Mea Resignations

[Rog]

Only 2 remaining, whats the capacity of a fiber? 155mbps?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Bandwidth depends on fibre type and distance. 155 Mb would be a very low capacity with a 100km-ish span, 10 gigabits, or even 64 gigabits if certain fibre technolgies had been used, nearer to reality with the transmission equipment being the real deciding factor.

 

Spans in excess of 350km at 10 gigs using DWDM are commonplace though optical amplifiers are then needed.

 

8 fibres? We used 8 fibres to serve a single block of flats in the past.

[FCMR]

Is this true the HSBC and IOM bank would not negotiate the 2nd loan with the MEA unless a Government bond was in place and only Barclays did not ask for this

[Ean]

Is it true that invisible monkies from outer space are the only reason people's electricity bills are so high, do they really sneak in and alter the meter?

[Grumble]

Ean, you're shooting the messenger!

 

IF this is true, and there's usually much more than a grain in FRCM's posts, it possibly means that nobody from the MEA or Barclays was UNAWARE that the loans were dodgy.

[Tugger]

It might also suggest that Barclays implicitly recognised that the loan was limited recourse (i.e. that the IOM government was not guaranteeing it)

[Ringwraith]

I DIDN'T DO IT!

 

NEWS LINK

[joeyconcrete]

Bollocks. The amount of times I've heard that in the last few years.

[Mission]

ddntdoit.wav

[slinkydevil]

MEA CRISIS 'NOBODY'S FAULT'

 

Headline of the year

[Digga]

i wonder if a copy of the original PKF report will ever leak out, i think it would make better reading than the final washed and rinsed version that has been released

[FCMR]

The Islands painting firms are at a standstill at the moment due to the Government using up all the whitewash

[Rog]

I DIDN'T DO IT!

 

NEWS LINK

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

--- the MEA and government departments involved were acting within their perceived remits, but those remits were insufficient and allowed a communication breakdown which meant government was not aware enough – or 'sufficiently cognisant' – of what was happening.

 

But that is an utterly astounding condemnation of the Government!

 

If anything far more so than of MEA and the board (and goodness knows they have enough to answer for).

 

How on earth can anyone interpret those findings in any other way?

 

It can not be other than the total; responsibility of the government department and in particular the minister in charge of that department as the failure is one of failure in competence firstly to ensure that the terms of reference were adequate and correct, secondly to ensure that these were adequate, robust and being operated by periodic audits including ‘Fire Drills’.

 

Of course there are people whose heads should be on the block and if they had an ounce of honour would resign and not seek re-election to public office.

 

If I had been a senior manager on a contract and a sub-contractor had screwed up because the remits – aka the terms of reference - that I or my department had set up, and if I had not ensured that both audits and ‘Fire Drills’ were regularly undertaken to provide assurance of the sub contractor working to his TOR as well as the accuracy and appropriateness of the TOR in the running situation, then I would have been sacked on the spot and rightly so.

[FCMR]

This is exactly the same answer given by the DTL over Ballacain,

 

Int the same report it says that the MEA wanted to buy out MT but got turned down by the UK owners of MT

[ian rush]

It can not be other than the total; responsibility of the government department and in particular the minister in charge of that department as the failure is one of failure in competence firstly to ensure that the terms of reference were adequate and correct, secondly to ensure that these were adequate, robust and being operated by periodic audits including ‘Fire Drills’.

 

The MEA is a statutory board and did not have a political representative at the time. It is not a government department. That said, there is a big degree of cock up somewhere.

 

I also recall some mention of the collapse of Enron pushing costs up and there being a change to the contract terms, which meant the MEA taking on certain of the obligations.

[mayhem]

It should make interesting reading when it's finally released but I have to say I'm totally astounded that PKF have concluded that no one was responsible. Seems to me to be a complete cop out. As Rog points out if this were to happen in the "real world" heads would roll and rightly so.

 

This whole culture of pretty much being able to do as you will without any consequences is truly staggering and unique to government. From my dealings with the Civil Service (upto Chief Executive level) the more senior you are the more ambiguous and scared to take responsibility you are (there are of course some notable exceptions Current Head of DTI actually seems to reside in the real world at least most of the time).

 

At least the Board of the MEA did the right thing and resigned (although they hung on in longer that they perhaps should have). If only there Civil Service counterparts would do the same.

 

Re the Enron thing my recollection is that the MEA had insurance against the contractor disappearing this is certainly what MEA staff were told at the time (have a relative working there). Perhaps the insurance was in the form of a large loan from Barclays.