FCMR Posted June 14, 2005 Author Share Posted June 14, 2005 If Ned has been found to be 'completely innocent of any wrong doing', then why not? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Don wont be that stupid, the cloths on the line aint dry yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted June 14, 2005 Share Posted June 14, 2005 Probably didn't help with all that extra rain we had this morning. Why didn't they invest in a tumble dryer? It would have done the job a lot quicker! Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teapot Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Well I'm delighted to note that Mr C is "relieved but not surprised" by the outcome of the police investigation - oddly enough probably most of the rest of us are "not surprised" either! I'm assuming that he's been released because it's his wife's business, but lets get real here. Ans says if he hasn't done anything wrong then why shouldn't the CM bring him back, come on, if he didn't know/didn't take an interest in what his wife was doing regarding her business, (i.e. obtaining grants and having work done that wasn't on the plans!) then he's a fool and shouldn't be in a position of authority and if he did know then he's a cheat and shouldn't be in a position of authority - either way he should have done the decent thing and resigned and should definately not be returned as a Minister. Also, whilst nothing might have been done wrong in the letter of the law regarding the grants, they have misused the spirit of the grant system, but I don't suppose that matters. Also, apart from the financial aspect of all this, when is someone going to carry the can in Planning for the incompetence/inefficiency/underhandedness of signing off that which wasn't on the original plan and giving them a completion certificate, and can someone tell me how Ballacain was allowed to have the work pass on retrospective planning approval, has anyone on the Island even tried to get retrospective planning approval - if you put anything up that didn't have planning permission you'd be hung out to dry!! You don't even get near to retrospective anything! Has anything been done about the fact that some of the people staying at Ballacain were not holidaymakers! Hasn't some poor bloke already been fined for doing just that, in which case when is the department (Planning?) that deals with this going to fine the Ballacain business? Perhaps all this is going to come out, I truly hope so and the integrity of the Manx people will be returned, but quite honestly I doubt it. If only he'd paid the builders - we'd have known nothing!!!!! Perhaps he's not as devious as I thought, a clever person would have paid the builders and got away with everything! I suspect that at the end of the day, as with most things that involve sharp practice on the Island, it's one rule for the boys in authority and another for the rest of us poor sods. (Mount Murray/Ballacain/MEA and those we haven't even heard about). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 has anyone on the Island even tried to get retrospective planning approval - if you put anything up that didn't have planning permission you'd be hung out to dry!! I have successfully applied for retrospective planning permission. It does happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 I didn't know that you needed planning permission for a garden tap! Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Agreeing with Ans, Retrospective Planning permission is more often approved than denied as often the work is fine, it just wasn't agreed prior to the work as opposed to massive variation from the approved plans (as in the case of the ex-CM) I'm in the 'Disgusted from Douglas' camp over what has gone on, but in respect of resigning as an MHK, then again Ans is right, he hasn't been found guilty so we have to (and in a Democracy, *should*) respect that in the eyes of the law, he is innocent of wrong doing. There's an election next November... If he stands (and he would be crazy not to) and is re-elected, then he proves to those who have knocked him that he has the support of the voting public which will be a big pyschological victory. If he isn't re-elected, he gets a golden handshake payoff to help him resettle into 'ordinary' life... Would you resign? The issue of the grants and if he knowingly took advantage of the system is another matter. I personally think that people in his position should lead by example. I've trawled pages and pages of documents and seen nothing to support that he did, only supporting that he saw a loophole and dived through it. Legally? Fine, it happens all the time in all walks of life. Morally? You have to make up your own mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 If he isn't re-elected, he gets a golden handshake payoff to help him resettle into 'ordinary' life... I seem to recall this but the amounts escape me, although a half year's MHK salary seems to stick in my mind. I can't find anyhting on the gov.im web site. Doesn't seem unreasonable for those that have *given up* full time jobs to enter Tynwald and would have to seek equivalent employment once out of the House. However, many MHk's have a business to go back to which they've continued to run whilst being MHK's (i.e Corkill, Rodan, Brown, Cretney and the other shopkeepers, plus arguably Anderson as a farmer.) Apologies to those elected representatives I've missed out from this exclusive club... but it's little wonder that there aren't queues of actuaries, advocates and accountants waiting to become MHKs. And surprising as it may seem to some on this board, the vast majority of professionals are bound by and adhere to the professional codes of conduct governing their work (e.g conflicts of interest). Shopkeepers morals: best described as make what you can? Oh for a return to the days of aristocratic politicians... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teapot Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Well Ripsaw and Ans - you're very forgiving people. These people are taking advantage of their positions for personal gain, it's immoral. Obviously if you've had retrospective planning approval then I bow to your experience, but you didn't address the question of the fact that Ballacain was given retrospective planning approval for work that wasn't on the plan. Shouldn't they have had to file another set of plans to cover what had been built (and this after a very strong ticking off) and then this would go forward as new work in the usual way, with it going in the paper and people being able to see what was happening and posibly object, then may be turned down, though highly unlikely in the circumstances. Let's be honest, it's hard enough to get plans through when you're playing by their rules, usually they'd be all over your site it you built something that wasn't on the plan, so why didn't this happen in this case. Also you didn't address the question of the competence/integrigty of the Building Inspector who signed off the work as completed and complying with the plans/regs., when he must have known that it didn't, and if he didn't know then he should have looked at the plans before he went on the site, or perhaps brought the plans with him for comparison. How could he sign of work that didn't appear on the plans? How do you stand on the fact that the people staying were not all holidaymakers? and nothing is happening! If he stands and gets re-elected then the IOM will get what it deserves and the people shouldn't complain when in future any of the elected officials "jump through loopholes"/take advantage of their positions etc. It can't be good enough to just shrug your shoulders and say "it happens". It seems jolly unfair on the rest of us who are trying to play by the rules, and the authorities don't mind enforcing the rules very strictly when they want too, and yet we still have to pick up the pieces when others bend them to suit themselves. I'm not saying ordinary joe public wouldn't take advantage of a situation given half a chance, but not to this extent and not by using their position when they've been given the trust of the people. Aren't people who take advantage of their position in authority treating their electorate with contempt? Yet, come the next election they'll all be knocking on our doors and telling us how caring they are and what they'll do for us. What their saying is "Elect me and I'll make my (oops sorry) your life better". Ripsaw - are you saying it's better to have Mr C in power rather than have to pay him his redundancy if he isn't re-elected. Either way we pay! If he's re-elected all he proves to those who knocked him is that he's a very lucky man who has a constituency that are blinded by his being Mr Nice Guy and don't want to look below the surface. Would I resign - This is a slightly unfair question because no-one really truly knows how they would react but I think that, yes I would have resigned right at the start because my integrity was being questioned and, if innocent, I would have wanted to concentrate my time on clearing my name. As an MHK I'm supposed to have the good of the Island and it's people at heart, and having your integrity questioned in this way, especially as I would have been head of the Government, would bring a poor light on all members of Tynwald ("their all the same, all got their noses in the trough" etc). Also, if I resign right from the start then, once cleared, when I stand for re-election isn't my position stronger? I wouldn't have been involved in a situation like Ballacain because you have to look yourself in the mirror and if you know that what you're doing is morally wrong you can only kid yourself and justify what you are doing for so long. I'm not saying I'm a saint, far from it, but I just think that we should be able to put our trust in the people we elect to do the right thing for the people and the Island, not for themselves. Sorry this has turned into a bit of a sermon, here endeth the lesson!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Teapot, I only answered the question I knew the answer to I'm not a very forgiving person generally, but I do believe that after a full criminal investigation which has resulted in no charges, Ned's name is cleared of any criminal wrongdoing. If we are to accept FCMR's statement that he has been "completely innocent of any wrong doing" then we must also apply the same to Ned. Whether he has breached terms of his own employment is another matter and one I'm not informed enough about to really have a valid opinion. Not only did I not vote for him, I've never voted for anyone so it would be a bit hippocritical and pointless for me to mouth off about it on here when the only direct action I have open to me is one I've never taken through my own choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teapot Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Teapot, I only answered the question I knew the answer to A very sensible attitude! I'm not a very forgiving person generally, but I do believe that after a full criminal investigation which has resulted in no charges, Ned's name is cleared of any criminal wrongdoing. If we are to accept FCMR's statement that he has been "completely innocent of any wrong doing" then we must also apply the same to Ned. I reluctantly agree with you on this, I just hope that all the non-criminal events will be dealt with and if there has been wrongdoing, on either side, then it will be dealt with appropriately not swept under the carpet. There's far too many MHK's/Civil Servants/Heads of Authorities just hoping that events will blow-over or the people won't be bothered to ask questions. They've got to be made to account for their actions/non-actions and regarding the MHKs this will be at the ballot box I suppose. But they're not the people with the real power, the people with the real power don't stand for election! I want to have faith in our representatives but so far I just feel a sense of disappointment. Perhaps not voting is the only way out, but somehow I just can't bring myself to do this because I think this is much the same as giving up! Mind you, if you don't get involved it's easier on the blood pressure and you do at least have a life!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripsaw Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Teapot, I agree entirely with the thoughts that you have posted above, except you and I wouldn't resign because we wouldn't have been in that situation I have read Onchan Commisioners minutes, the Grant Scheme criteia, Hansards etc. in relation to these and other matters (sadist that I am) and I knew that the exCM would come away smelling of roses. I have told those who would listen and those who read my posts that all the way through that his backside was covered for just about ever aspect that you and I think wrong. Again, it comes down to legal Vs. moral. As far as overstaying guests, etc. are concerned, that is business related so not Mr. C's responsibility in the case (even if married). I hate playing Devil's Advocate sometimes, but I do because it helps keep a clear mind when involved in debate. The guy is morally corrupt in my opinion and has taken the p**s out of the system and the person in the street, but as per above post, it's the legal matters that count in law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted June 15, 2005 Author Share Posted June 15, 2005 Mr Downie has just made a big statement in defence of Ned, and I think he may have spoke to soon, As someone has already said inocent of any crime but guilty morally. Why not wait untill all the facts come out and they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 There are four issues the forum needs to have in mind on all of this, which I perceive in approximate order of 'seriousness' (for the general public) to be as follows; 1. any abuse by Corkill of his position in getting the scheme passed and or in relation to the subsequent Tynwald / Police scrutiny of the affair; 2. (possibly interchangeable with 1.) the criminal allegation against Mr Corkill, which ultimately led to his resignation, but which has now been dropped; 3. the possibility that the grant scheme was abused (whether against the spirit or letter of the scheme) outwith any abuse as per 1. 4. whether FCMR and Will Kelly are owed money by the Corkills or vice versa and the criminal allegation against FCMR and Will Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul H Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 Mr Downie has just made a big statement in defence of Ned, and I think he may have spoke to soon, As someone has already said inocent of any crime but guilty morally. Why not wait untill all the facts come out and they will. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Firstly, well done FCMR! I am very happy for you. As for Downie's statement in defence of Ned it is hardly a shock. I only hope that the when it comes to the vote we can rid our Tynwald of all who have been involved in this farce. Has Downie never heard of the term 'guilt by association'? Or is he so confident that his position as an MLC is safe that he can afford to be in bed with Ned? (Sorry, what a terrible thought!) It's just that everyone I speak to says "Well, I see that Ned got off with it", this would imply that we all think he is guilty and has got off with it, and not that he was found to have done no wrong. Comparable to the way alot of people are talking about Michael Jackson at the moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul H Posted June 15, 2005 Share Posted June 15, 2005 It is rather a shame that the Chief Minister did not comment on the radio but choosed the safe option of transforming a chimney sweep into a parrot. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Harry Houdini's love child to Paul Daniels sister couldn't have pulled this one off! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.