joeyconcrete Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Was it on this thread, or another thread that it is actually theft/fraud to knowingly keep the money when you know it was paid in error (which 'may' *cough* have been the case then, but certainly isnt now)... Pay it back, + interest and administration costs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Yes it is (theft) - not sure about interest and administration costs though. I suppose if the person didn't have the means to pay it back then some sort of payments arrangement would be negotiated. Edited to add: I don't suppose the above scenario would occur until it was officially established that either a.) the money was accepted in good faith, being unaware of the discrepancy, or b.) the individuals were aware of the discrepancy and retained the funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I wonder how much more the tax payer is now forking out with all these investigations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Well I suppose once it's all resolved, you would be entitled to request that your MHK asked how much was spent on the issue. For the public fund element I would have thought that the public were entitled to know - maybe not though eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 When you ask such questions though the minsiter or spokesperson concerned always thinks it's clever to counter-ask how much asking the question costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Touché! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 'What does surprise me is that this building dispute appears to have prompted an extraordinary level of quite unjustified but sustained harassment of myself and my family, much of which still remains unknown to the public,' he said. 'It has included previous criminal allegations investigated by the police which have been found to be without foundation. It has included threats on the internet and other disturbing incidents at our home. My wife and I will be taking all appropriate action to deal with all of these matters.' <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The "threats on the internet" bit interests me. I cannot recall anything even remotely resembling a threat on this forum or in previous lives. Unless it happened on a Wednesday or Sunday night of course when I am somewhat short of compus mentis. Can anyone shed any light on this? Despite the obvious plug for the sympathy vote why the "extraordinary level of quite unjustified" in what is bound to be a carefully crafted piece undoubtedly passed before m'learned friends beforehand? Because that immediately says to me that the current police investigation cannot have anything to do with the "holiday" cottages two maximum grants farrago. It must be for something else as the police would never start enquiries into the affairs of such a public figure unless they had justification to do so. Any ideas anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I think one person on a previous forum "jokingly" suggested we burn Ballacain down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 The Holiday Cottages and the Workshop conversion were one contract, work started on the workshop to apartments prior to the work being started on the Cottages. The whole development is on building started and completed at the same times, take a look at Neds website for your self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I think one person on a previous forum "jokingly" suggested we burn Ballacain down <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It was along the lines of "Where is an arsonist when you need them?" I assumed it was a loose reference to Mec Vannin burning houses. In no way was it a threat, suggestion or even an inference, as I read it, nor anyone else at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I think one person on a previous forum "jokingly" suggested we burn Ballacain down <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And that becomes "threats on the internet" does it? The man is just unbelievable. It does irritate me that he thinks I am stupid enough to believe any of his "statements" though, the above being a classic example. I always intended to return home to the IOM but with the current lot in power me and people like me are going to stay away (cheers). Innocent or guilty it makes no difference whatsoever to the damage his staying in office is doing to the island's image. The mere fact he is embroiled in something as messy as this should be enough to make him stand down for the good of the island and it's people. The way he is hanging on tells me everything about where his interests really lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 In his statement he stated he had threats at his home, I have read that Ned called the Police to stop a press reporter from taking photo,s, how is this a threat, its public interest, the public would like to see whats been built Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I think one person on a previous forum "jokingly" suggested we burn Ballacain down And that becomes "threats on the internet" does it? I think it becomes useful to his cause. We all know it wasn't a serious sugestion or threat, but he can say that someone on internet forums was threatening to burn his home down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GI James Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 the public would like to see whats been built <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then look here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 We all know it wasn't a serious sugestion or threat, but he can say that someone on internet forums was threatening to burn his home down <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So this then goes under the headline: CHIEF MINISTER HITS OUT AT THREATS Pathetic. In fact so pathetic he's probably not worth the attention. However a headline like that says it all about the "free" press. Edited as I tried to increase the font size of the headline and failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.