Barlow Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gladys said: The latter is quite likely, being land wealthy does not equate to being cash wealthy. That's playing with semantics and trying to excuse the inexcusable. "I own lots and lots of land and my wealth is tied up in investments and pension etc, but I don't have enough cash to buy a loaf of bread for my starving children, so give me some lovely cash" type thing. Yee-ah. Edited January 27, 2022 by Barlow 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 2 minutes ago, Barlow said: That's playing with semantics and trying to excuse the inexcusable. "I own lots and lots of land and my wealth is tied up in investments and pension etc, but I don't have enough cash to buy a loaf of bread for my starving children, so give me some lovely cash" type thing. Yee-ah. It isn't quite that is it? God forbid that I am ending up defending HQ, but as already pointed out there may be financing to service and other costs. It also diverts from the main issues of how support was given and how FOI requests are handled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 49 minutes ago, Gladys said: It isn't quite that is it? God forbid that I am ending up defending HQ, but as already pointed out there may be financing to service and other costs. It also diverts from the main issues of how support was given and how FOI requests are handled. True, but Beth Espey on Mannin line today said that the holiday cottages had tenants in. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 1 hour ago, Gladys said: It isn't quite that is it? God forbid that I am ending up defending HQ, but as already pointed out there may be financing to service and other costs. It also diverts from the main issues of how support was given and how FOI requests are handled. Most of the people getting £200 per week Mera would also have finance on their house that needed servicing. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 2 hours ago, Barlow said: That's playing with semantics and trying to excuse the inexcusable. "I own lots and lots of land and my wealth is tied up in investments and pension etc, but I don't have enough cash to buy a loaf of bread for my starving children, so give me some lovely cash" type thing. Yee-ah. If push came to shove, an asset rich but cash poor could have liquidated some of their assets to create cash. Land could have been sold, and possessions sold by auction. Or perhaps a loan could have been taken out to tide things over. I’m sure many people on here in the same predicament would have considered many options. Finally, perhaps an individual could remortgage their property/home? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Cambon said: True, but Beth Espey on Mannin line today said that the holiday cottages had tenants in. Had the tenants paid their rent? one of the laws of lockdown, landlords couldn’t evict tenants for rent arrears or antisocial behaviour. Edited January 27, 2022 by 2112 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 2 hours ago, Gladys said: It isn't quite that is it? God forbid that I am ending up defending HQ, but as already pointed out there may be financing to service and other costs. It also diverts from the main issues of how support was given and how FOI requests are handled. He's had them for quite some time, so I doubt there would be much financing left and they were developed on his own land, possibly with government grants. But in any case the same financing arguments would apply to every business that had invested recently and I doubt they were treated as generously. I don't actually this diverts attention from the topic of how support was given - quite the opposite. By focusing on how it worked in one case, people are going to contrast it with how others were treated and look more at the details to see why. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 (edited) HQ bought a horse tram at auction, perhaps this could have sold if he desperately needed funds. Some companies and individuals in the UK who were in receipt of taxpayer lockdown, Covid financial assistance have paid back what was given (grants as opposed to a loan). As the island has been booming and there is a population explosion according to Government, perhaps HQ may like to think of returning that £57K to Ashy of the Treasury. Just a thought …….. Edited January 27, 2022 by 2112 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 8 hours ago, offshoremanxman said: All hospitality businesses have been treated very well indeed. They lobbied government well. They got some good support packages. The problem is some people desperately needed to the money to survive and some operations were basically side businesses who didn’t rely on the income they generated to fund their living expenses. But they were all treated the same. The industry is well used to subsidies too. As opposed to other self employed people who were chucked out of their jobs and given £200 a week to live on. That’s just like being put on benefits. In the UK they are already tracking down people who took the piss on Covid loans. totally and utterly wrong. Hotels/boarding houses/holiday cottages/ travel agents did extremely well. Hospitality and small businesses did not. Government gave out the bare minimum and in most cases didn't even cover wages. So stop talking crap 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 Are we hatin' on the payments, or the fact that millionaire HQ benefited? Asking for a friend... 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 Is there anything landowners / farmers can't get a grant for ? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: Are we hatin' on the payments, or the fact that millionaire HQ benefited? Asking for a friend... He may or not have been entitled, and was eligible and ticked all the right boxes. That doesn’t mean to say that in the court of public opinion it was a wise choice to apply and receive. It wasn’t as though he received no income, he was the Chief Minister, and he received a handsome salary - a lot more than many islanders. He and his ‘coowner’ could have used their intelligence, and thought how the application would be viewed, if it became common knowledge, or was divulged to the public. If it was known whilst he was CM, he would have been absolutely criticised, mocked and derided even worse, than the mockery he is getting now. A lot of people did well out of Covid, winners and losers. Some genuinely lost, and were financially poor. Some were comfortable, whilst their business may not have survived, they wouldn’t have starved and they had the means and resources to carry on if need be. Some provided large scale employment, so it was understandable that Government may priorities would try to protect business and jobs. Edited January 27, 2022 by 2112 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2112 Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 5 minutes ago, asitis said: Is there anything landowners / farmers can't get a grant for ? Howard’s Farts. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A fool and his money..... Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 9 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: Are we hatin' on the payments, or the fact that millionaire HQ benefited? Asking for a friend... The latter. Is there any need for the taxpayer to prop up the business of someone so wealthy whatever the circumstances? I get the employment argument, not sure I believe it though. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 22 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: Are we hatin' on the payments, or the fact that millionaire HQ benefited? Asking for a friend... Dunno about 'we'. but I'm hating on the appalling treatment of the normal people while the comfortable laugh. I bet you're going to do some sterling work in government on helping the poor. Aren't you? 6 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.