manxman8180 Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 Now wouldn't it have just read so much better for the Isle of Man if he had stepped down several months ago BEFORE the dramatic arrest? The arrest element is what particularly makes the story and sadly that could have been avoided if he had previously had the decency and dignity to do it earlier. .......<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I see what you (and many others) are saying and I suppose that I agree that it is in the best interest that he has gone. However, I still have a little problem with the fact that we are condemming the man for not quitting his job at the first hint of an allegation. Let's say you were accused of something at work. I, after reading your comments on this subject, would expect you to immediately resign from your post and await the outcome of any criminal investigation. A bit unreallistic, perhaps. I'm no Flanders supporter, but I think at times a reality check is called for. He has stepped down as everyone wanted, with hindsight he maybe should have done so earlier, but the police may well have investigated and found no cause for arrest, so the events of Tuesday would never have materialised. I'm sure his continuing MHK salary will provide a little comfort during these troubled times tho.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 You can't apply the same rules to someone in such an important high public office position as you would to one of your peers in the office. If I was in his position I would have recognised the reputational risk to the island and I would have stood down - that's quite aside from the fact that I would never have got myself into the compromised position he managed to put himself in. I have read through those grant papers (application terms & conditions) only once, yet on the face of it, it would appear I am more aware of the contents of them than they were. How realistic is that?? Not very, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman8180 Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 ....that's quite aside from the fact that I would never have got myself into the compromised position he managed to put himself in. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And that is my sole reason, at present, for also agreeing that he should have stepped down. There is no doubt that it was, at the least, a serious error of judgement on his part to get into a situation like this. And as such, he has lost credibility and had to go. No argument with that. However, to infer that at the slightest hint of an allegation someone should resign is surely a dangerous precedent?? Let's say I do work for a high profile person, we have a dispute over work done, they, quite rightly, refuse to pay or take me to court to resolve it - I shall just make an horrendous allegation against the person and know that the resultant outcry and public hanging will do untold damage to their reputation and, not to forget, their financial position. This, of course, is a totally fabricated example and bears no relevance to any historic or future event. That was my point. Not aimed at just you Obs, but more on the general posting on this topic....... You can't apply the same rules to someone in such an important high public office position as you would to one of your peers in the office This is undoubtedly true in society, that we expect certain things from public figures. However, is it fair on the one hand to expect them to be treated equally in the eyes of the law and as accountable for their actions as you and I, without using their political influence. And yet, on the flip side, aren't we denying them the basic rights that you or I would have of innocence prior to guilt being proven...... Maybe this is too heavy for a Friday, but just trying to dig a bit deeper than 'Ned's guilty let's hang him'..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 Maybe this is too heavy for a Friday, but just trying to dig a bit deeper than 'Ned's guilty let's hang him'..... As I understand it.... The grant scheme was dropped because it was being abused and was replaced with a tax break for investing in holiday property The grant scheme was brough back.... by Richard Corkill The maximum grant is 50k so he submitted 2 claims for just under 50k each He submitted 5 invoices. Two of them weren't paid, which are against the rules of the scheme. You'd think he'd know better. There was 20 breaches of the approved plan. He used to work in the planning dept. You'd think he'd know better. After an argument with the builder it's claimed that his wife threw away some of their tools and "confiscated" the rest. You'd think she'd know better. I think the whole situation is entirely of their own making and have no sympathy for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 As I understand it.... I don't pretend to understand it at all, but isn't everything you listed one side of the story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 I don't pretend to understand it at all, but isn't everything you listed one side of the story? As far as I can see they are all facts that are in the public domain. I'd be interested in hearing any other facts for either side of the case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 I don't pretend to understand it at all, but isn't everything you listed one side of the story? With the exception of FCMR's tools. everything else is documented and available for public viewing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted December 3, 2004 Author Share Posted December 3, 2004 What about the Builders in all this, have they not been stressed out, they too must be sure of winning their case, has one of them not sold his property to finance the legal case, what must his family be going through. What about the Plumber who worked at Ballacain, he went bust due to not being paid for something he done yet Ned was paid by the DTL for the work. Ned went on Holiday today with his family so is he that Bothered. I bet Ned is wishing he could turn the clock back twelve months, and took the advice of his MHKs that asked him to sit down with the builders and suppliers to resolve the dispute without draging it through the courts and putting the reputation of the Government at risk. He told the MHK if the builders want their money they should take him to court, and that he should mind his own business. Ned tried to Bully the Builders it did not work, they took him on so its Neds own fault that he lost his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 As far as I can see they are all facts that are in the public domain. I'd be interested in hearing any other facts for either side of the case That's what I mean, I didn't think Ned had actually said anything. I don't know how I would feel if I was on the other side of that. I'd either think that he had nothing, or that he had an awful lot and was just maintaining a smug silence while I made a berk of myself until the 'day in court'. I know which I'm more inclined to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 With the exception of FCMR's tools. everything else is documented and available for public viewing. Reading between the lines I think FCMR's "no reply" needed thread was some part of the settlement in getting the tools back. Could be totally wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 Why are the Police involved ? Can anyone explain? Which part of the list of allegations (OG's post above) could/would be a criminal matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kite Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 submitting invoices as paid when they were not = fraud forging a signature = fraud stealing tools = theft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crumlin Posted December 3, 2004 Author Share Posted December 3, 2004 Intersting questions are to be asked at the next sitting of Tynwald. Who paid the Legal fees for Mr Bell at Mount Murry and Neds legal fees in the ongoing case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 One of the news stories (I think it was a manx radio one?) mentioned part of the story that's missed from OG's series: that of the fact that part of the grant money was spent not on the cottages but on the main house, a snooker room I think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted December 3, 2004 Share Posted December 3, 2004 IF a snooker room was built in his home for his use with part of the grant money for tourist accommodation that that might be cause for legal action. IF workers were staying at Balalcain for up to 12 weeks at a time against the terms of the planning permission / grant (?) would that result in action? I don't know. It would certainly show a cavalier attitude to government regulations re tourist accomodation. As head of that government it's more bad judgement on his part. Edit - got distracted at work so missed slim's post above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.