Happier diner Posted March 18, 2023 Share Posted March 18, 2023 54 minutes ago, WTF said: i don't recall saying that at all. You are challenging the financial report. Not disclosing things in a financial statement is fraud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted March 18, 2023 Share Posted March 18, 2023 1 hour ago, Non-Believer said: They didn't run up the major part of a £0.5Bn debt without financial misconduct. Why could this not be different? Something doesn't add up, you don't put the Island economy on the line without there being an issue somewhere. We are not being told the full story by any means. The loans taken by the MEA were not financial misconduct. They would be now because it would be failure to comply with the financial regulations. I cant see how anything could be hidden these days. I might be wrong of course and the whole thing could be crooked. But I think that unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted March 18, 2023 Share Posted March 18, 2023 1 hour ago, Happier diner said: The loans taken by the MEA were not financial misconduct. They would be now because it would be failure to comply with the financial regulations. Nice attempt at deflection, a bit like saying that Gary Glitter should be held in high regard because once upon a time his offences wouldn't have been crimes. Something about this whole thing stinks and the Manx public are being hammered because of it whilst, ostensibly, reserves could be used to mitigate or at least ameliorate the effects. Unless those reserves either don't exist (certainly in the figures being quoted) or are being earmarked for something else. Unfortunately, IoMG's first duty has long been unto itself, not its electorate. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted March 18, 2023 Share Posted March 18, 2023 15 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Nice attempt at deflection, a bit like saying that Gary Glitter should be held in high regard because once upon a time his offences wouldn't have been crimes. Something about this whole thing stinks and the Manx public are being hammered because of it whilst, ostensibly, reserves could be used to mitigate or at least ameliorate the effects. You are mistaking a fact for a deflection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nellie Posted March 18, 2023 Share Posted March 18, 2023 15 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Unless those reserves either don't exist (certainly in the figures being quoted) or are being earmarked for something else. Although the recent Budget showed that the draw down from Reserves will tail off over the next four years, everyone knows that this assumption is predicated on totally made up figures. I reality, until CoMin grow some balls and address the size and cost of the Public Sector, and their pensions, the Reserves will be drained at north of £100 million a year, until they are all gone. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 Gas futures now below 100p per therm plus oil prices tumbling so energy costs should come down in a few months hopefully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 12 minutes ago, Banker said: Gas futures now below 100p per therm plus oil prices tumbling so energy costs should come down in a few months hopefully If they purchased substantially ahead (the usual excuse) then they won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 2 minutes ago, P.K. said: If they purchased substantially ahead (the usual excuse) then they won't. Depends how much they bought forward but even so should see some relief & certainly heating oil & petrol prices should drop sooner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 On 3/18/2023 at 10:04 AM, Happier diner said: The loans taken by the MEA were not financial misconduct. They would be now because it would be failure to comply with the financial regulations. IIRC for some strange reason Tynwald were unaware of them and therefore couldn't approve them. Fortunately they came from the division of Barclays that was headed up by, errrr, Mike Proffitt... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 Just now, P.K. said: IIRC for some strange reason Tynwald were unaware of them and therefore couldn't approve them. Fortunately they came from the division of Barclays that was headed up by, errrr, Mike Proffitt... Unaware because they were a bunch of clowns. Not one MHK publicly asked where the money was coming from. AFAIK it was a major Douglas firm of advocates which organised this and Tynwald retrospectively authorised it (a few years later), caliming to have known all along what was happening. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 Just now, P.K. said: IIRC for some strange reason Tynwald were unaware of them and therefore couldn't approve them. Fortunately they came from the division of Barclays that was headed up by, errrr, Mike Proffitt... That's correct. IIRC though there was no financial regulation at that time that it was deemed mandatory to do so. There is now, and therefore if a statutory body took out a loan without treasury approval they would be in breach of the financial regulations . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 Just now, Happier diner said: That's correct. IIRC though there was no financial regulation at that time that it was deemed mandatory to do so. There is now, and therefore if a statutory body took out a loan without treasury approval they would be in breach of the financial regulations . Wasn't a subsidiary company created to take out the loan as it wasn't a statuary body / MEA? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 8 minutes ago, P.K. said: If they purchased substantially ahead (the usual excuse) then they won't. That would not be hedging though would it? If you were sensible you would buy some, but not all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 Just now, GD4ELI said: Wasn't a subsidiary company created to take out the loan as it wasn't a statuary body / MEA? I have no idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 2 minutes ago, Happier diner said: That's correct. IIRC though there was no financial regulation at that time that it was deemed mandatory to do so. There is now, and therefore if a statutory body took out a loan without treasury approval they would be in breach of the financial regulations . Errrr the issue may not have been about financial regulations per se, although Mr Proffitt was clearly in a difficult position around having a possible vested interest, but rather it was about accountability. As an ex-pm how there was no project reporting up the food chain is just beyond belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.