Banker Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 3 minutes ago, Gladys said: It is not a government body, this is the whole point that is being missed. It’s owned by Government and I’m sure it’s assets & liabilities etc are included in the consolidated Government accounts, the same as all other companies etc ultimately owned by government Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 37 minutes ago, majkul said: Here's another fine mess. Long-term residents (around three or four families) in some particular "holiday cottages", have been asked to move out by the end of this month, so the cottages can be rented out for those self-isolating. When, according to lockdown rules, these families cannot visit or view other properties to move into. Every single decision they make (prom "works", vaccination hubs, building contracts, bridge works... too many to mention), has everything to do with filling their pockets, before they have to leave the gravy train, and nothing to do with the health and wellbeing of the island's population. Every. Single. Decision. Are these Holiday cottages owned and operated by Government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holte End Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 1 hour ago, Roxanne said: I can tell you that when the government commissioned an independent review into the Laxey flooding in 2019 the 'conclusion' section in the report had been redacted. Hope this helps. So if Government don't like what Government have reported, Government can change it. I am even more confused. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 Just now, Banker said: It’s owned by Government and I’m sure it’s assets & liabilities etc are included in the consolidated Government accounts, the same as all other companies etc ultimately owned by government If they are, it is a function of accounting convention not of the legal reality that the assets and liabilities of the SP belong to the SP. IOMG owns the shares. Just because someone owns the shares in a company does not mean they can walk in and take whatever assets they like because they 'own' them. It is a bit of an arcane area, but the SP is a private company with its own distinct legal personality to its shareholders, even if its shareholders are the IOMG. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holte End Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 1 minute ago, Gladys said: If they are, it is a function of accounting convention not of the legal reality that the assets and liabilities of the SP belong to the SP. IOMG owns the shares. Just because someone owns the shares in a company does not mean they can walk in and take whatever assets they like because they 'own' them. It is a bit of an arcane area, but the SP is a private company with its own distinct legal personality to its shareholders, even if its shareholders are the IOMG. So if there was a will of Tynwald, what would happen then, could the SP say no stick your will of Tynwald up your arse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryFuchwit Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 4 minutes ago, Holte End said: So if there was a will of Tynwald, what would happen then, could the SP say no stick your will of Tynwald up your arse. It's a private company. What makes you think it should be subject to anything other than exactly what other private companies are subject to? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaymann Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 5 minutes ago, Holte End said: So if there was a will of Tynwald, what would happen then, could the SP say no stick your will of Tynwald up your arse. I refer to articles like https://www.three.fm/news/isle-of-man-business/directors-appointed-to-steam-packet-board Looking at 'separation', the Gov direct involvement is very clear. If we look at Abbotswood, the investigation is trying to come after the shareholders who had no day to day involvement in the management or running of the home. I still don't see how the Government/AG can realistically pursue that avenue but not when it comes to a business of which it is the majority shareholder. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 1 minute ago, Holte End said: So if there was a will of Tynwald, what would happen then, could the SP say no stick your will of Tynwald up your arse. There may be some shareholders agreement which sets out certain reporting and other obligations. But on strict company law they could, but the shareholders could then pass a resolution to instruct the directors to do a certain thing and if the directors don't the shareholders could remove them. Then you will have a shipping company with no board. The will of Tynwald might be pressed upon Alf Cannon to reveal the report he has. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 3 hours ago, Banker said: Unemployment down in February which is no surprise as we were out of lockdown, will rocket in March to a very high level. Theres going to be more unrest between those struggling on the low support payments & the vast army of public sector workers on full pay whether working or not https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/unemployment-fell-in-february-but-remains-high/ Over 1400 people unemployed and we are still importing managers etc for the DHSC. Announcement expected on off island candidate for Chief Nurse. (we have been without one for a couple of years but apparently we desperately need one now) DA highlighting the stress the DHSC is under in Tynwald this morning but it still using bank staff, overtime and probably agency staff to prop up the services we can still afford to run. He should have asked for more people to help out with his jabs, rather than deplete other areas. At least the Private Patient Unit is open for NHS patients. Wonder who will be paying to get that ward back up to private patient standards again after Covid has left the building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 52 minutes ago, Gladys said: To be honest the public interest is in what IOMG did, not the SP, although of course if there was any suspicion of illegality, then they would be subject to a criminal investigation. Given his A level in law The Chief Minister this morning indicated there was no legal implications. When further questioned whether this was supported by the AG or the police he said it was officers views who were at the coal face. It seems like he was advising what he believed the outcomes of whatever enquiry / investigation should be. It will be whitewash, a waste of money and time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utah 01 Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 12 minutes ago, Apple said: a waste of money and time. .......but you can bet the farm on it - lessons will be learned and instantly forgotten/ignored/buried. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 26 minutes ago, Apple said: DA highlighting the stress the DHSC is under in Tynwald this morning but it still using bank staff, overtime and probably agency staff to prop up the services we can still afford to run. He should have asked for more people to help out with his jabs, rather than deplete other areas Exactly, there’s been numerous reports of volunteers to give the jabs ,retired doctors, nurses etc but as far as I know none are being used. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 54 minutes ago, Gladys said: If they are, it is a function of accounting convention not of the legal reality that the assets and liabilities of the SP belong to the SP. IOMG owns the shares. Just because someone owns the shares in a company does not mean they can walk in and take whatever assets they like because they 'own' them. It is a bit of an arcane area, but the SP is a private company with its own distinct legal personality to its shareholders, even if its shareholders are the IOMG. IOMG are ultimately the owner and that’s it. It’s a bit like saying Chelsea football club is a private company and the owner Roman Abramovich has no say in what happens when in fact he sacks the MD or manager whenever he feels like it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbnuts Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 1 minute ago, Banker said: Exactly, there’s been numerous reports of volunteers to give the jabs ,retired doctors, nurses etc but as far as I know none are being used. My sister who's a nurse in district offered to help months ago on her days off but heard nothing. In the end she kicked up a stink to those in charge and eventually she had some shifts. Now she is doing a few days a week over and above her usual duties. As a footnote she offered as felt she should and so not for any monetary reason. All a bit incestous it sounds tbh between managers and their own staff . 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 There’s a summary of today’s Tynwald discussion on SPC on gef page but here’s one exchange Claire Barber - What legal qualification does this officer have? What other breaches of the law can they decide on? HQ - I believe that the Chief Secretary has the responsibility for deciding if a crime has occured and if that gets referred to the police, see what the review says 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.