TT 2023

[The Voice of Reason]

6 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

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.  

No you don’t understand. 
I do see how through your naivety you think you do though.

 

[Numbnuts]

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

No you don’t understand. 
I do see how through your naivety you think you do though.

 

Are you real. How do continue to make that claim. You’re wrong …very wrong. . Voice of Reason ,  bullshit . Bye 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Numbnuts

[CrazyDave]

4 minutes ago, Gladys said:

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. 

I agree, but if someone came out top on all the criteria and was then found to be solvent, and so trading legally but sailing a bit close to the wind would they actually have scope within the tender process to make them down or select a lower scoring tender in preference?

As long as everything is legal they can’t just fly in the face of the process.

Edited November 1, 2023 by CrazyDave

[Numbnuts]

3 minutes ago, CrazyDave said:

I agree, but if someone came out top on all the criteria and was then found to be solvent, and so trading legally but a bit close to the wind would they actually have scope within the tender process to make them down or select a lower scoring tender in preference?

As long as everything is legal they can’t just fly in the face of the process.

It was too late and time was running out for any contract to be able to be fulfilled . That was totally down to DoE and AG’s office . They were , due to the marketing they convinced DoE with , the choice. Too late to go anywhere else. Thats the bottom line. 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Numbnuts

[The Voice of Reason]

1 minute ago, CrazyDave said:

I agree, but if someone came out top on all the criteria and was then found to be solvent, and so trading legally but a bit close to the wind would they actually have scope within the tender process to make them down or select a lower scoring tender in preference?

 

 “ A bit close to the wind “ but solvent.

I think you have to expand on that for anyone to answer your question 

[The Voice of Reason]

1 minute ago, Numbnuts said:

It was too late and time was running out for any contract to be able to be fulfilled . That was totally down to DoE and AG’s office . They were , due to the marketing they convinced DoE with , the choice. Too late to go anywhere else. That the bottom line. 

The bottom line is that we’re £160,000 out of pocket and increasing.

[CrazyDave]

4 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

 “ A bit close to the wind “ but solvent.

I think you have to expand on that for anyone to answer your question 

Just solvent.

Not quite insolvent.

The legal difference is literally a few quid.

[The Voice of Reason]

Just now, CrazyDave said:

Just solvent.

Not quite insolvent.

The legal difference is literally a few quid.

Right, so someone tenders for a Government contract. Government has a look at their accounts. They have lost hundreds of thousands last year , but the balance sheet shows they have net assets of a fiver. 
Their auditors report shows concern about them being a going concern. 
Would you deal with them? 
As a Manx taxpayer I would rather our Government didn’t.

[Jarndyce]

50 minutes ago, Sheldon said:

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

These paragraphs only apply within DHSC/Manx Care.

[Gladys]

10 minutes ago, CrazyDave said:

Just solvent.

Not quite insolvent.

The legal difference is literally a few quid.

So, giving them a contract looks precarious without some kind of reliable guarantee/bond.  I don't think any contract letting party would be castigated for not letting a contract to a company that was on the fringes of being insolvent even if they tick every other box.  In fact, if they do tick every other box but are still verging on  collapse,  further questions should be asked,  surely? 

[Non-Believer]

49 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

The bottom line is that we’re £160,000 out of pocket and increasing.

£225,000 and increasing if the reporting is correct.

[The Voice of Reason]

2 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

£225,000 and increasing if the reporting is correct.

And probably most of it, if not all, irrecoverable 

[Derek Flint]

8 hours ago, Numbnuts said:

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  ! 

No, someone perceived a problem that didn't actually exist. It was one of 'privacy' in case someone passing HQ 'might' have recognised someone being unloaded from a van. It was rarely if ever used, the problem being solvable by driving said van round to the other door we had to facilitate forensic separation of suspects. 

So, rather than the problem being modelled, and options and contingencies being weighed up, against proportionality, risk and necessity, and cost to the public purse, someone just wrote a cheque. Because its not really the publics money, is it? So actually it does demonstrate what we are talking about here; lack of slowing down, working it through, looking at the what ifs and stop throwing money at things as a default.

That said, it wouldn't have cost more than the money we saved, but that doesn't make it right.

[ian rush]

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11790020

Cube accounts to 31 March 2022 are in the filing history tab

https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live.ch.gov.uk/docs/wCIWlJ9emxscBDKHpdKpfujNSJr-5XucCkCbBEdDiX4/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3NZJ2FUV7%2F20231102%2Feu-west-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20231102T073057Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEO3%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCWV1LXdlc3QtMiJGMEQCIEXkBtr9q6tdpPwOtZQ6MTCjRTTllqeTHMXzMaRT5qr8AiACsO9Izh981XpE3DDiOGqA%2BmGK96iEbOJeoiCRJTHvUiq7BQgmEAQaDDQ0OTIyOTAzMjgyMiIMb%2BGM5yrDcT7xCf%2BbKpgFBLj72m7fLQpTRCuUbftBcNqA9Nwz%2FSTW3r63YRx8l2eoReFTExpTWGcaQmEYNQhLIO5wNX%2B4vKUZYOjQA5jPUyut4TubZIJSxTatWefsS2AVo6vwsqiC1SWQfegMDnSmQT7NwhxOus6tQQI%2F2SC5co7VTBFrGQrDe9qmCqUc%2Fc5kEuN1oTM%2BpEq6siAQBIcwk9fJNn%2BXLKAdo1qmjpJY72F2413qwOyYcMBh%2FhIs5Kts9q%2FVzIzAMtSCJZ%2B96yZIeLe1BgSWMMmuhVcOn3VQDj4ejdUGIR5gkvI0Tj55hdLxwKMWHKArRHPNbGjH9z2Gh1JtCetHu8MFPI%2F9l%2BUOu%2Fiy1CV26Uro%2F2vnR3iis3x0Yxz51p5onrxc5ns6XXuROE2C7mxtOoSVwhU9l02XJ4HWx9A%2Bj2869JYLIOQwYM3loLxG8kDUtg3Jj8nsO1VcliXqO9zFDVkFgSxeLrGVAOsVthJhB5gaExnwTXThASbfJ3SYdwsOXkkRBezqL7ni%2BVrrm3FFB2cQk0PiDTUVpo7wpRTLdVZFA5FzdlISR%2F18JnW4q6gOiMtRYkz%2BehVdvcTlrq5yyNCGks9mYk%2Bi%2FIEZvC12%2F2%2FztiXJy2kNbH%2BV1yeNhRyVu8r2pzGP3lbs0HC5XsLW2yp7%2F9cUAIvLHSns2DomjhL4jmaInIDxt9PR9eS4V8%2B4gx12y8FPBEtcf6IBBby50Uhsw0L8OjXmNVFkfrFJpWKEErUcihGHrefiKw22gxiGMmKj%2Fh4w1Ue1JzBFWMnz0woiumYVdJdQ8tEzQ%2BDhG9AcBYKAUw8HtMISOmYSKdg27qsNs12%2BfT0OZUQIx28S6FCW8P7Q%2BUFR4Tg3mvKjB4hvxDtBYSs8vhUlfunEPrjB%2BTC%2B3oyqBjqyAZRbwEJsHu077GujSTaTXkYY2syZzp6Ubc%2FF%2BzVKd2eeMXWxNYq7YktzAHTVYAJ%2FoAv2udiWNtDxON0EI2pMdmsUw368fDQ9dlgHDzurhJFOn2QkFrFnkxnqfX7%2BoHitrMPwtjtQe1r0wcWmVoJkSCO9bycQqEeUPWZV58CgtrUcD7rocvTJedVjO5N0pJJ7LxbQPOsZODf4sqBGHlb32B4YzTVI3ZHcsB4mQiLAoWiArIQ%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D"companies_house_document.pdf"&X-Amz-Signature=c75d3dcd24a904a4d9c06582c210d35c07a0c5cfa63a6c4ced20992e63591b96

 

 

[WTF]

9 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

The bottom line is that we’re £160,000 out of pocket and increasing.

but thats money we never had whereas the liverpool terminal and other port related expenses just keep growing with money we can't afford.