Observer Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 I know, but it's hard not to be when you know you're being shafted. I did struggle to find the rest of the story and it was, as I said, buried in adverts. I would be interested to hear other posters impressions when reading it for sure :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 I didn't think my opinion of Corkill could get any lower but apparently it can A report, written by a government lackey, that is favourable to Corkill, gets "leaked" to the press on the eve of the resumption of Tynwald, just when he's got to face some awkward questions in the house. I suppose we're meant to think the poor soul is innocent of all wrong doing after all? I don't buy it I can't believe that our ex finance minister, ex planning member, now chief minister and the person who reintroduced the tourism grant scheme would not know how the scheme worked Remember the grant scheme was stopped in favour of a tax relief scheme to stop abuses of the system and he was the one who brought it back and then he benefits from it in seemingly murky circumstances. Pah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 I can't believe that our ex finance minister, ex planning member, now chief minister and the person who reintroduced the tourism grant scheme would not know how the scheme worked Remember the grant scheme was stopped in favour of a tax relief scheme to stop abuses of the system and he was the one who brought it back and then he benefits from it in seemingly murky circumstances. Putting asiade the "apply for one and get one free" offer... As the applicant he can "claim" ignorance. The onus (or blame, in hindsight) is still upon the administrators that assess and authorise the payments to ensure that all paperwork is present and correct. Legally the man is a saint. Morally (and by assosiation politically) he is....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Just a thought, but how would an internal audit expose that a grantee was acting on advice given by the grantor in a spoken form if no supporting documents of the conversation existed? An audit is a paper trail is it not? At the very least wouldn't you expect to see at least one covering letter that said something along the lines of "Further to our telephone conversation today, please find enclosed blah, blah, blah, as advised" Bearing in mind that both parties apparently agreed that a single application should be split for ease of administration, pending appeal processes etc and also bearing in mind that the award in question totalled a quarter to one third of all grants paid to date (not a small amount lost in the general pool), don't you think it would stand out just a little bit that two maximum payments had been made on the same project? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 As the applicant he can "claim" ignorance. The onus (or blame, in hindsight) is still upon the administrators that assess and authorise the payments to ensure that all paperwork is present and correct. Legally the man is a saint. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know that legally he would be. Would the 'reasonable man' test apply? And in this instance, wouldn't a man of his standing be expected to perform over and above that of your average reasonable man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave the Cardboard Box Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 There is plenty of Case Law to show that if you are say, overpaid in your wage packet, and you later realise it, and then go on to spend it, you have committed a theft. The fact that the provider of the money made a mistake is not relevant and not a defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Which brings you full circle to 'would he reasonably have been expected to know that he should not have been in receipt of two maximum payments'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 There is plenty of Case Law to show that if you are say, overpaid in your wage packet, and you later realise it, and then go on to spend it, you have committed a theft. The fact that the provider of the money made a mistake is not relevant and not a defence. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Pecuniary Advantage m'lud. Oops, is that a trout and apron? Couldn't possibly be blamed etc etc, just one applicant in several where we were found wanting (ie nothing suspicious here, one of many) etc etc, even though he knows the system backwards, forwards, sideways and so on it's not his job to point out our administrative failings etc etc, why shouldn't they get two grants for one project if we advise them to split it into two applications etc etc, someone has to take the lion's share of the taxpayers monies handed out to date etc etc." "Case dismissed. How much in costs would you like?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 did anyone see the report on Border News about this? I only caught the very end, with Peter Karren talking to the cameras so not sure how big a report it was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 No, I didn't - damn. A report on what exactly? Specifically the Ned saga or the state of manx politics generally? I would have thought it was only a matter of time before some tacky paper like the News of The World went to town on it.... along the lines of Tax Haven/Crooked Dealings etc etc. We've not long shaken off that 'dodgy haven' label and in fact that is still some peoples perception of the island. It could be pretty damaging I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 No, I didn't - damn. A report on what exactly? Specifically the Ned saga or the state of manx politics generally? I would have thought it was only a matter of time before some tacky paper like the News of The World went to town on it.... along the lines of Tax Haven/Crooked Dealings etc etc. We've not long shaken off that 'dodgy haven' label and in fact that is still some peoples perception of the island. It could be pretty damaging I think. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is to come, The UK press know all about this mess and are just waiting for the police, Just like the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GI James Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 did anyone see the report on Border News about this? I only caught the very end, with Peter Karren talking to the cameras so not sure how big a report it was <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Had a peep at BORDER TV to see the latest. Not very up to date is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I would have thought it was only a matter of time before some tacky paper like the News of The World went to town on it.... along the lines of Tax Haven/Crooked Dealings etc etc. We've not long shaken off that 'dodgy haven' label and in fact that is still some peoples perception of the island. It could be pretty damaging I think. For this very reason I think the CM should resign regardless of the final outcome. The very real damage has already been done. No CM should have been naive enough to get into such a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 A report on what exactly? Specifically the Ned saga or the state of manx politics generally?It was about Corkill. Like I say, I only caught the very end, the end of Peter K's interview and the voiceover saying the Corkills didn't yet know the exact nature of the allegations the police were investigating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I still don't get now that it's firmly established that he was awarded the grants by mistake, both in receipted expenses and above the cap amount, why he doesn't just pay em back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.