Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, offshoremanxman said:

Listening to Tim Crookall on the radio it suggests that part of the problem is that they were sold a pup of a site which now needs massive reinforcement and protection to make it operational. The first record I could find was Phil Gawne quoting a £15M figure about 6 years ago. So I think it’s likely we’ve turned a £15M project into a £100M project by the time we’ve finished. We could have probably bought the whole port of Heysham off Mersey Docks (who bought Heysham for £25M in 2001) for half of that. 

Tim Crookall is talking through his arse, most likely fed from a cassette inserted into his head by persons within the DOI.

During election time, a now re-elected MHK (and I've posted this before) told me in no uncertain terms that Peel Holdings advised of known and likely problems with the site during the negotiations stage. It was also the reason that they withdrew from their original offer to construct the Dock "at no cost to the Manx taxpayer" which was the original starting point of this "project".

The cost to IoM taxpayers then rose to £3M and then by varying further increments, to the latest revelation.

If what said MHK told me is true (and I believe him personally), then persons within IoMG took it upon themselves to disregard this advice and proceed down the road we find ourselves now mired in. Who and why are the questions that need answering. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Non-Believer
typo

[2112]

5 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Tim Crookall is talking through his arse, most likely fed from a cassette inserted into his head by persons within the DOI.

During election time, a now elected MHK (and I've posted this before) told me in no uncertain terms that Peel Holdings advised of known and likely problems with the site during the negotiations stage. It was also the reason that they withdrew from their original offer to construct the Dock "at no cost to the Manx taxpayer" which was the original starting point of this "project".

The cost to IoM taxpayers then rose to £3M and then by varying further increments, to the latest revelation.

If what said MHK told me is true (and I believe him personally), then persons within IoMG took it upon themselves to disregard this advice and proceed down the road we find ourselves now mired in. Who and why are the questions that need answering. 

It’s a shame that those who ignored possible advice, or took their own council, can’t be surcharged. Nobody is ever held accountable, or does the honourable thing (unless they keep their pension). 

[Non-Believer]

It's worth going back and reading this thread from the start. All the phases that this has gone through including links to support are there. Including last April's DOI denial that the project had reached £53M, elicited by Claire Barber, and the claims that it was a "typo" from £38M.

Also certain posters defending the expense from the start and denying the emerging facts.....

[Max Power]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

Tim Crookall is talking through his arse, most likely fed from a cassette inserted into his head by persons within the DOI.

During election time, a now elected MHK (and I've posted this before) told me in no uncertain terms that Peel Holdings advised of known and likely problems with the site during the negotiations stage. It was also the reason that they withdrew from their original offer to construct the Dock "at no cost to the Manx taxpayer" which was the original starting point of this "project".

The cost to IoM taxpayers then rose to £3M and then by varying further increments, to the latest revelation.

If what said MHK told me is true (and I believe him personally), then persons within IoMG took it upon themselves to disregard this advice and proceed down the road we find ourselves now mired in. Who and why are the questions that need answering. 

I don't think we need to guess who is responsible for this 'oversight' and to realise that they will never be publicly outed. They will be by now comfortably planning the rest of their life, funded by our good selves!

[Happier diner]

37 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Also certain posters defending the expense from the start and denying the emerging facts.....

They must be way back!

[wingnut]

This is just another in a long line of mismanaged capital projects which has brought so called ‘Manx Care’ to it’s knees through lack of funding. All those poor souls suffering in silence or forced to scrape enough money together to get years waited for surgery done privately in order to regain a pain free existence. 
 

You can change the name of a failing Health Service, but you can’t kid us with ‘smoke and mirror awards for excellence’. 
 

Shame on all of our untrained inadequate so called politicians. But they don’t know what that is and never show it  - “it wasn’t on my watch” is the cry and “if I can just get that second term in, it won’t matter to me or my family, because I’ll have a very healthy bulletproof pension in the time most plebs have taken to get a liveable wage after completing an apprenticeship/degree and built up a good reputation through hard work”. “What a bunch of suckers voters are - a ten year career for me, switching my ‘responsibilities’ around a few times and out”. Ring any bells??
 

[Max Power]

29 minutes ago, wingnut said:

This is just another in a long line of mismanaged capital projects which has brought so called ‘Manx Care’ to it’s knees through lack of funding. All those poor souls suffering in silence or forced to scrape enough money together to get years waited for surgery done privately in order to regain a pain free existence. 
 

You can change the name of a failing Health Service, but you can’t kid us with ‘smoke and mirror awards for excellence’. 
 

Shame on all of our untrained inadequate so called politicians. But they don’t know what that is and never show it  - “it wasn’t on my watch” is the cry and “if I can just get that second term in, it won’t matter to me or my family, because I’ll have a very healthy bulletproof pension in the time most plebs have taken to get a liveable wage after completing an apprenticeship/degree and built up a good reputation through hard work”. “What a bunch of suckers voters are - a ten year career for me, switching my ‘responsibilities’ around a few times and out”. Ring any bells??
 

Understandable but I feel that the real competence issues are within the Civil Service, and particularly at senior level. The politicians are basically beaten down by the CS in one way or another, there is a huge challenge to get anything done.

[wingnut]

You are right in one sense Max Power, but the reason I chose the words “untrained” and “inadequate” was because they ought to be ‘organ grinders’ keeping ‘the monkeys in check’. It’s what they are well paid (with gold plated pensions) to do but unfortunately they aren’t trained to deal with entrenched ‘Yes Minister’ senior civil ‘servants’. 
 

How many of our MHK’s past or present have degrees in politics? 

[joebean]

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

Understandable but I feel that the real competence issues are within the Civil Service, and particularly at senior level. The politicians are basically beaten down by the CS in one way or another, there is a huge challenge to get anything done.

There are some good people at senior positions but the problem stems from a reliance on simple accounting qualifications, currently and general admin grade Officers making their way up the ranks into positions where they lack the specialist skills or experience to do the top jobs effectively. The Civil Service has always had a tendency to distrust and under-value private sector experience and finds it difficult to attract good candidates from it, as a result. The job of a CEO is not administrative; it requires leadership and specialist skills in the area of work the Department is engaged in. General CS experience just won’t cut it. Neither will being an acceptable member of the Club, regardless of experience or ability, as we saw at DoI. As long as the CS adopts the same approach to promotion and recruitment as they do now, these kind of poor performance issues will continue.  

Edited December 2, 2021 by joebean
Typo

[CallMeCurious]

1 minute ago, wingnut said:

You are right in one sense Max Power, but the reason I chose the words “untrained” and “inadequate” was because they ought to be ‘organ grinders’ keeping ‘the monkeys in check’. It’s what they are well paid (with gold plated pensions) to do but unfortunately they aren’t trained to deal with entrenched ‘Yes Minister’ senior civil ‘servants’. 
 

How many of our MHK’s past or present have degrees in politics? 

Every pronouncement from Manx Care is classic political speak, excuse mongering as usual. No doubt the DoI will get the same whitewashing, probably under the guise of greening. So footpaths can't be maintained because of the wild flowers, beetles or birds. Ambigious road markings or none at all will be about shared spaces and traffic calming. 

It's never about action and progress but the appearance of it. Why put a two or three paragraph notice in thr courier when you can put a four page wrap on the front of it. One thing for sure they are certainly keeping the leaflet printers and graphic design wallahs in work.

[wingnut]

“Untrained”, “Inadequate” = ineffectual, what else does anyone expect of our CS until voting slips include the tick option ‘No fielded candidate suitable or competent for role’.

[monasqueen]

16 hours ago, Happier diner said:

Can you show your working? 

I make it about £2500 per adult (which is still an incredible figure).

I'd rather have the £5 for me and the missus and just go to Heeesham every time

Oooops - tooooo many noughts!

Actually, I should have said £1,000 per adult ;-))

I was assuming an adult population of about 71,000 (some of the adults would be quite young!

Your figures seem to suggest an adult population of around 28,400. That means a substantial amount of children???

I'd rather go to Heeesham, too. Far easier to drive to/from, and there's actually a railway station there, usually with one train a day, which sometimes manages to connect with the boat. Oh, and it does seem to cope with freight, too. The Scousers who live by the new terminal in Liverpool don't want us in their back yards, so they're hardly likely to be clamouring to use the ferry to come here on day trips.

[Banker]

4 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

It’s more than that. If Peel Holdings removed their offer to develop the site for IOM government due to issues that were apparent after further surveys (as suggested above) then it’s pure arrogance if some absolute clown decided to still run with it rather than just write off the £3.5M spent (we could probably have sold the site on for a different application anyway) and move on. We’ve managed to turn £3.5M for the plot and a deal to develop it for us into over £70M of taxpayers money being committed. Frankly it’s insane, as is the person or persons who decided that we should continue with the site after one of the most successful development companies in the north apparently told us it wasn’t economically viable for them to develop for us. 

We should have an enquiry by at least independent person on this fiasco 

[code99]

Put your mind at rest. Crookall says: "There are lessons to be learnt from it”.  I am supremely reassured.

[quilp]

Cringe-inducing...