magneto Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Having been in a David & Goliath situation myself (our family verses Nobles/DHSS) I think I can understand some of the frustration FCMR feels... when you take on this Islands Gov you certainly get to feel what 'Closed Shop' means. They have every means possible to get their point of across (& often do) where, you have none.... Anyway I'd just like to post my support for FCMR... stick with it fella. The way I see it the CM helped create a grant scheme from which he’s personally benefited. That alone is an abuse of position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 The way I see it the CM helped create a grant scheme from which he’s personally benefited. That alone is an abuse of position. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Could anyone explain this please. How intimately involved was Ned in the Introduction of the grant? What was his position at the time and was it his responsibility in the matter? i.e. Did he have a direct impact on the reintroduction of the grants OR Was he a minister of an unrelated Department? Also do we know how many grants were given (i.e. how many others benefited from these grants)? Finally, is Ned claiming that he received public funds for a project, which wasn't completed to the standard required, yet he never met the builder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Found this link on the website.. a bit of info regarding the grant scheme.. not much else. http://www.gov.im/tourism/trade/grants.xml "(1) This scheme may be cited as the Tourism Development Fund Scheme 2000 (2) This scheme shall, if approved by Tynwald, come into operation on 1st August 2000 and shall expire on 31st March 2003."?!?!? (taken from the .doc download) is this the same thing?? It was on his watch then... begs the question should our politicians have some form of Blind Trust? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Declan, in total about £300k has been paid out on the grant scheme of which 96ish-k was on the matter in question. Under the grant scheme there is a maximum award payable of 50K, they were made two payments, having split the project in some way, just short of the maximum allowable and yes, as I understand it, he was a fairly major player in the reintroduction of the scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Internet Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Didn't he also introduce foot & mouth compensation, which his wife somehow benefitted from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Errr... yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 as I understand it, he {Ned} was a fairly major player in the reintroduction of the scheme. Only the Finance Minister... It should be noted that during Questions in Tynwald a few months ago, he kept refering to the Grant Scheme as belonging to the Dept of Tourism. On the several times that he refered to the scheme, it could have been easily interperated from his wording that he was (with hindsight) making diliberate attempts to distance himself from any involvement from it's drafting, introduction and implimentation. Some (including myself) may have thought "trying too hard". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geo Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Having been in a David & Goliath situation myself (our family verses Nobles/DHSS) I think I can understand some of the frustration FCMR feels Not quite the same thing here, FMCR is not taking on the Government he is trying to sue the Chief Minister and his wife in a private case. The CM will not have the Government behind him in court, he will not have the Attorney General has his advocate and he will be paying for all his legal and associated costs himself, as will Mr Moore & Mr Kelly. Everything we hear on these forums is very much one sided and is so biased it begs belief. Having been involved (as an expert witness) in many cases over the past ten years where a contractor and developer have disagreed I can say from experience that there is every chance that FMCR and Co could leave court owing the CM a large amount of money, and possibly his costs also if the CM can substantiate his counter claim. The ins and outs of any grants will not form any part of the court case and will have no bearing on the outcome. I for one will do my best to attend the court (if it is open to the public) to see for myself both sides of the story. If the CM wins his day in court and it transpires after Government enquiries are completed that the CM has not acted improperly would FMCR offer his apologies to the CM ? Geo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Hello Geo, Don't want to offend you here, but I do think your reasoning maybe slightly naïve. The reason I say this is down to personal experience, I won’t bore you with the whole details, but what I will say is. During our case we had important documented evidence disappear, never to reappear… you just wouldn’t believe the extent some people will go to protect themselves. Can you in all honesty say the CM will not use his influence to further his case? I Do hope not… But then again put yourself in his position... what would you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Ha ha ha - he was at the Laxey Wheel birthday party today, I really wish I didn't get a head rush of anger everytime I see him poncing around pretending he is dignified (my cats pooh has more dignity) - The band led the ministers to Laxey Glen gardens, I wonder if he noticed the signs calling for him to be ousted?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posters Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Everything we hear on these forums is very much one sided and is so biased it begs belief I hate everyone who makes sweeping generalizations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Declan, in total about £300k has been paid out on the grant scheme of which 96ish-k was on the matter in question. Under the grant scheme there is a maximum award payable of 50K, they were made two payments, having split the project in some way, just short of the maximum allowable and yes. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is not an answer to my question. I know that, you've said that several times, BUT was that outside the rules? Was there subtefuge or collusion to get a double grant? If so who by - Ned, DOT, the Builder, the surveyors? Or was it in the rules and Ned did what any entrepreneur would do in those circumstances? How intimately involved was Ned in the Introduction of the grant? What was his position at the time and was it his responsibility in the matter? i.e. Did he have a direct impact on the reintroduction of the grants OR Was he a minister of an unrelated Department? Observer's and Ripsaw's replies appear to hint at nothing more than a gut feeling... as I understand it, he was a fairly major player in the reintroduction of the scheme. Only the Finance Minister... It should be noted that during Questions in Tynwald a few months ago, he kept refering to the Grant Scheme as belonging to the Dept of Tourism. On the several times that he refered to the scheme, it could have been easily interperated from his wording that he was (with hindsight) making diliberate attempts to distance himself from any involvement from it's drafting, introduction and implimentation. Some (including myself) may have thought "trying too hard". Would the Finance Minister approve the scheme? Surely, he gives a department a budget and they get on with it. It may have been approved by the cabinet in principle but he would have been one voice. Even if he did approve the scheme and drew up the regulations himself, does that necessarily mean that he did them with an intention of applying for a grant himself. To be honest, I think this is heading down a blind alley, the issue is that he has (I'm assuming on this Olde Moore is posting the truth on this matter) admitted that he supplied invoices for work of a certain value, yet he himself paid less. This whole debate is in danger of being obscured with smoke and mirrors if we aren't careful, the issue of the invoices goes to the heart of whether he is trustworthy. Finally, is Ned claiming that he received public funds for a project, which wasn't completed to the standard required, yet he never met the builder? And this questions his competence. If he can't manage public funds on a relatively minor project on his own land, how can we have confidence in his management of the economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 If so who by - Ned, DOT, the Builder, the surveyors? Don't you mean the DTI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 I thought the award were given by the Tourism lot, not Trade and Industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted September 26, 2004 Share Posted September 26, 2004 Dunno tbh, I'm not that interested in it. innit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.