woolley Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 Just now, Non-Believer said: They do in every other area. The record's not good. You're not wrong there. If only every other area could have been run in the same way as IOM Film. To coin a phrase "It's not really taxpayer's money." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, woolley said: The reserves are not imaginary. In the context that the figure usually quoted includes the NI reserve fund then they are largely imaginary unless they intend not paying us our state pensions in future. Edited October 3, 2019 by thesultanofsheight 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 11 minutes ago, woolley said: The reserves are not imaginary. they will be soon. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 6 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said: In the context that the figure usually quoted includes the NI reserve fund then they are largely imaginary unless they intend not paying us our state pensions in future. OK. Accept that. They would be considerably more imaginary had we not had IOM Film. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 1 hour ago, woolley said: FFS. I give up. Talk about penny wise, pound foolish. My earlier idea was better. Just give up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 4 hours ago, woolley said: . You believe we would have carried on for so many years if the Island was losing money hand over fist on it? Yes. it was sexy and shiny and exciting. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 27 minutes ago, Derek Flint said: Yes. it was sexy and shiny and exciting. I'm sorry, Derek. I see sense in much of what you post, but you couldn't be barking up a more wrong tree than this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 48 minutes ago, Derek Flint said: 5 hours ago, woolley said: . You believe we would have carried on for so many years if the Island was losing money hand over fist on it? Yes. it was sexy and shiny and exciting. I'm not sure that it was even that sexy, shiny or exciting (except if you have pretty low thresholds for those things) but the level of glamour or wealth required to impress people in the Manx government is pretty low and indiscriminate ("Some of these fellas are millionaires!") . But some people did very well out of it and everyone else was too embarrassed to admit mistakes had been made. So they just kept piling other people's money into the slot machine vaguely hoping a jackpot would justify them all. And when it didn't it's back to the old routines of Nothing To See Here and Lessons Have Been Learned and We Shouldn't Rake Over The Past and all the other ritual speeches we have heard numerous times before. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 I'm not even sure that those well-worn clichés were ever even trotted out in respect of enquiries re. the film industry finances. Tynwald was simply treated with conduct bordering on contempt by Bell and Teare IMHO whenever questions were raised. Nobody has ever come out with firm figures as to how much we may have conned (yes, conned) out of HMRC in exchange for the millions we lost during the dalliance. For that reason alone I don't believe a word of any excuses or attempt at justification (sorry, Woolster). If and when anybody does, with evidence to prove, I'll reconsider. Until then, it was just a swindle for a fortunate few with the taxpayer funding it as usual. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Trumps Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 They love a Ponzi scheme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 5 hours ago, woolley said: The reserves are not imaginary. Not for much longer the way this shower are pissing it away !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 7 hours ago, woolley said: They were the ones who made it possible. With almost zero risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 2 hours ago, woolley said: I'm sorry, Derek. I see sense in much of what you post, but you couldn't be barking up a more wrong tree than this one. I can only work with the figures I can see. Those look to me like a long term, sustained investment with clear signs that losses were being incurred. At a relatively early point, the tax break became uncompetitive so there was little point in shipping crews over here when you could achieve much the same aesthetic in Wales. But still the dream was pursued. Indeed, I don’t know whether to this day we still hire a boat at Cannes to see who we can entice to come here with their cameras, but it isn’t that long ago this was still going on. if we can say, categorically, “we expended ‘X’ millions up front, and despite the losses, we actually made ‘Y’ millions over and above that, then I will have it. And I’m not talking hypotheticals. A big pile of directly attributable cash in an account somewhere. Can anyone show those figs? 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 11 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: I'm not even sure that those well-worn clichés were ever even trotted out in respect of enquiries re. the film industry finances. Tynwald was simply treated with conduct bordering on contempt by Bell and Teare IMHO whenever questions were raised. Nobody has ever come out with firm figures as to how much we may have conned (yes, conned) out of HMRC in exchange for the millions we lost during the dalliance. For that reason alone I don't believe a word of any excuses or attempt at justification (sorry, Woolster). If and when anybody does, with evidence to prove, I'll reconsider. Until then, it was just a swindle for a fortunate few with the taxpayer funding it as usual. The Manx taxpayer is well in pocket and conned is a very strong word. There was a customs and excise agreement between adults that everyone signed up to and, presumably, all parties worked within its terms or we would have heard about it very loudly before now. The agreement was later changed to another which all sides again signed up to. The renegotiation was amicable and there was no public suggestion of impropriety whatsoever. There was a comment from the UK side at the time from no less than Charlie Falconer, I recall, saying that whoever negotiated the previous arrangements on behalf of the Island had done a remarkable job, but that times had changed and it couldn't continue. Are you suggesting that years later we should hold an enquiry, decide that the UK overpaid us despite us operating within the rules, and implore them to take some back? What is the desired end result of all of this? I can see no upside for the Island or Manx taxpayers in this dogged pursuit of detail. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 I would think a lot of the rhetoric on this and similar subjects is because of the lack of clarity on the subject. When there are questions over the conduct of parties involved and massive pay outs to individuals and there appears to be some sort of cover up then of course folk will be concerned. Therefore I would think it entirely reasonable to look historically at what happened and maybe if there had been better scrutiny over the years of all the big losses as well as the questionable investments and poorly managed civil engineering operations then maybe folk would be a little more trusting.....maybe. These comments are not directed at your comments Woolster. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.