TT 2023

[Numbnuts]

23 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Which is not rocket science to do.

But the fact that he actually did it where others didn’t ( or chose to ignore it if they did) just reinforces the fact that we need him back in a ministerial position.

I know he’s not popular because certain people, not least on this forum think he has a physical resemblance to Dracula. But he is more capable than most of his fellow MHK’s

I await the inevitable abuse.

Deluded. Do we really want a liar back as a minister. 
He can come back when he supplies the point by point rebuttal 

[The Voice of Reason]

1 minute ago, Numbnuts said:

Deluded. Do we really want a liar back as a minister. 
He can come back when he supplies the point by point rebuttal 

I don’t think you understand politics.

Its not like that

[Numbnuts]

1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I don’t think you understand politics.

Its not like that

No it’s not and I do understand better than you think. 
Rest my case. When he does the decent thing and supplies the point by point rebuttal then I’ll sit up and take notice. He can’t though can he so he can stew. 

[Derek Flint]

1 hour ago, Numbnuts said:

So it was the same job ! So it’s a moot point then as it had to be corrected at what expense. ! 
So your claim that it came in under budget and correct  is up for debate . 

Nope. It was never in the original design, and the problem it was meant to solve was manageable without spending a penny. 

It was stuck on months later, after I'd moved to Ops Support. 

So no, it's not up for debate. On time and under budget.

[CrazyDave]

16 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Thats not clear from the clip on 3 fm. But someone should have done beforehand. Somebody actually involved in the contract

How close to insolvent do you allow a company to be before you refuse to do business with them.

Its not illegal to be close to insolvent, and millions of businesses are there or worse at some point but continue to be very successful.

What criteria do you want them to have worked to when assigning the contact?  Is it even legal for a government to assign weighting in a tender process based on cash reserves or anything similar?

[Numbnuts]

5 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

Nope. It was never in the original design, and the problem it was meant to solve was manageable without spending a penny. 

It was stuck on months later, after I'd moved to Ops Support. 

So no, it's not up for debate. On time and under budget.

Ohh Derek , come on. The original design didn’t in someone’s opinion meet the requirements so additional work was done. That cost has to be attached to the overall original contract. Sorry  ! 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Numbnuts

[piebaps]

8 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

Short answer, no. Once it's awarded it can't be taken away, except for in the case of dismissal for gross misconduct, part of PS T&Cs. The only sanction could be a sideways move or a generous "early retirement" package.

Plus the possibility that they've become so used to squandering huge sums of public money that it's no longer construed as an offence anyway. It's the new norm.

That's not right. I've snipped this from the PSC disciplinary procedure which are on their website here https://hr.gov.im/media/1072/psc-disciplinary-procedure-september-2023-final-080923.pdf

[The Voice of Reason]

13 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

No it’s not and I do understand better than you think. 
Rest my case. When he does the decent thing and supplies the point by point rebuttal then I’ll sit up and take notice. He can’t though can he so he can stew. 

Well no you are a bit naive  and don’t quite understand if you don’t mind me saying. 

Politicians of all persuasions, both domestically and internationally make statements of intent that are never delivered. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are bad people though.

You only have to look at the UK  to see  the parties manifesto promises some or many come to nought once elected.

 What happened to Trumps promised  wall between the US and Mexico?

Look at the promise to deliver HS 2 in full.
 

 

[Sheldon]

1 minute ago, piebaps said:

That's not right. I've snipped this from the PSC disciplinary procedure which are on their website here https://hr.gov.im/media/1072/psc-disciplinary-procedure-september-2023-final-080923.pdf

So, does anybody know if demotion to a lower grade has ever happened? If these remedies are never actually used they might as well not exist. For all we know there are further paragraphs:

e) Tarring and feathering may be considered as an alternative disciplinary penalty

f) Banishment to a Hell dimension can be applied at the discretion of a senior manager.

[The Voice of Reason]

19 minutes ago, CrazyDave said:

How close to insolvent do you allow a company to be before you refuse to do business with them.

Its not illegal to be close to insolvent, and millions of businesses are there or worse at some point but continue to be very successful.

What criteria do you want them to have worked to when assigning the contact?  Is it even legal for a government to assign weighting in a tender process based on cash reserves or anything similar?

Yes of course you can do business with a company close to insolvency.

I am sure it’s legal for a government or any other business to choose which tender to accept. What’s the clause about not being bound to accept the lowest or any other offer. We have all seen those in adverts for invitations to tender.

It’s called risk assessment. 
 

You are quite entitled to make the assessment that the partner you are seeking may not be able to deliver.

[CrazyDave]

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

You are quite entitled to make the assessment that the partner you are seeking may not be able to deliver.

Within set and predetermined criteria you are.

If there isn’t a weighting allowed for something like solvency, then you can’t just make it up and disregard someone’s tender.

When did you last go through a government tender process? Its a very defined and strict process these days.

[Numbnuts]

3 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Well no you are a bit naive  and don’t quite understand if you don’t mind me saying. 

Politicians of all persuasions, both domestically and internationally make statements of intent that are never delivered. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are bad people though.

You only have to look at the UK  to see  the parties manifesto promises some or many come to nought once elected.

 What happened to Trumps promised  wall between the US and Mexico?

Look at the promise to deliver HS 2 in full.
 

 

Hang on , I am talking about a major fully press and public covered issue over Ranson and Covid with comments made defending his position. Not even close to the type of rubbish that Trump comes out with. Which are mainly garbage with no substance. Apples and pears !
This wasn’t a party or policy claim it was a personal one when he had been caught with his pants on fire. Completely different and not connected issues. And I don’t understand wow.  

Edited November 2, 2023 by Numbnuts

[The Voice of Reason]

5 minutes ago, CrazyDave said:

Within set and predetermined criteria you are.

If there isn’t a weighting allowed for something like solvency, then you can’t just make it up and disregard someone’s tender.

When did you last go through a government tender process? Its a very defined and strict process these days.

Well the process didn’t work in respect of Cube did it?

[Numbnuts]

4 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Well the process didn’t work in respect of Cube did it?

I can confirm that CrazyDave is right and the contract is very harsh and so many hoops to jump through when you’re finally presented with it after umpteen changes. However if they basically don’t do the checks and balances on the company finances then it’s all academic . Clearly they hadn’t as Cubes finances was well known to other interested parties before they got the contract . 

[Gladys]

15 minutes ago, CrazyDave said:

Within set and predetermined criteria you are.

If there isn’t a weighting allowed for something like solvency, then you can’t just make it up and disregard someone’s tender.

When did you last go through a government tender process? Its a very defined and strict process these days.

Only a fool would enter into any arrangement with a company that isn't solvent regardless of whether a weighting is applied.  That is just daft.