Andy Onchan

The Times piece reads like an advertorial. Possibly sponsored by that well known property and housing development company.

If memory serves me correctly, I don't think it was ever sold to Tynwald in that way, ie. there would be an unquantifiable cost/loss/piss down the rain.

Sid, I understand exactly what you're saying. However, I'm not entirely convinced that there is a legislative mechanism in place to deal with something like this in the future. If someone can point me to an Act of Tynwald that currently prevents this kind of thing happening again, then fair enough but until that happens questions need to be answered. And I'm not entirely sure that there will be additional costs for a PAC enquiry either. A PAC enquiry is made up of MHKs & MLCs, all of whom are already being paid, as are any Tynwald clerks etc. As for time... then they should make time.

I would argue the benefit motive. As you yourself pointed out, only a select few managed to secure a very good living out of this. I would suggest that one year's TT/MGP has filled more beds and meals eaten than all of the films put together in the 20 odd years(?) that was being 'invested' in it.

There was no competitive tender so confidentiality rules shouldn't apply.

To coin a phrase from another parliamentarian in another House "let's be clear about this".....Beecroft has not been the only one to question the efficacy of this foray. The difference is that she like some of us, stumped up the money and want answers. Like, how was this investment scheme seen to be a better 'bet' than placing the funds with our usual investment brokers, who at least had proven track records? If you and I and plenty of others know/knew that investing in films was in the slightest bit iffy, wouldn't you expect them to think twice and have a mature debate about it with stats on the film industry to back up the venture? That never really happened. The question is, why? What made both the Minister (we know who that was) and his executive think they could gamble with taxpayers money and deviate from the conventional investment model? Doesn't matter how you dress up the numbers and where in the income/expenditure/balance sheet it resides. The issue is whether taxpayers money should have been used to gamble in the first instance. Once the money is committed then how it's all dressed up is largely academic.

The Cabinet Office of today is not the same Cabinet Office of previous administrations, who seemed to treat taxpayers money as.... well, not actually taxpayers money at all! Remember that famous quote by Eddie??!! Now that we no longer have any interest in films per se, there is no reason why a full-blown PAC investigation/enquiry should not take place. Consequently, Shimmins can go swivel as far as I am concerned. I can't believe he doesn't have constituents who also wonder WTF has happened to all that cash! If anyone is in any doubt as to the efficacy or otherwise of this (mis)adventure and to put this in context with other parts of executive government, then they should read the PAC Hansard report on Health & Social Care and the grilling that the Director of Hospitals got recently (page 126 from question 394 onwards). So, Mr. Shimmins try putting things in perspective and ask yourself why the Director of Hospitals has to justify how he spends his money, or not as the case may be whilst you are encouraging others to turn a blind eye to what has happened with the media fund. Next time you have a constituent who has issues with the hospital, think about how that £26 million could have potentially helped YOUR constituent.

The problem is Woolley, we are not allowed to know the full picture (pun intended). I am very, very sceptical about the numbers of bed nights (over-stated), the number and value of grants handed out for studio construction and support services etc (never revealed). And keep in mind that every production had their costs met either via funding directly from the Media Fund or the taxpayer (as IOM Films) as a partner with other"investors". The production costs are ALWAYS paid, irrespective of the sales. As far as I can see we took a hit on both. As for the VAT effect, well we’ll see next April how much of a difference the VAT has made to the pot. I think it may not be as much as some think. A few years back Anne Craine publicly announced, during her tenure as Treasury Minister, that we had lost and continued to lose money. I believed her as she had nowt to lose. The UK pours billions into the entertainment industry with all sorts of grants and tax credits etc. But of course, they can print their own money to support it. We can’t. Ergo we could never afford to do it from the outset.

Eh?

I'd rather they were encouraged to consider our food security first.

I might be wrong but I think the Public Interest can trump the evidential process .

Yes, and what a dog's breakfast that was.

With feckin' names like Marcus, Fabian, Ashley, Ruben and all those double-barrel names, it's no wonder England haven't won the world cup since '66. In '66 there was a Bobby, Jack, Ray, Ron, Geoff, Nobby, Gordon etc, proper men's names. And they all played without shin pads.

They're not shitty.

Harmless Harmer, if you're reading this would you care to answer that?

Well, for me that highlights just how screwed up IOMG policies are. We can afford to give up to £75k to a charity but not support an existing service that has the potential to put up to16 people on the dole, i.e. the Red Cross non-competitive tender. Joined up government? My arse.

I hope not. I thought Bill Dale had secured commercial sponsorship for that kind of thing?

For what purpose?

We have Beach Buddies... why not Glen Buddies with volunteer labour but with corporate sponsorship for purchasing material. It can then be called the "XYZ" Groudle Glen, or Groudle Glen, supported by "XYZ" Company and Glen Buddies. In fact it there's no reason why it can't be used as a venue for those who have been handed down a community service order.

Actually, the Average Joe got shafted by a series of IOM administrations copying NuLabour economic policies. It was all to do with increasing GDP. Pay the public servants more (on the pretext that you have to pay more to get the best!) and see the tax take & NI increase. Where the funding was going to come from to pay for those increases seemed, at times, an irrelevance; almost as if it were an off-balance sheet transaction! Bonkers mad!

By way of comparison: https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2018/06/25/salaries-and-pensions-of-top-civil-servants-revealed/

[Harmer] repeatedly notes in his book that, "This book is about whether God genes exist, not about whether there is a God."[7]

I I think you will find either side of Baldrine main road is particularly bad, as is Sulby. parts of Laxey and some western spots. Unless this project can be rolled out over all the Island then there will be no perceived benefit. Despite what you say above I still think this is one of those 'nice to have' things.

I absolutely agree. I can't think of an imperative at the moment. If it ain't broke, don't mend it. This sounds like spending money for the sake of it.

They're not telling us.... other than the pronouncement on MR, there's zilch that I can see.