HQ FoI !

[Ringy Rose]

1 hour ago, offshoremanxman said:

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.

I'd say it was more likely that they considered it confidential information and would have made the same decision for any applicant. Don't forget Kermode only asked for details of one individual's grant, including information about when payments were made, rather than wider details of who the biggest beneficiaries were.

Quayle benefitting from a scheme he designed fails the smell test, but I'm also uncomfortable with Ian McDonald's decision. 

[Gladys]

5 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said:

 

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.

 

And the rest he squanders, to quote G Best, Esq.

You are right, but lack of a cushion could be due to new start up etc.  It is not easy to come up with a scheme that cannot be exploited by the unscrupulous and delivers the support where it is needed at very short notice.  However, if there was an emergency response plan sitting waiting to be activated in such circumstances, it may have included some parameters for a more robust scheme. 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Gladys
Typo

[Kopek]

Are Mr Reckless MP. and Boris Johnson one and the same???

Savings are used as a parameter to  disallow many benefits, housing lists etc.

Many wage earners had to use their savings, even if getting MIRA, to make ends meet. Should businesses be different?

'' Organisations reflect the morals of those at the top...'' radio 4. So a CM,PM., President or CEO. does have an extra duty of care with their behaviour. MHKs too.                                                                     

Edited January 29, 2022 by Kopek

[Lost Login]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

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. 

 

There is a presumption that HQ was the sole decision maker or heavily involved in making the application but as in a lot of family businesses it is often run by one member of the family. That does not lessen your responsibility as a director though. I think his wife runs the holiday cottages on a day to day basis and whether they have help from a bookkeeper, administrator, accountant etc on the paperwork and financial side I have no idea. It could easily be HQ had little involvement in the application, although as I say that does not means you can pass the buck in terms of being responsible.

From the headline figure we have no idea if HQ was insisting that the business make the application against the advice of others or whether he is jumping up and down screaming at his wife/ accountant for putting in the application without discussing with him. 

I agree with your post on the Nolan principle but I doubt that claiming a grant under a scheme available to all others in the same position would fall foul if it. If however the information was withheld due to pressure from a politician then this would and again I find the attempt to withhold the information, whoever was involved in the decision at whatever level, far more concerning as I cannot think of a reason why the information should have been withheld under an FOI request. That is an area I would like looked at.

[Kopek]

LL., ''the Nolan principle but I doubt that claiming a grant under a scheme available to all others in the same position would fall foul if it.''

.but the Nolan list should really pre-warn politicians to reflections they have to make in these circumstances?

[asitis]

44 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

I think his wife runs the holiday cottages on a day to day basis and whether they have help from a bookkeeper, administrator, accountant etc on the paperwork and financial side I have no idea.

Ahhh the Corkill defence ! 

[Lost Login]

8 minutes ago, asitis said:

Ahhh the Corkill defence ! 

I appreciate but I also said that all the directors are responsible, they can not pass the buck.

I was just trying to post a bit of balance as many of the posts appear to state with absolute certainty that HQ did this or that and we actually have no idea. A business of which I believe he is a directors and shareholder made a claim and received funds. Who was involved in those decisions and how they were arrived at we do not know. Similarly whilst we know as CM he would have been involved in approving the rules how much direct involvement he had in the scheme we have no idea. I do find it slightly amusing that many posters having described HQ as useless, thick, just doing what the civil service or others tell him to do now suddenly have him changed course by 180 degrees and see him as capable, almost single handily, of designing and running a scheme to benefit him

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Lost Login said:

There is a presumption that HQ was the sole decision maker or heavily involved in making the application but as in a lot of family businesses it is often run by one member of the family. That does not lessen your responsibility as a director though. I think his wife runs the holiday cottages on a day to day basis and whether they have help from a bookkeeper, administrator, accountant etc on the paperwork and financial side I have no idea. It could easily be HQ had little involvement in the application, although as I say that does not means you can pass the buck in terms of being responsible.

From the headline figure we have no idea if HQ was insisting that the business make the application against the advice of others or whether he is jumping up and down screaming at his wife/ accountant for putting in the application without discussing with him. 

I agree with your post on the Nolan principle but I doubt that claiming a grant under a scheme available to all others in the same position would fall foul if it. If however the information was withheld due to pressure from a politician then this would and again I find the attempt to withhold the information, whoever was involved in the decision at whatever level, far more concerning as I cannot think of a reason why the information should have been withheld under an FOI request. That is an area I would like looked at.

The thing is that the application itself wouldn't fall foul, but the principles set down some considerations before making it which may have indicated some steps to take just to demonstrate that you were adhering to them.  Whether he was actively involved in the process is irrelevant, his wife and the business are connected to him. 

Perhaps he should have sent a letter to the President of Tynwald or the Speaker at the time explaining the application, the reasons for it, the degree of his direct involvement in the process and perhaps even seeking guidance on whether the application should proceed or if some voluntary condition be attached to it.  It really isn't rocket surgery to cover your arse and be plainly seen to be doing the right thing. 

I am with you on the handling of the FOI application, that is concerning. 

[Gladys]

7 minutes ago, Lost Login said:

I appreciate but I also said that all the directors are responsible, they can not pass the buck.

I was just trying to post a bit of balance as many of the posts appear to state with absolute certainty that HQ did this or that and we actually have no idea. A business of which I believe he is a directors and shareholder made a claim and received funds. Who was involved in those decisions and how they were arrived at we do not know. Similarly whilst we know as CM he would have been involved in approving the rules how much direct involvement he had in the scheme we have no idea. I do find it slightly amusing that many posters having described HQ as useless, thick, just doing what the civil service or others tell him to do now suddenly have him changed course by 180 degrees and see him as capable, almost single handily, of designing and running a scheme to benefit him

No one is claiming that, or at least I am not.  All I am saying as a MHK and the CM at the time, he had an obligation to be open, transparent and to demonstrate integrity.  Has he done that?

As for the decision-making, as a director he is in the thick of it.  He would stand a better chance of distancing himself if he was 'just' a shareholder, but he didn't disclose that in the statement of interests above. 

It is a bit of a sideshow in itself, but it does highlight some deficiencies in the FOI process, the Covid support scheme and the regard given to the standards that are  required in public life. 

[craggy_steve]

The scheme was a scam. I don't believe that any of the hotels or holiday cottages on the island were going to fall down or be teleported off-island by the little people for want of the money from this scheme.

Sure, some over-extended visitor accomodation operators might have gone bust, but there were salary substitution grants available for the payment of laid-off / reduced-hours workers, so accomodation providers could have put their businesses in stasis - and some did. If accomodation businesses folded because they couldn't refactor their debts then new finance and new entrepreneurs would have emerged to buy and operate those accomodation units when the visitor accomodation sector became viable again.

Many people on the island suffered. That suffering should have been shared amongst our community. Instead the nasty little cabal running Gov't decided to protect some above others, specifically it focused on protecting those like Quayle whose business might be associated with the very minor sector of tourism.  It provided much less help to businesses whose focus was serving the people of the IoM, whether they be beauty salons, hairdressers, retailers, recruitment agencies, restaurants or cafe operators, and apart from salary support it was little help to charities & not for profits et. al. They were all expected to cope despite three lockdowns each directly caused by Comin's incompetence. The whole concept of specifically designating a sector worth less than 1% of GDP as "strategic" and giving it extra-extra-special support was corrupt. 

[code99]

Agree with most comments here.

This episode personifies what most people have long suspected - that at the heart of Manx establishment is not political altruism and a sense of ‘civic duty’ but instead, there is greed and a sense of always looking out for ‘what’s in it for me?’. Obviously, he is not alone (and some would argue that being financially avarice is part of human nature but I disagree), but clearly, the ‘rules’ are skewed in favour of rich and influential.

Over the last twenty years (until very recently), the core of our private sector was the unsavoury business of facilitating ‘dirty money/ no matter where it came from’. This unsavoury business has been largely cleaned up, hopefully. Now we are more reliant on e-gaming – another ‘vice’ industry, and it is an industry that has the propensity to destroy the lives of vulnerable people, whilst making a small number of individuals exceedingly wealthy. I think that deep down many Manx residents don’t like it, but until there is a viable alternative, they simply accept it. This is another reason why last year’s GE was so disappointing - it did not deliver sufficient ‘new blood’ with new ideas, new visions of what we could do, and the integrity and business acumen needed to bring their ideas to fruition. Sadly, in comparison, we have elected a few smooth talkers with the vision of dinosaurs, IMHO of course.          

Edited January 29, 2022 by code99

[Non-Believer]

There are and always have been some sectors of Manx society that are more worthy and deserving of large amounts of financial aid than others, usually those that are already noticeably well-to-do. The Covid crisis and this incident in particular have served to bring that into sharp focus.

[SleepyJoe]

The entire e-Gaming industry isn't vice ridden

Only those sectors promoting online gambling are - to some at least - of questionable moral/ethical standing

[2112]

1 hour ago, SleepyJoe said:

The entire e-Gaming industry isn't vice ridden

Only those sectors promoting online gambling are - to some at least - of questionable moral/ethical standing

Some are more vice ridden than others. Sadly if this island doesn’t have them, or competitors will. Lesser of two evils, and sadly adopting to much of a moral and ethical stand won’t put food on peoples tables, and pay peoples bills.

Edited January 30, 2022 by 2112

[SleepyJoe]

That kind of approach may be considered somewhat wanting when it's discovered how much Putin & his henchmen have invested through IOM channels