P.K. Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 I still struggle with the fact that the Chairman of Barclays Private Clients International could be in charge of the state-owned MEA which miscalculated the cost of a major project by a massive 65%! They must have known months if not years in advance that they would run into a shortfall and yet no-one in Government was informed or knew about it? I'm expected to believe that no-one in MEA was informing the Government of progress or otherwise on the biggest infrastructure project they had ever undertaken and no-one in Government was asking how it was going? Strangely I just don't buy it. And they built a GAS-fired power station. The UK's gas production peaked in 2000 and is now in decline. Some time next year the UK is expected to become a net gas importer. Anyone care to guess in which direction the price of UK gas will then go? Still, it's no-one's fault now is it? No doubt it is all down to just a small breakdown in "the process". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alriteyessir Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 Note to PKF xxxx doesn't just happen, xxxx takes time, xxxx takes effort, £120 million worth of effort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy One Mate Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 Shocked astounded but not surprised. Where else in buisness could somebody borrow an extra 120 million with no possibility of paying it back and not be at fault. You guessed it, in the Isle of Man with the involvement of the Manx Government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 How responsible is the government for letting this happen then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 CEO / Board level management and Government, must be the only occupations where the game of consequences does not apply. I am afraid the game of consequences in this case will be played by the taxpayer / consumer and the heaviest burden will fall on those able to afford it least. For the CEO to describe this fiasco as a "storm in a tea cup" is shameful !!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 How responsible is the government for letting this happen then? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Isle of Man is too small for 'The Government' to be used as some faceless organisation that has screwed up. The blame must lie with the ‘ministry’ who had prime responsibility for the generation, distribution, and supply of electricity on the Island and I think that I am correct in identifying that ‘ministry’ as being the DTI and so by definition Alex ‘Docker’ Downie. It is there that the incompetence lies. That is the individual and the group who should have shown due diligence, and who have singularly and monumentally failed due to pure incompetence if nothing else. Downie was the ‘head honcho’ at the time that this debacle was going on, and this and more is down to his sheer gross incompetence. He should be pilloried (in an ideal world, literally) and made to resign from any public office if for no other reason than he held ministerial responsibility at the time and spectacularly failed to meet the expectations of someone put in such a position of RESPONSIBILITY. He has demonstrated that he is unfit for any senior post in government and as a result of his subsequent actions he should be asked to tender his resignation and step down as a punishment. All too often people seem to think that responsibility is the same as power. It isn’t. Power doesn’t come with the requirement that you should also necessarily carry the can, no matter what it’s filled with, responsibility does. Let’s face it, if you take the ‘pay and rations’, and he surely did, then you’ve got to take what is involved and that includes an expectation of moral integrity. Ned also has a great deal to answer for as the effective CEO during the time this was taking place. If the Isle of Man were to be a private company then there would by now have been a shareholders revolt over this issue alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilDDog Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Everyone concerned in this MEA fiasco should be charged and have to face the courts, not the manx ones either. Then they should be sentenced to be thrashed within an inch of their lives for bringing the Island into disrepute yet AGAIN.. Not cover the whole thing up with a petty lame excuse "We wouldn't be doing the Island any favours bringing anyone to task over this matter". People have been birched and given major prison sentences for a lot less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Bring back the birch... So what happens now? Do they get away with it scott free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Without going quite as far as WildDog, I certainly believe that the incompetence of those involved in the fiasco should be exposed and it should be made clear that none of them are ever again allowed to hold any kind of public office. Start at the top - with Docker D as the minister responsible - and follow up with all of those whose criminal negligence has not only brought the island into disrepute but saddled all of us with a huge debt which becomes a wasted resource that could have been spent elsewhere far more profitably. And don't ever forget that most of the scandals, cock-ups and irregularities were initiated when was in charge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyconcrete Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Pretty much by the sounds of it. The government has `identified` weaknesses and has put procedures in place to address them. Its a joke, no matter what happens a "collective" is always loosely blamed therefore no one person(s) are responsibile. If it's a department, then the head of department is responsible. They're responsible for having those weaknesses or a lack of procedures/communication. I just think its bollocks that so many seamingly incompetant ministers/staff can keep their jobs where in the real world they'd be simply sacked. By keeping their jobs it means its likely to happen again in the future. I wouldn't mind if it was a relatively minor issue, but this is by no means minor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Whos got the report into WindFarms that cost £10million, cant see it in the accounts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Do not forget that in order to circumvent any awkward controls Mr M Proffitt deliberately used the Manx Cable Company to obtain the loans from, well, Mr M Proffitt actually. Of course it sounds like a very dodgy deal has been done but I couldn't possibly comment..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ButterflyMaiden Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Do not forget that in order to circumvent any awkward controls Mr M Proffitt deliberately used the Manx Cable Company to obtain the loans from, well, Mr M Proffitt actually. Of course it sounds like a very dodgy deal has been done but I couldn't possibly comment..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I tried to get a copy of the PKF report today but couldnt. We will have to read it carefully first before making any judgements on deals ..dodgy or otherwise. I still believe it is more important to discover who was managing the project costs and to understand how they were allowed to get so far out of budget (if indeed they did) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 I wonder if an analysis was ever done to compare the costs involved in establishing a duplicated / triplicated cable link to The UK National Grid and buying power from a Mainland based power generating company, as opposed to the building of generation plant together with the gas interconnect costs on the Isle of Man. Apart from anything else there is the matter of economy of scale, efficiency of large plant against small plant, simplicity of transmission of electricity as opposed to transmission of fuel and subsequent generation of electricity on the Island quite apart from fuel cost escalation in the future that would seem to for some reason to have been totally overlooked, discounted, or simply not understood by those in a position to approve the projects. (Does the same gas supply to the power station also feed Manx gas consumers? If so then other questions start to emerge) If there was going to be a cable laid then how on earth can the additional cost of transporting the fuel and installing brand new generation plant on the island be justified when existing generation plant and a much lower fuel cost on the Mainland could be used? The whole thing is bizarre. The whole power strategy seems nonsensical. It smacks of at least gross incompetence at the strategy decision stage as well as time and again in the execution of the strategy.. Also opportunism. I sense an issue here way beyond the matter of the legality or otherwise of the loan, In the overall scheme of things that could even turn out to be something of a distraction from the real issue, the competence and integrity or otherwise of the people in government to do their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Is the Pannell's report available online? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.