Little Hawk - 20 Feb 06 - 03:08 PM

"Teribus is one of the most notable automatic responders, Ebbie. ;-)"

So says you LH, so exactly what did I respond to? On examination I think you will find that it is more in line with - now how did you put it?

"I am just recommending a little self-observance rather than an automatic gleeful rush to the standard opinion of one's choice around here, which is either "I hate Bush. He's an idiot." or "you people who hate Bush are all idiots"."

What I agreed with was Bunnahabhain's view, that all this is, is a business deal, no more, no less. If this deal goes through the security of the United States of America will not be affected in the least. Companies who operate the Port are responsible for the security measures enforced at those ports, those are defined by an international standard that all ports are audited on by the Certifying Authority, if Port Security is not handled in compliance of the IMO ISPS Code, your trade tends to suffer rather badly.

So in short, in effect, you will have Company B running your ports instead of Company A (Neither of which was ever American). Port Security will remain the same and will be organised, operated and enforced in accordance with an internationally recognised, agreed, approved IMO Standard as it has been for a few years now. So what is the big change that everybody should get excited about? The press seem to think that we should all be dashing about like "headless chickens" over the issue - I on the other hand don't, it would also appear that Bunnahabhain and Artbrooks are of a like mind.