DOI Vs Manx rallying

[FatRoundMiddle]

1 hour ago, finlo said:

well it was a big do at Milntown lots for the family, groups playing into the night etc.

Wasn't that 'Cyclefest', which was more to do with other government departments like Culture Vannin trying to do a bit of the old fee twiddly diddling hoping some cycling cool would rub off on the old Irish derivative shite they peddle everywhere as being Manx Culture.

[Happier diner]

6 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

I would have thought you would produce the management pans after the actual route has been agreed - if they wanted a different route you'd have to start again anyway.  In practice you probably have it mostly drafted in advance (it's not like it's completely new every time) and whack it in quickly, but if they didn't confirm the route first, how could you?

Well the instructions are very clear

How could they assess a route if you hadn't told them how you intend to manage it. 

[Roger Mexico]

3 hours ago, Happier diner said:

Well the instructions are very clear

How could they assess a route if you hadn't told them how you intend to manage it. 

It's a bit chicken and egg, but that form is more for one-off closures.  When you need a whole series of them for one of the rallies, you'd want to make sure the DoI was happy with the outline route before submitting all the detail of how you'd manage them and indeed manage moving between stages.  Obviously you would expect a fair amount of examination and engagement from the DoI before it was all finalised and it's the lack of either from them that seems to be the problem.

You get the impression that the DoI are operating under the usual Manx civil service method of leaving everything to the last minute so they can impose what suits them without objection or examination.  Whether they actually wanted to prevent the Rally or whether it was an inevitable consequence of their behaviour I don't know.  Laziness or wanting to demonstrate your 'power' are both possible.

[Happier diner]

27 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's a bit chicken and egg, but that form is more for one-off closures.  When you need a whole series of them for one of the rallies, you'd want to make sure the DoI was happy with the outline route before submitting all the detail of how you'd manage them and indeed manage moving between stages.  Obviously you would expect a fair amount of examination and engagement from the DoI before it was all finalised and it's the lack of either from them that seems to be the problem.

You get the impression that the DoI are operating under the usual Manx civil service method of leaving everything to the last minute so they can impose what suits them without objection or examination.  Whether they actually wanted to prevent the Rally or whether it was an inevitable consequence of their behaviour I don't know.  Laziness or wanting to demonstrate your 'power' are both possible.

It's not the DOIs job to do all the legwork for a sporting event. It's the organisers job. 

Public money should not be used for doing the work. 

I think your arguement has some good points but I think the reason for the failure is clear. 

[Non-Believer]

16 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

It's not the DOIs job to do all the legwork for a sporting event. It's the organisers job. 

Public money should not be used for doing the work. 

I think your arguement has some good points but I think the reason for the failure is clear. 

It's nothing to do with "legwork", the DOI's job as a publicly-funded body providing a public service (although that's admittedly an oxymoron on the modern IoM) is to facilitate and ensure that things "happen" wherever possible for the greater benefit of the Island as a whole.

If the rally organisers needed guidance or updating on what was required then that should have been provided, God knows the DOI had 9 months plus to do so, to ensure that what they were asking was compliant. Rather than the civil service stonewall culture of go away and now it's too late.

Edited July 29 by Non-Believer
Typo

[Derek Flint]

17 hours ago, Beelzebub3 said:

Do you seriously believe the DOI are very qualified/competent team with clear and defensive safety plans? ffs Derek the DOI couldn't run a bath.

You might need to read what I wrote again. 

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Non-Believer said:

It's nothing to do with "legwork", the DOI's job as a publicly-funded body providing a public service (although that's admittedly an oxymoron on the modern IoM) is to facilitate and ensure that things "happen" wherever possible for the greater benefit of the Island as a whole.

If the rally organisers needed guidance or updating on what was required then that should have been provided, God knows the DOI had 9 months plus to do so, to ensure that what they were asking was compliant. Rather than the civil service stonewall culture of go away and now it's too late.

We will have to agree to disagree

Even the statement from the Rally organisers says they didn't submit all the required documents.

We do not know that the DOI were not helpful. Whenever I have had anything to do with road closures they have been more than helpful. But its not their road closure application, its the organisers and the organiser has the responsibility to get it right

Imagine a passport application. The office is really helpful. However the responsibility for getting the application form right is with the applicant.

[Non-Believer]

34 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

We will have to agree to disagree

Even the statement from the Rally organisers says they didn't submit all the required documents.

We do not know that the DOI were not helpful. Whenever I have had anything to do with road closures they have been more than helpful. But its not their road closure application, its the organisers and the organiser has the responsibility to get it right

Imagine a passport application. The office is really helpful. However the responsibility for getting the application form right is with the applicant.

An incorrect or incomplete passport application does not wave away estimated revenue of £750k to hard-pressed areas of the local economy.

With those sort of stakes, everything possible should be being done to ensure that events go ahead, that means Govt Depts offering guidance, assistance and flexibility where necessary to enable it to be so.

Not, "The computer says no, now where's my coffee".

This self serving bureaucracy will be the death of this island and bring further hardship to anybody still left on it.

[Happier diner]

28 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

An incorrect or incomplete passport application does not wave away estimated revenue of £750k to hard-pressed areas of the local economy.

With those sort of stakes, everything possible should be being done to ensure that events go ahead, that means Govt Depts offering guidance, assistance and flexibility where necessary to enable it to be so.

Not, "The computer says no, now where's my coffee".

This self serving bureaucracy will be the death of this island and bring further hardship to anybody still left on it.

Yeah and the organisers of certain major events that have estimated "revenue of £750k to hard-pressed areas of the local economy." can just make half arsed attempts at applying for road closures and don't worry - The government will bail them out.

[Non-Believer]

5 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Yeah and the organisers of certain major events that have estimated "revenue of £750k to hard-pressed areas of the local economy." can just make half arsed attempts at applying for road closures and don't worry - The government will bail them out.

What "bailing out" cost would there be to an allegedly (by you) "half arsed attempt"? It's a simple question of offering guidance, support and flexibility to ensure that any requirements are adhered to, particularly if those requirements have changed since the last occasion.

The bailing out is more likely to have to arise from the loss of revenue to the hospitality industry as bureaucracy appears to need to take precedence over economically productive activity.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much in this eternal defence of DOI dogma.

[Roger Mexico]

21 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

Yeah and the organisers of certain major events that have estimated "revenue of £750k to hard-pressed areas of the local economy." can just make half arsed attempts at applying for road closures and don't worry - The government will bail them out.

But it's the same organisers as May's successful event, so they're perfectly capable of making successful applications when they get cooperation.  Or even a response.

As for 'bailing out' the event, the response from Johnston confirmed that there was no government money spent on the May one - all they got was the use of the Grandstand when no one else would have been using it anyway. 

Of course the DoI never needs bailing out as all its projects go perfectly and never cost much or exceed their budgets.

[Happier diner]

18 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

What "bailing out" cost would there be to an allegedly (by you) "half arsed attempt"? It's a simple question of offering guidance, support and flexibility to ensure that any requirements are adhered to, particularly if those requirements have changed since the last occasion.

The bailing out is more likely to have to arise from the loss of revenue to the hospitality industry as bureaucracy appears to need to take precedence over economically productive activity.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much in this eternal defence of DOI dogma.

I am not defending the DOI. I am merely saying that its not clear cut who is at fault. My money is on the Rally organisers slipping up and my reason for thinking that is that other organisations seem to have no issue, even them themselves seem to have managed in the past and their own statement states they dis not submit the requisite documents, but I could be wrong. Have the DOI been asked to comment? They seem very quiet on the subject.

[WTF]

3 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

You might need to read what I wrote again. 

you might need to write what he read again.

[Fred the shred]

£750 ,000 is being bandied about without any proof as far as I can see,  the whole situation smacks of slackness by both parties, if forms have not been produced or incorrectly filled in then that is the fault of the organisers but on the other hand perhaps this could have been brought to their attention promptly enabling the the correct information was in place.   Lessons will be learned no doubt by both parties. It is indeed unfortunate for the hospitality trade and other businesses affected through no fault of their own it must be very frustrating for those trying to increase the tourist trade when sloppiness causes situations like this.    

[cissolt]

On 7/29/2024 at 1:35 PM, Roger Mexico said:

But it's the same organisers as May's successful event, so they're perfectly capable of making successful applications when they get cooperation.  Or even a response.

As for 'bailing out' the event, the response from Johnston confirmed that there was no government money spent on the May one - all they got was the use of the Grandstand when no one else would have been using it anyway. 

Of course the DoI never needs bailing out as all its projects go perfectly and never cost much or exceed their budgets.

The fact they have had no issues in the past when they followed the same process does suggest the DOI are at fault.

Obviously the cycling event would have no such issues as it's an 'internal' event organized by the Mr TT himself.  Would his department not have been involved in this saga?  Possibly a conflict of interests?