Jump to content

Douglas Council to investigate 'corruption' allegations


HelmutX

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, MrGarrison said:

It’s an anonymous forum where the main moderator is a member of DBC so it’s entirely logical really isn’t it that this should be absolutely the most appropriate place to expect to get an answer from. 

When it suits. That's the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the impression that some people don't actually care about what the alleged corruption is, and the impacts it has had over the years. There's no sign of anyone naming the beneficiaries, pointing out which buildings, even mentioning anything to do with any of it. It's like none of it matters, just so long as they can slate DBC.

The posters who keep it going just seem absolutely desperate to me. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NoTailT said:

When it suits. That's the problem.

You get the impression that he’s now too busy trying to keep his rap sheet clean for a potential bid for Keys next time round than being concerned about openness or transparency anymore. That and pushing Roundel based news alerts that cover negative issues to do with everything else to to with the IOM except those he might be indirectly responsible for. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CallMeCurious said:

Given how they treated the guy who got stuck abroad during Covid lockdowns and the tribunals revelation about the HR department and managements attitude and the recent off hand dismissals of some ratepayers genuine concerns about changes to the  bin collections, is it any wonder people would be hesitant to engage with these people directly.  

I wouldn't expect any investigation to be completed quickly, and I'd be more worried if DBC did come out and say there was nothing to see so quickly.

We've seen time and time again that sending texts to yourself is the easiest thing in the world, so I'd not be putting a lot of faith in Scales' tweet given he's not actually shared anything with the police or FIU. I can't help but wonder why that may be.

I'd agree about DBC's HR, though. Maybe if they'd been similarly circumspect before they'd have saved us thirty grand.

Edited by Ringy Rose
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BriT said:

How can you possibly know that? 

That's what was reported by Gef, and nobody has said anything since to suggest that Gef's reporting was incorrect.

Maybe he has and the police- normally so quick to publicise these things- have kept quiet this time.

More likely, all Scales has done is fling some muck around and, if there is actually any genuine wrongdoing, just tip off the miscreants.

Edited by Ringy Rose
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

I get the impression that some people don't actually care about what the alleged corruption is, and the impacts it has had over the years. There's no sign of anyone naming the beneficiaries, pointing out which buildings, even mentioning anything to do with any of it. It's like none of it matters, just so long as they can slate DBC.

The posters who keep it going just seem absolutely desperate to me. 

 

I mean the Twitter post I remember reading pointed out what the issue was.

The other bolded bits we just don't know, as far as I'm aware?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

I wouldn't expect any investigation to be completed quickly, and I'd be more worried if DBC did come out and say there was nothing to see so quickly.

We've seen time and time again that sending texts to yourself is the easiest thing in the world, so I'd not be putting a lot of faith in Scales' tweet given he's not actually shared anything with the police or FIU. I can't help but wonder why that may be.

I'd agree about DBC's HR, though. Maybe if they'd been similarly circumspect before they'd have saved us thirty grand.

He's a stupid kid given what his in court for if he's making up messages. Very stupid kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

I mean the Twitter post I remember reading pointed out what the issue was.

The other bolded bits we just don't know, as far as I'm aware?

The bolded bits are the story, its has allegedly been going on for decades*, but all the focus is on one first term councilor. It's pathetic. 

*pretty much everyone who has been in the local building trade for any time knows of someone who got a break through a tip of a hat and a nod.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

That's what was reported by Gef, and nobody has said anything since to suggest that Gef's reporting was incorrect.

Maybe he has and the police- normally so quick to publicise these things- have kept quiet this time.

If that was the case then surely DBC would have had a field day publicising the fact by now and they haven’t? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BriT said:

If that was the case then surely DBC would have had a field day publicising the fact by now and they haven’t? 

Like @0bserversays. Much like the dodgy email situation, you can bet your left nut that Wells & co would be on the counterattack by now.

It's been 4 weeks since the tweets and supposedly many months since a councillor was first told about it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

The bolded bits are the story, its has allegedly been going on for decades*, but all the focus is on one first term councilor. It's pathetic. 

*pretty much everyone who has been in the local building trade for any time knows of someone who got a break through a tip of a hat and a nod.

I think this is all directed at DBC as an entity, not Frank specifically. He's a part time unpaid Councillor. I don't mean that disrespectfully.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BriT said:

 That and pushing Roundel based news alerts that cover negative issues to do with everything else to to with the IOM except those he might be indirectly responsible for. 

But is that refusal, or recusal?

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...