Ripsaw Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 But what about Ned spending £30000.00 of the Tourism grant money(our money) on his own home, and whyhas ne been allowed to get away with it. the Manx press never gave that out or did they.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I assumed it was a typo and should have been written as a £300,000 development. Or is Crumlin suggesting in public that work was carried out..... EDIT: Hmmm, rereading the Guardian article, it does say he claimed a special tourism grant for £30,000 of building work, in reality used to do up his own house Which could be interperated that he did spend the cash elsewhere in the house. More reason for it being a shame that other parts of the article being erronous as it may be a typo or it may be information new to the public areana. *Shrugs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Three UK Newspapers over to cover todays case. and Ned is making a statement on MidDayMandate over the Guardian. More xxxx and lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 But what about Ned spending £30000.00 of the Tourism grant money(our money) on his own home, and whyhas ne been allowed to get away with it. the Manx press never gave that out or did they.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I assumed it was a typo and should have been written as a £300,000 development. Or is Crumlin suggesting in public that work was carried out..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It says that Ned got a Tourism Grant for building works but £30k was spent on his own home, is that what the Police are investigating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Note: I have edited my previous post to summise on Crumlins above comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Any power and credibility of the article was somewhat diluted by their "tourism factsheet" at the end, I think. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think the little footnotes detracted from the piece at all. I would suggest it was an attempt to put the place and therefore the actions being taken into perspective. Agreed. Lots of people in the UK won't know where it is or much about it, apart from being a tax haven and the TT. I've had loads of leaflets at work from UK Govt departments. When I complained about them I received a letter back, apologising for the oversight and telling me that all Channel Island address had now been removed from their mail list. Doh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 I don't think the little footnotes detracted from the piece at all. I would suggest it was an attempt to put the place and therefore the actions being taken into perspective. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The more I think about it, I reckon it just shows that the writer suspects that the average reader wouldn’t know or care about the Isle of Man, is trying to make the article as interesting and relevant to the average reader in the UK, and perhaps failing... maybe.. or not.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 There's no such thing as bad publicity. IOM may have shaken off the image of seedy tax haven with the relevant supervisual bodies but this does not mean that the general public and bias media journos have to agree with the latest findings. No doubt the article will attract more rich people who think they can do whatever they want over here and get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 I don't think the little footnotes detracted from the piece at all. I would suggest it was an attempt to put the place and therefore the actions being taken into perspective. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The more I think about it, I reckon it just shows that the writer suspects that the average reader wouldn’t know or care about the Isle of Man, is trying to make the article as interesting and relevant to the average reader in the UK, and perhaps failing... maybe.. or not.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The last piece of the report says it all, the UK dont give a Damm about the IOM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Forgive me for being devils advocate on this one, but arent we being a little naieve to think that we should be different to anywhere else in the world. Money talks simple as. Whilst I agree that what is going on is somewhat dubious it shouldnt really come as that much of a surprise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 There's no such thing as bad publicity. IOM may have shaken off the image of seedy tax haven with the relevant supervisual bodies but this does not mean that the general public and bias media journos have to agree with the latest findings. No doubt the article will attract more rich people who think they can do whatever they want over here and get away with it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agreed. I think the words "tax haven" still actually work for the island, not against it. I'm sure if I had a huge wedge of dosh, it'd perhaps make me investigate what the island was about, and whether the reputation was founded or not. I think for instance that if they'd have put in the Guardian "The Island is actually heavily regulated and not much of a tax benefit to the investor, all operating costs considered" it would be more damaging! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Mr Ned has just been on Manx Radio news over the Guardian, he never defended himself over the £30k ??????? I would of thought that would of been the first thing he would of denied Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Sorry guys, if you lie with dogs don’t whinge when you get fleas. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not everyone here is exactly delighted to be associated with people causing the descriptions of seedy & allegations of corruption etc in case you hadn't realised... To be honest though whilst it hardly makes favourable reading, I doubt if an article like this will really make a great deal of difference to joe public's idea of the island. After all, if you were planning on going on holiday to some town in France and you heard the local mayor had some scandal alleged about him it'd hardly make you go "Oh, I don't like the sound of the that, it sounds like the whole town is some festering hive of corruption & debauchery - let's go to Torquay instead". It's not great, no, but remember the old saying that today's headlines is tomorrow's chip papers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Tell that to the British/Manx people that have bought homes in France and Spain or to those that lost out at the SIB scandal, did the top people and politicians not get all their money out before it went Bust. And is it not true that the Manx Government are to vote in Tynwald to introduce a tax on those that have bought houses for the buy to rent market, most of which are investers fron outside the IOM, Example Broadway apartments one company bought 22 out of the 33 built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 Agreed. I think the words "tax haven" still actually work for the island, not against it. I'm sure if I had a huge wedge of dosh, it'd perhaps make me investigate what the island was about, and whether the reputation was founded or not. I think for instance that if they'd have put in the Guardian "The Island is actually heavily regulated and not much of a tax benefit to the investor, all operating costs considered" it would be more damaging! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ........ accept that the above statement would also be inaccurate. Yes, we are heavily regulated, but we now attract a better standard of business utilising legitimate tax schemes. We still have attractive tax incentives that have not been withdrawn, rather, the income tax department are working towards making those benefits available to local business to make it a level playing field. Further, someone investigating whether it was economically viable to stash their 'wedge of dosh' in a tax haven, is not actually going to see their plan through to fruition - so how is that of benefit to the island? It's a non starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted November 12, 2004 Share Posted November 12, 2004 he claimed a special tourism grant for £30,000 of building work, in reality used to do up his own house I was thinking about this at lunchtime and struggled to understand the accusation. In theory, Grant rules say that the claimant pays for all work himself then using a QS report and builder's Invoices he claims back a percentage of the cost by way of the grant. The only way that I can see a potential fraud is if... The QS permitted the 'other' work to be included in his calcualtions of the spend on the approved development or... The claimant/builder purchased items for the 'other' work and had them booked by the suppliers to the approved development or paid the builders for 'other' work and 'forgot' to tell the QS that they had been used elsewhere... If the QS verifies that all labour and materials within the approved development matched his estimates (within permitted tollerences) then the grant is paid on that work, No problem. If the QS didn't include them. Again, no problem. If the (£30,000 worth of) labour and materials are not part of the approved development and the QS includes them in his calculations then an 'error' has occured. Problem A definate tangled web, whatever the full explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.