Douglas Council to investigate 'corruption' allegations

[TheTeapot]

2 hours ago, Asthehills said:

 We really want people standing and being elected who already earn more than that, but why would the decent people take a pay cut and risk screwing their career up?

What the fuck?

[Ham_N_Eggs]

2 hours ago, Asthehills said:

This is the issue with being an MHK or MLC.

There are people who think these salary is good, but they are generally people who earn a lot less that the 70ish k an MHK gets.  We really want people standing and being elected who already earn more than that, but why would the decent people take a pay cut and risk screwing their career up?

So you're saying people on below £70,000 are not decent people? 

The UK parliament is run by the rich for the rich and you can see how that's worked out for them (and us) over the last decade.

[NoTailT]

3 hours ago, Asthehills said:

This is the issue with being an MHK or MLC.

There are people who think these salary is good, but they are generally people who earn a lot less that the 70ish k an MHK gets.  We really want people standing and being elected who already earn more than that, but why would the decent people take a pay cut and risk screwing their career up?

We've had a few of them. Quayle, Boot, Cannan, Christian.

I wouldn't say their financial standing has made them any better. Actually I'd argue the opposite in many cases.

[CallMeCurious]

9 hours ago, finlo said:

Well what do want to know, little man wants new windows fuck off rich cunt wants obscene palace on greenfield site fill your boots!

or 300 rabbit hutches  homes without any amenities* and tax payer ends up footing the bill for 'suddenly' out of date infrastructure that then needs to be upgraded or replaced in a short time scale and exhorbitant costs. Meanwhile every town has dozens of 'temporary' car parks waiting for some magic developer fairy. Or more likely Daddy-Warbucks like DoE to find a way to slip them some cash from the public purse.  

Funny how we have to justify every atom of carbon dioxide produced when you buy a carrot or slice of bacon, and yet I bet the developers calculations to 'pass' never account for anything beyond the boundary of the site, if even that. 

*Including GP's, dentists, hospital beds and staff, public transport, schools, parking (until the petrol and diesel bans come into effect). All of which is demonstrably unable to handle the population we have right now.

Sustainability before growth, otherwise you make the bad even worse. Repair and refurbish before you raise and rebuild.       

 

[Asthehills]

39 minutes ago, NoTailT said:

We've had a few of them. Quayle, Boot, Cannan, Christian.

I wouldn't say their financial standing has made them any better. Actually I'd argue the opposite in many cases.

I am not talking about rich people, as in people who have had an easy life.

In an ideal world politicians would be normal folk who have done welL in life and are well educated.  People who have shown that they can take information on board, understand it, and who have made good life decisions.

Drs, Lawyers, Dentists, self made business people, company CEOs, Finance managers etc.

I struggle to see how anyone would argue with that, but I am sure people will.

[Manxieover65]

10 hours ago, finlo said:

That'll not work well with your election aspirations!

No that's Devan and at a guess Falk . Neither will stand a chance . Devan tried to remove himself from the councils decision to remove public bins but didn't make any effort to fix the problem , which would indicate he will definitely stand . But let's be honest he hasn't a hope in hell now . Falk even less so . Reality is there's numourous people willing to stand for councillors at this point at next election so I'd be surprised if any get in . 

Whilst I think it's wrong to single out Frank and his roundel thing, which isnt that bad as the other guy is actually quite good (only messing frank) that's the best thing he's done whilst in the council . The bins are a farce , rates have gone up and now they are supporting lots of homes which will have no parking . Whatever their dreams of 15 minutes cities it won't happen , people will want cars , so it will cause mayhem . 

Correct me if I'm wrong here but isn't yourself and Devan involved in gaming companies/crypto . Almost as if you will help your own sorts by building cheaper accommodation pretty much up the road from the offices . Is it beyond the realms of possibility they've been planted by their peers to vote to actually help their businesses and friends 🤔 

[BriT]

10 hours ago, Amadeus said:

Roundel Live is a fun project and a bit of a test run for the new facility we are fortunate enough to be able to use. You ain't seen nothing yet as there's much more to come. 

Oh God hopefully not even more self publicizing drivel. As has been said already the audience figures for your tedious roundabout centric nonsense are awful. 

[Hoops]

10 minutes ago, Asthehills said:

I am not talking about rich people, as in people who have had an easy life.

In an ideal world politicians would be normal folk who have done welL in life and are well educated.  People who have shown that they can take information on board, understand it, and who have made good life decisions.

Drs, Lawyers, Dentists, self made business people, company CEOs, Finance managers etc.

I struggle to see how anyone would argue with that, but I am sure people will.

Well seeing as it's you.................saw some data  once, that in Britain one in six mp's had studied and/or practiced law.

Many lawyers literally lie for money. They are good at it, it's their profession. 

I don't trust them and wouldn't vote for one. 

🙄

[WTF]

7 minutes ago, Hoops said:

.

Many lawyers literally lie for money. They are good at it, it's their profession. 

 

 

don't forget they lie for free too

[Asthehills]

55 minutes ago, Hoops said:

Well seeing as it's you.................saw some data  once, that in Britain one in six mp's had studied and/or practiced law.

Many lawyers literally lie for money. They are good at it, it's their profession. 

I don't trust them and wouldn't vote for one. 

🙄

I would have thought someone who had studied law would be just the sort of person we wanted to be honest, you know, to understand and set laws and stuff.

I guess it just shows you will never please everyone but the point stands that someone who has studied law and has a successful career making six figures plus in a life insurance business for example is unlikely to want to Jack that in for 60 something k.  Which is a shame, because personally those are the sort of people I would like to be representing me and making major decisions that impact mine and my kids lives.

If other people are happy with people who see an MHKs salary as a jump up from what they are used to, then that probably explains the state the island is in.

 

Edited February 5, 2023 by Asthehills

[TheTeapot]

The only worthwhile measure of a persons character is their salary? This is so stupid I can't even

[Asthehills]

16 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

The only worthwhile measure of a persons character is their salary? This is so stupid I can't even

Who said that?

[Gladys]

51 minutes ago, Asthehills said:

I am not talking about rich people, as in people who have had an easy life.

In an ideal world politicians would be normal folk who have done welL in life and are well educated.  People who have shown that they can take information on board, understand it, and who have made good life decisions.

Drs, Lawyers, Dentists, self made business people, company CEOs, Finance managers etc.

I struggle to see how anyone would argue with that, but I am sure people will.

It's a dilemma as you observe and I am sympathetic to your view for the reasons you state. 

But there downsides to each approach.  No, or nominal, remuneration will exclude those who simply cannot afford to devote the time even though they may be the best for the job.  Similarly, it will attract only certain types of candidates who may have a particular view on life (traditionally right wing) and want to see the status quo which has served them so well preserved. 

On the other hand, an above average remuneration will attract those who see it as a way of enhancing their standard of living even if only for a few years.  It is this type of candidate who seem more prone to granny farming, IMO.  

In both cases, the prime motivator could so easily be self-interest rather than public service.  But, either is not necessarily the best way to secure the quality candidates.

I do think that party politics can help with a clear party manifesto that candidates sign up to and discharge their role in pursuit of the principles of their party and its manifesto.  This may lessen the impact of remuneration as the candidate would have to prove their commitment to the party aims and the party can weed out those who are "in it" just for the money. 

No system is perfect, but we do seem to be unable to attract quality candidates.  Perhaps there is quality there, but because of the lack of party politics, they are just one voice unable to put weight behind the aims of their manifesto. 

 

[BriT]

15 hours ago, FANDL said:

Don’t want to get involved in this anymore to any great degree but you paged the thread. Writing critical pieces on professional politicians is so much more engaging than the pathetic shitstorm that the amateurs create which is just tiresome. Without going into too much detail yes, Scales said he’d spoken to one Councillor last year about this individual and the reply eventually was that they had looked into it in depth but there's no point in pushing it as person implicated was imminently departing DBC. At which point he said he left it assured that it had been looked at. Then months later he said he learned that in fact the individual was still employed there and had no plan to leave and it looks like they had no plan to exit them either. He confirmed who at DBC had been contacted. At that point he said he sent the Tweet accusing DBC of not taking any action. Then it all went mad. Subsequently it’s believed that one of the people they tried to leg over realized that the texts Tweeted related to them and they may or may not have contacted the police following that. 

The interesting point in all of this is that despite the number of posts relating to these public accusations (which still can be read on Twitter) that have been taken down on this forum allegedly on “legal advice” there seems to be no current legal action from what can be ascertained and hence no need for any real caution as Scales’ claims and screenshots have now been published by Gef, Manx Radio & 3fm at least - so it is actual “news” that is freely in the public domain. It’s just seems that it’s news that cannot be directly referenced on this forum in any shape or form without threats of removals or bans. As clarified previously evidence was sent to the F&L email address on at least 4 “legal opinions” offered at the time of banning or suspending posters and removing content from this forum.

Ok so it’s safe to say this has been going on for at least 6 to 9 months with still no resolution of announcement at all. While Wells is in the papers every other week about a duff email that’s pissed her off. 

[Asthehills]

22 minutes ago, Gladys said:

It's a dilemma as you observe and I am sympathetic to your view for the reasons you state. 

But there downsides to each approach.  No, or nominal, remuneration will exclude those who simply cannot afford to devote the time even though they may be the best for the job.  Similarly, it will attract only certain types of candidates who may have a particular view on life (traditionally right wing) and want to see the status quo which has served them so well preserved. 

On the other hand, an above average remuneration will attract those who see it as a way of enhancing their standard of living even if only for a few years.  It is this type of candidate who seem more prone to granny farming, IMO.  

In both cases, the prime motivator could so easily be self-interest rather than public service.  But, either is not necessarily the best way to secure the quality candidates.

I do think that party politics can help with a clear party manifesto that candidates sign up to and discharge their role in pursuit of the principles of their party and its manifesto.  This may lessen the impact of remuneration as the candidate would have to prove their commitment to the party aims and the party can weed out those who are "in it" just for the money. 

No system is perfect, but we do seem to be unable to attract quality candidates.  Perhaps there is quality there, but because of the lack of party politics, they are just one voice unable to put weight behind the aims of their manifesto. 

 

I would be happy to see the average of someone’s last three tax years, plus 30 percent.

Hopefully a decent motivation for anyone who really wants to do it, and take away the non achievers looking for a pay bump.

I am aware there are likely to be lots who would disagree, but to me it’s the fairest way to get people who are there for the right reasons and not ruling anyone out.