It appears from his letter (CP online, 03-10-21), that Cllr Phil Jordan did not read my letter in (CP online, 28-09-21) thoroughly or reply fully, but chose instead to comment on topics concerning the floating bridge debacle that were not in my letter

Cllr Jordan suggests that all the ills of the Floating Bridge should and could have been sorted out in the “trial and testing stage”, thereby suggesting that breakdown and mechanical failure that happened two years into its operational service would have all shown themselves before the vessel went into operation.

Perhaps he could explain just how he suggests that the Conservative administration could have foreseen these failures?

Cllr Jordan states that ‘two independent reports have cleared entirely the then independent administration of liability in the procurement of the current FB6.’

I am just not sure what planet Cllr Jordan is on, or to what reports he is referring?

The Conservative administration commissioned a report in 2018 by Price Waterhouse Cooper which states that ‘throughout this project the lack of a Capital Procurement Board or similar was a major failure in the commissioning of the project’.

Perhaps Cllr Jordan does not know of that report or has not read it. Perhaps he cannot bring himself to read its very clear criticism of the administration he is so determined to protect, of which he was a member at the time.

Cllr Jordan’s criticism of the previous administration’s inability to progress the legal action shows a complete lack of understanding of the legal process and of the concept that the builders of the floating bridge had to be given the opportunity to (a) rectify the problems with the vessel and (b) had to be given the opportunity to come to mediation as part of the legal process.

He also ignores or is unaware that the pandemic gave them the opportunity to delay engagement in the process.

We will all watch with interest how Cllr Jordan’s administration manage to progress the issue of the floating bridge which is so important to the Island and to achieve the ‘sustainable completion’ he suggests they can achieve?

Cllr Jordan chose to ignore the suggestions in my letter as to how a suitable means of crossing the Medina might be achieved.

Instead, his letter suggests that his administration will simply proceed to commission a new vessel at tax payer’s expense.

He appears unaware that if the vessel is scrapped SLEP may well ask for their contribution to be re-funded and he does not state where the funding for a new vessel would come from — we will all ‘watch this space’.

Read more letters sent to the County Press here. Do you have a view on this or any other subject? Send us a letter to