HQ FoI !

[Kopek]

LL.

The melee arose not because some Holiday Cott owner got assistance but because the 'Chief Minister' got assistance.

A scheme in which he will have played a part in setting up, despite reclusion from Comin meetings, which he then goes on to take advantage of.

Morally, all of those in Govt should not take Govt money for their private interests, whether or not their business pre-dates their election.

One of the discluding factors in these schemes was to be over 65 and receiving an OAP as it was seen that you were receiving a Govt payout and didn't need another under the schemes. Well, HQ was receiving a generous payment from the Govt via his salary, let alone other income available to him from his business.

That is what makes it 'Morally' unjust for the CM of the Island to 'even' think it was right to apply for compensation.

Many many people had to dig into savings to see their selves thru the lockdowns, perhaps people who were not in HQs financial position?

You are right in that it should not concentrate purely on HQ. Thats is why now is the time to release a full list of ALL those who benefited from whatever Govt schemes were in operation thru Covid.

A secondary benefit of revealing all would make it easier for people to raise questions as to whether other people had used their assistance to the approved expenditure???

It could be that employees did not see the 200 quid claimed, landlords had give rent holidays???

[finlo]

7 minutes ago, Kopek said:

LL.

The melee arose not because some Holiday Cott owner got assistance but because the 'Chief Minister' got assistance.

A scheme in which he will have played a part in setting up, despite reclusion from Comin meetings, which he then goes on to take advantage of.

Morally, all of those in Govt should not take Govt money for their private interests, whether or not their business pre-dates their election.

One of the discluding factors in these schemes was to be over 65 and receiving an OAP as it was seen that you were receiving a Govt payout and didn't need another under the schemes. Well, HQ was receiving a generous payment from the Govt via his salary, let alone other income available to him from his business.

That is what makes it 'Morally' unjust for the CM of the Island to 'even' think it was right to apply for compensation.

Many many people had to dig into savings to see their selves thru the lockdowns, perhaps people who were not in HQs financial position?

You are right in that it should not concentrate purely on HQ. Thats is why now is the time to release a full list of ALL those who benefited from whatever Govt schemes were in operation thru Covid.

A secondary benefit of revealing all would make it easier for people to raise questions as to whether other people had used their assistance to the approved expenditure???

It could be that employees did not see the 200 quid claimed, landlords had give rent holidays???

If there is full disclosure the plebs will be brandishing Slinkydevils? pitchforks on the streets!

[Kopek]

Sometimes that is what is required?

Anyway, if they're Slinkys, they're probably blunt knock offs!!!

 

This debate is beyond MF now.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Kopek

[Barlow]

1 hour ago, Lost Login said:

I am sorry it was a very public scheme and it is widely known that the ex chief minister had an interest in holiday cottages. These matters are not exactly secret and anybody who had taken a cursory glance to look at or think about knew. What you are effectively saying is the GMP need to be spoon fed by the media as they cannot think or work things out for themselves.

 

Eerm . . it took an FOI, and getting that was like pulling teeth.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Barlow

[NoTail]

FWIW

I know someone eligible to claim a reasonable sum, but has decided not to because he is very wealthy and can get by without grants.

Just saying...

[Lost Login]

8 hours ago, Barlow said:

Eerm . . it took an FOI, and getting that was like pulling teeth.

Only of the amounts. A bit like grants to farmers, we may not know who is getting what but we have a pretty good idea of those who are eligible.

[Lost Login]

9 hours ago, Kopek said:

LL.

The melee arose not because some Holiday Cott owner got assistance but because the 'Chief Minister' got assistance.

A scheme in which he will have played a part in setting up, despite reclusion from Comin meetings, which he then goes on to take advantage of.

Morally, all of those in Govt should not take Govt money for their private interests, whether or not their business pre-dates their election.

Morals vary across people so I try not to argue from a point of morals. Additionally as you say we don't know anything beyond the headline figure and posters might have a different view of a claimant if they gave free accommodation to key workers, those required to self isolate etc to those whose businesses were still doing OK and pocketing the money. Those are hypothetical examples, I am not suggesting either is the case for HQ as I don't know.

With regard to those in Govt not taking Govt money for their private interests that is an interesting point as for a long time it has been going on. e.g. farming grants. I have a view that those in Government should be treated such as everybody else unless it is obvious that something has been done which it appears has been specifically designed for  them. In this case I think the scheme was too blunt an instrument which is why I am more bothered about the scheme being approved in the form it was than HQ benefitted.  Focussing on HQ and not the scheme will not see a better support scheme in the future. 

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

Morals vary across people so I try not to argue from a point of morals. Additionally as you say we don't know anything beyond the headline figure and posters might have a different view of a claimant if they gave free accommodation to key workers, those required to self isolate etc to those whose businesses were still doing OK and pocketing the money. Those are hypothetical examples, I am not suggesting either is the case for HQ as I don't know.

With regard to those in Govt not taking Govt money for their private interests that is an interesting point as for a long time it has been going on. e.g. farming grants. I have a view that those in Government should be treated such as everybody else unless it is obvious that something has been done which it appears has been specifically designed for  them. In this case I think the scheme was too blunt an instrument which is why I am more bothered about the scheme being approved in the form it was than HQ benefitted.  Focussing on HQ and not the scheme will not see a better support scheme in the future. 

I would agree with you if it were not for the Nolan Principles which IOMG expects all to adhere to.  People jibe at me on this, but we see example after example of people behaving as though they don't exist.  Perhaps after signing up to them at the initial induction, they are never considered again.

The Principles are:_

Selflessness

Integrity

Objectivity

Accountability 

Openness

Honesty

Leadership

That's where morals and ethics lie. 

 

[Lost Login]

6 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I would agree with you if it were not for the Nolan Principles which IOMG expects all to adhere to.  People jibe at me on this, but we see example after example of people behaving as though they don't exist.  Perhaps after signing up to them at the initial induction, they are never considered again.

The Principles are:_

Selflessness

Integrity

Objectivity

Accountability 

Openness

Honesty

Leadership

That's where morals and ethics lie. 

 

I have to admit that I never thought along those lines and I am not sure that claiming something that anybody else who is not in Government could also claim would fall foul. I was thinking more subjective lines like one person might consider it immoral to have a string of sexual relationships before marriage and another not, meat eating is wrong, or that if you are rich it is the moral thing to do to make many donations. Gubay did the latter but I would not treat him a an example of moral virtues 

 

[Gladys]

6 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

I have to admit that I never thought along those lines and I am not sure that claiming something that anybody else who is not in Government could also claim would fall foul. I was thinking more subjective lines like one person might consider it immoral to have a string of sexual relationships before marriage and another not, meat eating is wrong, or that if you are rich it is the moral thing to do to make many donations. Gubay did the latter but I would not treat him a an example of moral virtues 

 

Just run your eye down that list and see how the actions of any government official or elected stands up.  

The difference is that they are stated, they exist and they are supposed to apply.  Your subjective measure of morality is exactly that, subjective. 

In HQ's case, he may well have considered them before applying for the support and felt that he was fully compliant.  Where there may be some doubt, he possibly rehearsed and stress tested a cogent argument of how he observed each principle.

But you never hear a whisper of these principles when politicians' or officials' behaviour causes concern.  It is like they are signed off on the initial appointment then chucked in the back of the drawer for ever after.  

[Gladys]

To add:

You would think that a good senior civil servant would say to HQ when making the application:

"Thanks, that looks in order [and I can see the business case for it].  But you may think it worthwhile to record how you  justify the application in light of the Nolan Principles should you ever be challenged on why you made it.  Not least because, of course, these things are discoverable under FOI."

That is what a Humphrey would do.

Instead, what we got was the CS declining the FOI. 

 

[Gladys]

Just now, offshoremanxman said:

I’m not sure you should read too much into the FOI decline. It’s unlikely to be strategic. It’s probably more a case of some pen pusher going “How very dare you” when confronted with what they would regard as a cheeky or impertinent request concerning the former CM. It will be nothing more than that. I honestly couldn’t imagine that HQ gives a toss who knows or anything else. He’s had the money and he won’t be handing it back. 

For that very reason, which I think is right, I read a lot into the refusal. Poor procedures, possibly a culture of "how very dare they" as the immediate first response to a FOI request. 

[Kopek]

The advice from Boris Johnson's Aides didn't seem to dissuade his behaviour!

I think that revealing an individuals receipt of money is where the CS can see other FoI requests being made, Farming, business grants etc. and making a lot more work for them?

Other than not revealing a persons income, there is a good argument that all and any Govt handout should be revealed. Confidentiality is too wide an excuse and an 'easy' excuse to be used in the majority of cases.

I doubt the majority of farmers would object?

[Kopek]

LL. is probably right in that the scheme was too loosely drawn up. Perhaps there should have been a 'Savings' clause in there?

[Boris Johnson]

49 minutes ago, Kopek said:

LL. is probably right in that the scheme was too loosely drawn up. Perhaps there should have been a 'Savings' clause in there?

That sounds okay but its really not fair, for example........

2 businesses selling widgets on the island in competition, one owned by Mr Sensible and one owned by Mr Reckless (Not the Tory MP)

The business owned by Mr Sensible is run well and has a pot of savings for the business to fall back on in case of emergency

The business owned by Mr Reckless has no savings because Mr Reckless pays himself too much money out of the company and blows it on wine, women and drugs.

The pandemic hits and both companies are eligible for help, should Mr Sensible's company not get any money because he has been a good businessman?