s terms and conditions copied from a takeaway menu, who can blame them for taking the mickey? Is that hysteria?
And proposing a ferry port that needs maybe months of dredging before any operations could take place? Grayling, at the very least jumped the gun: maybe saying “Further talks are ongonig, but are in the early stages, and no details yet”? But maybe that would have been (justifiably) criticised as being too insubstantial, too little, too late.
muckles:
Seabourne would only have got the money if they had actually provided a ferry service, so no money has been given to a company without ferries
That is true. Some money may have been expended on chasing this project, but that is a just a normal cost. No great financial loss, tis true.
No great financial loss at the end of the day.
A startup with no shipping experience, backed by a shipper with no ferries, and no viable port.
A minister trying to make a speculative contract spin-up into something more substantial?
Looks like it to me. And the media did their job of letting us know.