Jump to content

Stu Peters for Chair of Post Office


Manx Bean

Recommended Posts

On 7/10/2022 at 12:15 AM, Stu Peters said:

HQ and I don't like one another, but I have to say that if he was running a business that was eligible for a support grant and he got it, then he's entitled to it and we shouldn't complain. If he influenced the grant scheme for personal gain, or made a fraudulent claim he should be called out for it - but I expect he recused himself when any conflicts of interest arose. 

I thought skelly and quayle  were present at the meetings where 100% compensation for blokes with multiple houses was discussed?

anyway, I was referring to how much public money he and his ilk will have been in receipt of because they own a lot of land and buildings, and comparing that to cut backs to public services.

Mind you, I can't really complain, if I was rich and powerful i would write the rules to suit me as well.................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hoops said:

I thought skelly and quayle  were present at the meetings where 100% compensation for blokes with multiple houses was discussed?

anyway, I was referring to how much public money he and his ilk will have been in receipt of because they own a lot of land and buildings, and comparing that to cut backs to public services.

Mind you, I can't really complain, if I was rich and powerful i would write the rules to suit me as well.................

Well HQ did say that it was all minuted when he left the meetings so I guess and FOI would show all the times it was discussed and who was present 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2022 at 12:15 AM, Stu Peters said:

HQ and I don't like one another, but I have to say that if he was running a business that was eligible for a support grant and he got it, then he's entitled to it and we shouldn't complain. If he influenced the grant scheme for personal gain, or made a fraudulent claim he should be called out for it - but I expect he recused himself when any conflicts of interest arose. 

But of course that's not how these things work.  Obliging civil servants arrange matters so that 'nice things' are done for Ministers (or their mates or influential constituents) without them ever having to advocate for it publicly.  Naturally they (usually) withdraw from the meetings where such matters are approved, but by then everything has been sorted to their advantage.  Nothing can normally be proved, because there is nothing in writing, unless someone whistleblows.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...