Jump to content

Mea Megathread


Mission

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Oh dear, oh dear.

 

Does anyone know what the new Chief Minister is like? Who's this David Gelling, is he related to Donald??

I think John Moss must have a new job lined up don't you think. "most of the MHK's are just ordinary people, like chimney sweeps, plucked from the streets".

Memo to Alan B - reputation - what reputation!!

Note Proffitt wouldn't be interviewed on legal advice - useful tool! (using legal advice as a get out I mean) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're referring to Donald Gelling as Chief Minister "David Gelling" - bit of a clunker for the BBC!!!!!

 

I would expect better from them!

 

I don't. They were telling us yesterday that "until recently it was illegal to be gay on the Isle of Man"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the £1,000,000 of out money that has been paid to Mr P.

 

My work takes me round some of the estates and I noticed the headline in last week's Courier in the entrance hall of the flats "MEA Chief paid £1million".

 

It was only when I realised the hardship and struggle that some of the people I was visiting (mainly elderly) have in paying their electricity bills for their lighting/cooking/heating/water etc that it dawned on me what a huge amount of money £1million really is.

 

It is quite obscene to award this amount of money. I would like to know who drew up and who approved the contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets not blame MrProffitt (as some people in govt seem to be doing) until everyone has been called to some sort of Parliamentary hearing to give their version of what took place. We all want to know the sequence of events. It would cost very little to start by asking everyone for their version of the events.

 

Don't let Mr Gelling, Mr Downie and Mr Bell get away with letting the blame lie with Mr Proffitt and the board. Not yet. Don't let the govt get away with writing this down to "experience". And closing the book. That conclusion isn't nearly specific or informative enough.

 

It doesn't surprise me that Mr Proffitt will only speak via his lawyers. Possibly I don't blame him. He is being blamed. And he had a good reputation.

 

Mr Proffitt's salary (which is fairly typical of his former role) is a side issue aqnd a red herring which deflects us all from concentrating on the actual sequence of events: It seems unlikely that Barclays would have made the loan if it hadn't been researched. And I don't yet believe that the MEA Board and Mike Proffitt were so gung - ho as to borrow the money if it didn't make good business sense - and hadn't been discussed with govt (or some Minister(s)). Perhaps it was a failure of govt.

 

If Barclays really did make a less than properly researched loan than that would certainly be a matter for the financial regulators. You can't have Manx based banks making dodgy loans. But I don't believe that they did.

 

We still have to hear what Barclays, the MEA board members and Mr Proffitt would say. The case certainly can't be closed until we hear their versions of the story. We need to know the role of govt. And it is inconceivable that govt didn't know about the loan.

 

I'm certain that there is some other factor which has yet to be aired. Otherwise - it doesn't make any sense.

 

In simple terms - it seems hugely unlikely that Mr Proffitt and the MEA would have borrowed such a huge sum without reference to govt. But if they really did then the role of Barclays would surely be a matter for the financial regulators.

 

Either way the govt would be responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iif you're fed up with the MEA thing you really shouldn't be.

 

The following are recordings from the report on BBC Radio 4.

 

 

Introduction to programme

MEA_002a.mp3

 

Coming later on the programme

MEA_002b.mp3

 

and

 

The article itself

MEA_002.mp3

 

 

note

Quicktime doesn't seem to be able to handle these files too well, ok with Windows Media Player or Realplayer though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that. A few of the inevitable inaccuracies, but interesting to see how we are portrayed outside.

 

What is this about residents NARROWLY MISSING a Stg4,000 surcharge? I wasn't aware that a surcharge was ever in contemplation! Judging from my bills I have already made considerable headway into my contribution!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't let Mr Gelling, Mr Downie and Mr Bell get away with letting the blame lie with Mr Proffitt and the board.

Mr Gelling? How was he involved?

 

Was involved? Is involved more like. He's involved now.

 

He's the one who wants us to all draw a line under this and to learn from the experience. Move on. Nothing to see here.

 

But without actually encouraging all those involved to tell us the sequence of events. Though my hope is that his style will encourage all those involved to tell us the sequence of events, sooner or later, whether he likes it or not. Nobody should accept mutual blame if they did nothing wrong. They should all be encouraged to give us their points of view. Then we can really learn from the experience.

 

Mike Proffitt's salary is a red herring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with Simon here, it does seem a lame tactic from government to deter the general public from the matter at hand.

 

I'm beginning to get the impression something iffy happened with the government and/or DTI - perhaps a change of plan which then prevented the MEA from funding the loan. You just know with the government that they'll try to save face and just pay the loan to avoid taking the blame.

 

As the story has developed its amazing how contradictory things are. The MEA had seemingly well publicised plans and apparently well ordered accounts - to which the government deny having knowledge of.

 

My view is starting to change slightly - I'm sitting at the fence at the minute. We'll not know the real-turn of events until everything is out in the open. Hopefully the non-government entities will do so via the press (hmm) or an out-of-band channel. If we're relying on the government it'll be a damage limitation exercise so we'll still have no real facts, just bull poop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't let Mr Gelling, Mr Downie and Mr Bell get away with letting the blame lie with Mr Proffitt and the board. Not yet. Don't let the govt get away with writing this down to "experience" ... Either way the govt would be responsible.

 

The trouble is that, say, Mr Downie cannot be removed by any of us. Even though he was - and is still - the Minister for Trade & Industry, he was (as seems now to be the norm for the loyal but electorally unpopular) actually promoted onto LegCo out of harm's way whilst retaining his position on the Council of Ministers.

 

Mr Bell's continuance as Treasury Minister is also truly astounding.

 

BTW. Was Manx Radio's version of the BBC feature edited to exclude John Moss' references to chimney sweeps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sitting at the fence at the minute. We'll not know the real-turn of events until everything is out in the open.

 

Man, that's not how we do things round here. We shoot on sight at the first whiff of scandal. No way we should wait for the whole story, that's a complete break in tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're referring to Donald Gelling as Chief Minister "David Gelling" - bit of a clunker for the BBC!!!!!

 

I would expect better from them!

 

I don't. They were telling us yesterday that "until recently it was illegal to be gay on the Isle of Man"

 

Depends on how you term "recently" I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the DTI were fully aware and encouraged the MEA to progress with their business plan and the Skyward (broadband) proposals. All MEA staff were briefed on this during the later stages of the project with regulatory issues being the only ones that needed to be addresses. I believe was stated at this meeting that they had the backing of the DTI. I was told that a member of staff (who's partner worked at MT) left the room in floods of tears in realisation that he may well loose his job!.

 

However it was also stated that they expected MT to object to the proposals on the basis that they have invested so much in the IOM etc, etc It was stated that they expected to be issued a licence shortly. As we all now know MT have been very effective in there lobbying to get this canned which is a real shame as it would be good to seem some credible competition for MT. I also believe that it would b good for IOM plc too.

 

Perhaps it's not too late - all the work has been done, the infrastructure is broadly in place and they clearly need some additional funds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...