HQ FoI !

[Ringy Rose]

3 hours ago, Cambon said:

True, but Beth Espey on Mannin line today said that the holiday cottages had tenants in. 

His holiday cottages had key workers and self-isolating travellers in for most of the last two years.

2 hours ago, 2112 said:

Had the tenants paid their rent? one of the laws of lockdown, landlords couldn’t evict tenants for rent arrears or antisocial behaviour. 

Did any other landlord get a £57,000 bailout because they had bad tenants?

Edited January 27, 2022 by Ringy Rose

[Ringy Rose]

1 hour ago, Stu Peters said:

Are we hatin' on the payments, or the fact that millionaire HQ benefited?

Asking for a friend...

Both.

The payments were high and mostly targeted people who could already afford the loss.

The Sefton Express, as an example, declined to reopen despite a shortage of accommodation for key workers as the bailout money was more lucrative than actually opening up.

The Ellan Vannin stayed open the whole time, catering for key workers, and didn't get the money.

Go figure.

[Kopek]

7 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

His holiday cottages had ley workers and self-isolating travellers in for most of the last two years.

If that is true then  that's another affair that needs to be investigated? Too easy to have been favoured by his own legislation?

[Derek Flint]

The issue here is that HQ is so blinkered to public opinion that he won’t have given a flying fig about how it would look.

[Mr. Sausages]

Vote him out!

[cissolt]

30 minutes ago, Kopek said:

If that is true then  that's another affair that needs to be investigated? Too easy to have been favoured by his own legislation?

I suspect this is why Ian kermode is pressing the issue.  There must be a whiff of illegality for him to be taking such an interest.

[A fool and his money.....]

11 minutes ago, cissolt said:

I suspect this is why Ian kermode is pressing the issue.  There must be a whiff of illegality for him to be taking such an interest.

I think the morality of it is of much greater relevance than the legality.

[Non-Believer]

2 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

Are we hatin' on the payments, or the fact that millionaire HQ benefited?

Asking for a friend...

The lack of empathy I'd suggest, Stu.

The elected leader of our nation, a wealthy man in his own right and paid on close to £100k pa for his position by us, decided to pursue his entitlement for £57k recompense whilst his fellow countrymen and their families were confined to their properties, unable to work and expected to subsist on a handout of around £200 per week - courtesy of conditions that he and his Government had imposed.

It's just brass-necked, pig-ignorance.

[Barlow]

It is 100% impossible to make an unbiased rational decision, say, whether or not to extend lockdown, or whatever, when you are so ££££s conflicted. Impossible. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Barlow

[Raffles]

I'm pretty disgusted by this. As teapot points out, the way ordinary people were given 200 a week whilst rich landowners with multiple properties were given thousands is sickening. 

It's absolutely typical though. The way cash gets funnelled to the already rich. See farmers grants, tourism grants, NI caps, tax caps. 

High time we ate the lot of them.

[Numbnuts]

15 minutes ago, Raffles said:

 

High time we ate the lot of them.

HQ would take care of all of Ronagues food requirement for a week alone 😉

Edited January 27, 2022 by Numbnuts

[Roger Mexico]

4 hours ago, 2112 said:

Had the tenants paid their rent? one of the laws of lockdown, landlords couldn’t evict tenants for rent arrears or antisocial behaviour. 

Whether he'd been paid or not should be irrelevant, it's not the job of the taxpayer to subsidise bad debtors.  But I get the impression that the freedom from eviction wasn't exploited as much as you might expect, there didn't seem to be much in the way of court cases after it was lifted.  I suspect a lot of the dodgy tenants will be on benefits and landlords would have arranged to be [aid directly if they weren't already.

In any case the tenants Quayle would have had would be short-term and possibly paying in advance.  I wouldn't worry too much for him.

[Passing Time]

1 minute ago, offshoremanxman said:

But Quayle is only one person out of hundreds who have trousered substantial payments from the taxpayer just for owning property they rent out, or for owning hotels that were empty. Some of them really did need the cash to survive. Some of them didn’t. Some of them made absolutely no attempt to open either as they got paid per empty room and got furlough for their staff. The scheme was that generous that it actually made sense to literally do nothing rather than even try for a lot of people. 

They were still receiving handouts after lockdowns finished. Whilst I and others like me opened up in the hope that people would start coming out again. Any help was stopped the minute we turned the lock. It's not a level playing field and never will be

[A fool and his money.....]

Did you really expect to be fair and equally distributed? After all taxes are not fairly applied here, tax relief isn't fairly applied (ask Lewis Hamilton), government grants and benefits aren't fairly distributed, and government work and contracts have been a racket for years.

I know these support packages were made up on the hoof, but the Manx government are so experienced at favouring the privileged few they didn't need long to revert to type.

[The Voice of Reason]

4 hours ago, 2112 said:

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. 
 

I must disagree. You are either eligible or you are not. I believe Mr Quayle has at least one child,from the conspiracy theory advanced as to the timing of the travel restrictions relating to a birthday party. 

Yes he was paid a “handsome salary” as CM ( although many in the private sector are paid much more), but should the court of public opinion have disqualified him from claiming child benefit for his issue?