HQ FoI !

[Non-Believer]

Perhaps he needed the money to pay the plasterer who allegedly worked through the lockdown... 🤫😂

[TheTeapot]

 

[TheTeapot]

There are more people defending this than I thought. Comments like 'if that's what the business lost then fair enough' and things.

If you were a builder on £500 a week in the first lockdown then during those 8 weeks you were given £1600, a loss of £2400, and mercilessly threatened if you tried to do anything to improve your situation.

Come on people, think about it.

[Non-Believer]

18 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

There are more people defending this than I thought. Comments like 'if that's what the business lost then fair enough' and things.

If you were a builder on £500 a week in the first lockdown then during those 8 weeks you were given £1600, a loss of £2400, and mercilessly threatened if you tried to do anything to improve your situation.

Come on people, think about it.

Be like the Afghans on the news this morning. Your body will function perfectly well with one kidney. 😂

[Lost Login]

14 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

There are more people defending this than I thought. Comments like 'if that's what the business lost then fair enough' and things.

If you were a builder on £500 a week in the first lockdown then during those 8 weeks you were given £1600, a loss of £2400, and mercilessly threatened if you tried to do anything to improve your situation.

Come on people, think about it.

I will defend the individual as in this case I believe simply targeting one person for receiving funds is wrong. Criticise all recipients, the scheme, all those who approved it etc not just one individual one basis he was chief minister.

The problem for builders and other businesses who were not also similarly supported is they were not deemed as essential in ensuring the continuance of the TT. That was the big driver in this, ensuring that accommodation would be available for the TT going forward. 

If HQ is to be criticised in my view it is not because he took fund under the scheme with over 1,200 others, but for setting up/agreeing, with others, to the scheme in the first place. 

[Banker]

Friend of mine has a holiday property in peel which he rents out, he was paid £20 pp per night when he couldn’t rent it out do £80 pn but only the peak weeks with less off peak. He had no overheads other than rates 

[Lost Login]

39 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

There are more people defending this than I thought. Comments like 'if that's what the business lost then fair enough' and things.

If you were a builder on £500 a week in the first lockdown then during those 8 weeks you were given £1600, a loss of £2400, and mercilessly threatened if you tried to do anything to improve your situation.

Come on people, think about it.

How do you know that tourist accommodation did not also see a similar fall in income. I believe the tourist scheme was over generous to sum and disadvantaged some who I feel are more deserving, like sports clubs who rely on the TT to fund themselves, but I have not seen figures that show providers did not see a fall in income.

From this website https://www.visitisleofman.com/stay/ballahowin-courtyard-p1288811, the Ballahowin Courtyard cottages rental would be £5,405 in the low season and a fair bit more in the high season, probably in the region of £9k if fully let. So how does a claim of £5k look based on those figures?

Edited January 27, 2022 by Lost Login

[Non-Believer]

Do we think that millionaire Howard Quayle's holiday business would fold because it lost £57k due to one extraordinary event?

[asitis]

11 hours ago, 0bserver said:

I would definitely welcome a move by Government towards more transparency

Some hope, they are terrified of some things having light shone in on them ! Secrecy is a byword in island Governance and bureaucracy at every level , god forbid the proles should find out what's going on. The function of the proles is to pay the taxes.

 

[The Phantom]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

Do we think that millionaire Howard Quayle's holiday business would fold because it lost £57k due to one extraordinary event?

Used this logic negotiating a discount on rental for a separate business interest of mine.  The landlord owns numerous commercial properties as well as a well known maintenance firm.   We couldn't trade at all for 3 months + 2 months.

Initially he wanted full rent over lockdowns for the commercial property.  Eventually managed to negotiate him down on the basis that one quarter without rent won't make him go bust, but would us and he'd have to try and find a new tenant for a property we've rented (without any real issues) for nearly 10 years.  Still took quite a bit of battling to get this resolution however. 

Luckily it turns out that an insurance policy we had for the business also covered some of the loss of earnings. 

[Boris Johnson]

Compared to the way the UK gov handed out money most businesses on the island got very little, VERY little.

I don't know about the tourist sector but in our case what we got was mostly salary support, which was paid to the employees who were on short hours but paid a full 40 hrs and 2 or 3 grand in grants. 2 or 3 grand does not cover a lot in a 7 figure turnover

It in no way covered the loss of business, our turnover went down over 70% when we were in lockdown.

I think I said on here at the time, if you had a business paying low wages and lots of staff you could have done very nicely out of the salary support, if you could still trade and a lot could but it is no way to become rich.

HQ may have huge finance on those cottages, its quite common and often forgotten when people think just because you have a business you are raking it in.

[Non-Believer]

Well, the taxpayers have certainly got huge finance on Howard Quayle 😂

[craggy_steve]

I got precisely £0. 

My (part-time hobby) business was predicated on meeting people, face to face, for extended periods. Mrs is certainly "CV" and I probably am too, so carrying on was not sensible. Fortunately I don't need to work for money, but no gov't support mechanism for the likes of me so I'm out of work and living on savings. Far from being the only one. All those who got taxpayer support should be thankful, but those who took it while also getting a full tax-payer-funded Gov't salary need hanging out to dry - these handouts should have been structured as survival grants to keep people afloat.

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Boris Johnson said:

Compared to the way the UK gov handed out money most businesses on the island got very little, VERY little.

I don't know about the tourist sector but in our case what we got was mostly salary support, which was paid to the employees who were on short hours but paid a full 40 hrs and 2 or 3 grand in grants. 2 or 3 grand does not cover a lot in a 7 figure turnover

It in no way covered the loss of business, our turnover went down over 70% when we were in lockdown.

I think I said on here at the time, if you had a business paying low wages and lots of staff you could have done very nicely out of the salary support, if you could still trade and a lot could but it is no way to become rich.

HQ may have huge finance on those cottages, its quite common and often forgotten when people think just because you have a business you are raking it in.

The latter is quite likely, being land wealthy does not equate to being cash wealthy. 

[Ringy Rose]

5 hours ago, Lost Login said:

I will defend the individual as in this case I believe simply targeting one person for receiving funds is wrong. Criticise all recipients, the scheme, all those who approved it etc not just one individual one basis he was chief minister.

The Chief Minister devised a scheme which benefitted people like him, then made an application to the scheme he designed, and that application benefitted him.

Lots of other people got very little. MIRA was £200/week, *if* you were eligible (and many weren't). But then MIRA was for the plebs, not for tweed-wearing landowners like Quayle.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Ringy Rose