Andy Onchan

Here's the same program: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b075ty6x/sunday-politics-north-west-10042016 On that program the conservative MP for Eddisbury claimed that details of companies registered in IOM were not transparent, which is not true of course. Anyone can go on-line or visit companies registry and for the appropriate fee get all the info they need. Arif Ansari, who is normally very thorough in his research, didn't correct the MP.

And don't forget "strategic".... there always has to be a "strategic" in there somewhere. Without it we would be rudderless and drifting....

They're all on their Easter holidays, the CM & TM included probably.

Hvers vegna gerðir þú ekki þýða það inn í íslensku? Það hefði gert meira vit.

Craig Murray made that very point in a very interesting blog post, just after the Panama Papers began to be released, noting that the users of the company concerned that were highlighted in the first batch of information released, were those associated with states normally seen as hostile to the West and/or already corrupt (Russia, Syria, Saudi). The only EU name that has been mentioned so far is a Maltese Minister about whom the Panama connection was already known. A later post by Murray also pointed to how the Panorama programme had ignored the participation of British tax havens in all this, concentrating only on the Panama side. Of course Panorama's long-term reporter, Jane Corbin, is the widow of the Tory peer and former MP John Maples, founder of the Cayman Islands law firm Maples and Calder. Small world the British Establishment. Indeed. Investigative journalism my arse.

I know Nevada's in the States.... that was the point in mentioning it. It's happening in the backyard of the good old US of A.... the greatest opponent of tax havens of all time. Scotland is in exit mode and it won't be long before they need to start looking at ways to keep employment down once they do go it alone. The SNP have made no secret of the fact that they are seriously considering basing their economy on a low tax economy but with socialist principles (does that sound familiar?). So it will only be a matter of time before they will be in the club. Scotland, if still choosing to remain in the EU, will find out that the new establishment aren't nearly as favourable as the old one when it comes to deciding how much leeway they can offer by way of tax regulations. I would hazard a guess they get a lot more favourable treatment in Westminster than they would do from Brussels. I suspect you;re probably correct but the EU havn't reckoned on the Blessed Nicola and St. Lec yet.

So Art 2 of UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 doesn't apply to IOM then?

I know Nevada's in the States.... that was the point in mentioning it. It's happening in the backyard of the good old US of A.... the greatest opponent of tax havens of all time. Scotland is in exit mode and it won't be long before they need to start looking at ways to keep employment down once they do go it alone. The SNP have made no secret of the fact that they are seriously considering basing their economy on a low tax economy but with socialist principles (does that sound familiar?). So it will only be a matter of time before they will be in the club.

+1. Succinct. Just useful constitutions that lend themselves to avoidance and otherwise and have been taken advantage of. But has the "arse now been kicked out of it"? And what of Nevada? And the latest one to join the club once it gets its independence, Scotland?

So is IOM a self governing territory or not?

No, but Nevada is up there on the list.

And insurance. Motoring is about to get a whole lot more expensive.

It certainly had his backing, he actively promoted it as minister for Trade & Industry 1991-1996, Treasury minister 2001-10, Economic Development Minister 2010-11. The film portfolio followed him wherever he moved to. That's not a coincidence. I would go as far as to say it was/is his baby. The taxpayer has sunk long millions into a bottomless pit for the last 20 years with no legacy whatsoever. And he wonders why folk are angry? He's lost the plot.

Sorry old chap, commercially sensitive don't you know.

From mid 1990's to-date approx £49 million of actual cash has been written off. That's not small change in anyone's language.

There was a debate and vote for the pinewood investment which had a majority in favour. And as per usual one might wonder if half of them even knew what they were voting for? I doubt if anybody outside of Bell, Teare and maybe Skelly know the true facts of this, but I'm tempted to go along with Lib Van's appraisal of what's gone on. At the end of the day, our elected wise men have ploughed almost £50M of taxpayer's money into the Film Industry over the last 12-odd years. TANGIBLY, we have the remaining £10M-odd exposure, plus the £5M that we made an additional £2.5M profit on the sale of the shares. Therefore, simplistically speaking, we have £17.5M left of that original £50m. Therefore leaving £32.5M spent on a worthwhile cause or lost, according to your point of view. Now the story goes that this has brought all manner of intangible, unquantifiable benefits to the Isle of Man as a whole. Though being intangible and unquantifiable (arguably conveniently), nobody seems to be able to define exactly how. Particularly to the tune of £32.5M. It could however also be argued that this £50M might, under our current fiscal circumstances, with foresight, have been better spent elsewhere. Perhaps staving off NHS dental charges? Maintaining free school buses? Keeping Car Road Tax down for a couple of years maybe? Or even making an equally intangible dent in the MEA/Utilities Debt? Or keeping the Incinerator costs off the Rates for a bit longer.... I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. The long and short of it is that the Isle of Man needed to and still needs to diversify its industry and income sources. Be that through tourism, engineering, eGaming, shippping, aircraft, film investment etc etc etc etc. I believe there has been tangible benefits to the island and I think if you isolated that £6m loss in the Zack Efron film then I think overall things might not look so bad over a 10-12 year period. We can always sit back at numorous financial decisions and think "that could have been spent here/there" but it doesn't work like that. Please what are those tangible benifits? I have no problem in our government searching and striving to look for opportunities and benifits in order for our country to prosper Sadly the last decade, two administrations, have shown none or little TANGIBLE benifit for their efforts. Please if you have examples of those TANGIBLE benifits can you give examples? There are none.

Courtesy of IOMToday: http://www.screendaily.com/news/pinewood-pictures-steve-christian-to-step-down/5086922.article

It is just as well that there are no votes. Otherwise those members of this most secret enclave who might have had the temerity to vote against a Comin resolution or edict (much less make their opposition to any Comin policy known in public) would pretty soon find themselves out of Comin and considerably worse off as a result. It is a basic fault of Comin and, is it any wonder that they are kicking and screaming against any thing other than a totally watered down and virtually useless freedom of information policy. Surely everyone must realise that a considerable amount of money has disappeared out of all aspects of the Pinewood investment. But nobody knows, or is admitting, just how much and where exactly where it went. Oh sorry Eddie, yes of course - commercial confidentiality. As I said right at the beginning of the GNU administration..... if you take a seat in COMIN then you will only have got there because of Bell's Shilling. Few in COMIN would have the National interest at heart except, of course, Karran.

The issue with the incumbant is, to a large extent, nothing to do with service levels but more to do with financing of the operation. The UA has been used as a cash cow for various non-resident financial institutions. From what I have seen the business certainly operates at at handsome profit using the Agreement in it's current format. The main issue is that future investment in craft has been at the expense of financing the required borrowing as the company has moved from one buyer to another. The value of the UA has worked against the common good, no reserves have been set aside for future investment so the status quo in regard to borrowing will begin all over again when it's time to introduce new assets.

That'll never work... it's common sense.

The truth is that the MDF "investments" have failed to make any returns, in fact the last time I looked at the accounts the total write off to 2012 was approx £49 million, gone forever. What can't speak can't lie.

Would be even better if the films that we invested in turned in the same percentage. But that hasn't happened and nor is it likely to.

'Film financing “is not a very good business, it’s not reliable, takes a lot of luck and guesswork.'.......... http://variety.com/2014/film/news/im-global-ceo-film-financing-is-not-a-very-good-business-1201299830/

You need to add the 24.5 million written off in 2010/2011 & 2012 (I think) as well.

The poster boy from Treasury for indirect benefits is TT: Closer to the Edge. This was a big hit and undoubtedly promoted both the IOM and the TT. Prior to TT:Closer to the Edge, IOM Films produced approx 60 films. I hope that we don't have to wait another 60 films worth to reap a significant reward. If that's the case then we can look forward to writing-off another shed load of revenue that IOMG/IOMF thought they would hold a "recruitment position" on. If IOMG want to sell TT and/or the IOM then it can be done via Google Ads. If IOMG are relying on IOMF to market the IOM then it's a very expensive way of doing it.