doc.fixit Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 3 hours ago, quilp said: So Quayle, Baker and Skally broke the ministerial code by not excusing themselves from ministers' meetings where business support schemes were being discussed despite declaring conflicts based on their private business interests. Skally even chaired a meeting despite previously declaring his interests. At one meeting, then Home Affairs minister Cregeen advised that his relations "might also benefit from self-employed business support" yet remained in the room while matters were discussed. Well, one rule for us, an'that. Quite , but what sanctions will be imposed against them? None I expect. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 4 hours ago, quilp said: So Quayle, Baker and Skally broke the ministerial code by not excusing themselves from ministers' meetings where business support schemes were being discussed despite declaring conflicts based on their private business interests. Skally even chaired a meeting despite previously declaring his interests. At one meeting, then Home Affairs minister Cregeen advised that his relations "might also benefit from self-employed business support" yet remained in the room while matters were discussed. Well, one rule for us, an'that. Expose on P4 of the Indy. To include Baker not declaring any interest at all during some previous meetings. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandits Posted May 5, 2022 Author Share Posted May 5, 2022 7 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Expose on P4 of the Indy. To include Baker not declaring any interest at all during some previous meetings. God will have given him an exemption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 Howard's statement said he excused himself from meetings where he had a conflict of interest. Guess they are just allowed to get away with it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 9 minutes ago, Bandits said: God will have given him an exemption. Pity he couldn't have invoked the same God to sort out the Prom and the Liverpool Terminal. Or advise him of the error of a red zebra crossing. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandits Posted May 5, 2022 Author Share Posted May 5, 2022 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Pity he couldn't have invoked the same God to sort out the Prom and the Liverpool Terminal. Or advise him of the error of a red zebra crossing. Well Bakers activities need to perhaps be better investigated. The initial press report says he got around £46K in support. https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/foi-reveals-extent-of-covid-support-given-to-businesses-linked-to-mhks/ But search for Buffalo, Surestrike and Pepsi Max across all the scheme PDFs on the DfE website you get to at least £80K. The salary support alone was over £56K. Which is fine as that goes straight to employees. The Winter disruption scheme was £35K on top plus other grants. So the press got it very wrong. Edited May 5, 2022 by Bandits Extra word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoTailT Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 2 minutes ago, Bandits said: Well Bakers activities need to perhaps be better investigated. The initial press report says he got around £46K in support. https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/foi-reveals-extent-of-covid-support-given-to-businesses-linked-to-mhks/ But search for Buffalo, Surestrike and Pepsi max across all the PDFs on the DfE website you get to at least £60K already. The salary support alone was over £56K. Which is fine as that goes straight to employees. But the press got it wrong. It doesn't go straight to employees. It goes to the business to support salary payments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bandits Posted May 5, 2022 Author Share Posted May 5, 2022 3 minutes ago, NoTailT said: It doesn't go straight to employees. It goes to the business to support salary payments. True. Well if you look at them all he got over £80K. Not the £46K reported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, cissolt said: Howard's statement said he excused himself from meetings where he had a conflict of interest. Guess they are just allowed to get away with it? Guess they are. I interpret this as an astonishing arrogance of office, not just Quayle but everyone involved on each occasion where the criteria and qualification was discussed. Did not one member present have the gumption to point out that it was against procedure? If not then all those present are also 'guilty' of not following the guidelines. Is the Lieutenant Governor not in a position to question what took place? He is here to ensure good governance is he not? Edited May 5, 2022 by quilp 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nellie Posted May 5, 2022 Share Posted May 5, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, cissolt said: Howard's statement said he excused himself from meetings where he had a conflict of interest. Guess they are just allowed to get away with it? As I said on another thread, a few days ago, we live in a form of Kleptocracy, just like the Russians. Noses in the trough at every opportunity. Only most of our lot are too thick (Skelly being the Thicko-in -Chief) to even be embarrassed about it. Edited May 5, 2022 by Nellie 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted May 6, 2022 Share Posted May 6, 2022 10 hours ago, quilp said: Guess they are. I interpret this as an astonishing arrogance of office, not just Quayle but everyone involved on each occasion where the criteria and qualification was discussed. Did not one member present have the gumption to point out that it was against procedure? If not then all those present are also 'guilty' of not following the guidelines. Is the Lieutenant Governor not in a position to question what took place? He is here to ensure good governance is he not? Chief Secretary ie Greenhow job to advise on this type of conflict, maybe he didn’t or was ignored 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted May 6, 2022 Share Posted May 6, 2022 3 minutes ago, Banker said: Chief Secretary ie Greenhow job to advise on this type of conflict, maybe he didn’t or was ignored Is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted May 6, 2022 Share Posted May 6, 2022 9 minutes ago, Gladys said: Is it? That’s my understanding as he attends all Comin & is responsible for ensuring everything is run in accordance with governance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted May 6, 2022 Share Posted May 6, 2022 12 minutes ago, Gladys said: Is it? If not him, then who? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted May 6, 2022 Share Posted May 6, 2022 The LG perhaps..? 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.