Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

bankerboy

Members
  • Content Count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

1 Follower

About bankerboy

  • Rank
    MF Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. bankerboy

    Man wins employment tribunal

    OK, i now see it is here - https://www.gov.im/media/1362401/1635-robert-sutton-v-creechuch-capital-limited.pdf but = and i could be wrong = i was pretty certain that until today it was on the tribunal decisions page - https://www.gov.im/about-the-government/offices/general-registry-isle-of-man-courts-and-tribunals/tribunals-service/tribunals/employment-tribunal/employment-tribunal-decisions/
  2. bankerboy

    Man wins employment tribunal

    Indeed - so much so that the judgement seems to have vanished from the employment tribunal’s website - presumably an injunction, appeal or some other legal action is underway!
  3. bankerboy

    Arron Banks Met Russian Ambassador...

    There is a very clear local connection - according to the website of Manx Financial Group, which is the holding company for Conister Bank, amongst others: Arron Banks, a former Director of the Group is beneficially interested in 38,153,158 Ordinary Shares. This holding includes 9,777,166 Ordinary Shares held by Rene Nominees (IOM) Limited in trust for ICS Risk Solutions Limited. John Banks, a director of MFG is also a director of ICS Risk Solutions Limited. 38m shares represents around 29pc of the group, so a major stake in a local bank/financial services group.
  4. bankerboy

    Pinewood problems

    Well, we did get ‘a bunch of amateurs’ (**j - There must be a joke somewhere there!! It was a Tynwald question, last week - see pages 29/30 of this http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard/20002020/k180508.pdf ** we lost £2.2m on that film
  5. bankerboy

    Man wins employment tribunal

    Don’t agree, in this instance at least. I can well understand Creechurch not being happy about the information given to the FSA and as made in the STR. But the Tribunal held that this was a protected disclosure as defined in the employment act, and so the employee could not have been sacked on the back of making the disclosures. See page 4 of this guideline - https://www.gov.im/media/1354615/20161219-whistleblowing-guide-plusjc-2-2.pdf. To qualify as a protected disclosure the info disclosed must be ‘the right type...made to the right person, and in the right way...”. Creechurch appealed to the Court to have (inter alia) this finding overturned, and they lost, so clearly. Some of the details in the two tribunal reports concerning Creechurch, and contained in the court decision for that matter, are quite shocking...with hindsight Creechurch would have been much better to have bit their tongues and just let the guy resign and move on, thus avoiding all this stuff coming into the public domain!
  6. bankerboy

    Man wins employment tribunal

    They did give the new employer the reason - According to the first tribunal decision, (paragraph 20) “ Consequent upon the dismissal, the Respondent contacted the new employers and informed them that the reference provided was withdrawn because the Claimant had been dismissed for gross misconduct. St James’s Place then withdrew the offer of employment.”
  7. bankerboy

    Pedantic Manx police state strikes again

    Yes, I see that - I’m sure come TT for instance, it’s all hands to the pumps. However, - equality legislation notwithstanding- a good employer should be able utilise the strengths of their team, particularly experienced individuals who could have added so much value, whilst working around potential mobility issues such as this.
  8. bankerboy

    Pedantic Manx police state strikes again

    This is not to get at Derek, who presumably had to play by the rules - but when he says that all police must have front line operational fitness, this no longer makes sense, given the changing nature of the police’s functions, and it certain doesn’t chime with the most recent chief constable’s report, eg: “There has been a dramatic rise in financial crime, with the chief constable describing its scale as "without precedent". "That is the price you pay when you live on a leading financial off-shore centre," he added. We are dealing with some of the biggest money laundering issues in Britain - dealing with those challenges is considerable. About 20% of the island’s 70 detectives are probing alleged financial offences. ‘I could easily allocate all 70 to financial crime investigations and still not be able to meet all my obligations’ said Mr Roberts..." (See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-40568708) Financial Crime is clearly a growing issue and I should have thought its investigation would be more akin to Liz Carr on Silent Witness than the Sweeney; a couple of dodgy hips shouldn’t have to result in the loss of an experienced officer who could be deployed to a much needed desk job within the force!
  9. bankerboy

    That 50m from the DED

    In Skelly’s response to the question in Tynwald he stated that “It is the department’s policy not to make public the specific amounts loaned to or invested in individual companies under the Enterprise Development Scheme.” He also limited the scope of his response to those businesses that had “chosen to have media coverage surrounding the support ...” This stance does seem different to the intentions actually set out in the EDS guidelines (https://www.gov.im/media/1349316/financial-provisions-and-currency-act-2011-guidelines-february-2016.pdf) - see paras 1.8 and 2.8 (which are identical) and which provide: “Public disclosure The applicant should be aware that the business name and amount loaned / invested under the Scheme may be published in an annual report prepared by the Department which will be laid before Tynwald, the Isle of Man’s Parliament. This level of information is therefore not confidential to the business concerned. Applicants should also be aware that parliamentary questions may be raised.” Ok, there is a ‘may’ in there, which it could be argued gives the department some flexibility as to disclosure but nonetheless Tynwald members should be able to ask relevant questions regarding the beneficiaries of what is after all public funding, and should perhaps be entitled to receive a fuller answer than was given.
  10. bankerboy

    New attack on IOM tax haven status

    I don’t think it’s the zero rate under threat- the EU document notes: “In the context of criterion 2.2 the fact of absence of a corporate tax or applying a nominal corporate tax rate equal to zero or almost zero can not alone be a reason for concluding that a jurisdiction does not meet the requirements of criterion 2.2. “ The issue, it seems to me, is meeting this criterion 2.2 which states “"The jurisdiction should not facilitate offshore structures or arrangements aimed at attracting profits which do not reflect real economic activity in the jurisdiction." hence, if I’m interpreting this correctly, it appears that zero tax is ok per se, but that ‘brass plate’ activities might not be. Interesting that our govt (along with the other CDs) have committed to resolve this in 2018.
  11. bankerboy

    Douglas Prom

    Per the FAQs "Over recent and past years, new and more onerous health and safety regulations have been introduced regarding the operation of heritage railways and tramways." - can anyone cite what regs have been introduced on the island regarding the steam railway/ trams/ horse trams etc. Thanks
  12. bankerboy

    Hill Street Police Raid

    That's not what was meant: but this is a Premier League shit-storm and for lots of reasons people should use common sense about what they post on here.has anyone posted any names,initials,or nom de plumes that points the dreaded lurgy at the so called perps?The Advisory Notice process is pretty useful in circulating info fast to the sector, but given sensitivities I'm not sure why this particular notice wasn't restricted to senior management or compliance. As it is, it's been pretty widely circulated, and I'm sure the names will be made public shortly- but not by me! There's nothing in the notice to say its restricted or confidential, so I don't understand why the newspapers won't publish it, but that's their call. However, if you enjoy cryptic crosswords, go back through the postings.Although there might have been four individuals mentioned in this notice, the Police's facebook page earlier said that: "Four of the warrants being undertaken under section 22 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, are assisting requests from HMRC to search premises on the Island central to their investigation into a suspected £21 million VAT and money laundering fraud. Two further searches are being conducted under section 12 of the Police Powers and Procedures Act 1998 (PPP) in respect of linked matters involving Conspiracy to Launder Money and An Act Against Public Justice on the Isle Of Man." So if we suppose that these four named persons in the email related to the CJA investigations, surely the question now is - who or what are the other two parties? There was a confidentiality notice at the bottom of the email. you're right - I stand corrected. One could argue that given it's been BCC'd , the 'if you are not the intended addressee...' bit is going to be difficult to uphold, and that the 'you must not copy...' bit defeats the entire purpose of the communication. However, I modify my view on the IOMToday stance and accept I was wrong about that. I also think other notices have been more explicit on circulation, rather than relying on the 'small print'. My point about the 'other two' warrants stands, though.
  13. bankerboy

    Hill Street Police Raid

    That's not what was meant: but this is a Premier League shit-storm and for lots of reasons people should use common sense about what they post on here. has anyone posted any names,initials,or nom de plumes that points the dreaded lurgy at the so called perps? The Advisory Notice process is pretty useful in circulating info fast to the sector, but given sensitivities I'm not sure why this particular notice wasn't restricted to senior management or compliance. As it is, it's been pretty widely circulated, and I'm sure the names will be made public shortly- but not by me! There's nothing in the notice to say its restricted or confidential, so I don't understand why the newspapers won't publish it, but that's their call. However, if you enjoy cryptic crosswords, go back through the postings. Although there might have been four individuals mentioned in this notice, the Police's facebook page earlier said that: "Four of the warrants being undertaken under section 22 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, are assisting requests from HMRC to search premises on the Island central to their investigation into a suspected £21 million VAT and money laundering fraud. Two further searches are being conducted under section 12 of the Police Powers and Procedures Act 1998 (PPP) in respect of linked matters involving Conspiracy to Launder Money and An Act Against Public Justice on the Isle Of Man." So if we suppose that these four named persons in the email related to the CJA investigations, surely the question now is - who or what are the other two parties?
  14. bankerboy

    Hospital Car Park

    Hardly simple and cheap. The barrier (illegally) blocks a long established right of way, the display of available spaces doesn't work, and the cheapest way would not have been to install this expensive entry and exit system, but to have included the car park within the disc zone, with a 2 hour limit. After all, presently the wardens walk around the front of the nurses home where it's double yellows they could have walked thru the car park instead a few times a day. Once again, badly designed over engineering!
  15. bankerboy

    Post Offices Douglas/Ramsey

    Haven't seen the PAC report, but the PO seem to have £14.3 million in cash, not £11m . At last accounts date they indeed had £11.8m cash but they also had another £2.5m in 'short term cash deposit' But where on earth are they investing their cash? Interest income to 30/3/14 is £728k. On yearend cash balances, that represents an interest rate of around 5pc. That's not available anywhere. Obviously we can only see the yearend balances, and it's likely that at peak periods, eg around Christmas, they have a lot more cash lying around. Nonetheless, at a more realistic (but still ambitious) 1pc return, based on the p and l figures they would need average cash balances of around 70m; this just doesn't seem right and is worthy of more analysis. The issue is presumably that operating profits - the real business activities - have suddenly plummeted - £2074k in 2012 rising to £2247k in 2013 but falling to only £1242k in 2014. They obviously know whether this is a one off issue or a permanent decline. Nonetheless, despite my reservations about the sustainability of the interest income, even if they only earned £250k of interest each year, and even at the much lower profits reported in 2014, meeting the somewhat arbitrary govt requirement of £2m dividend each year could be sustained out of retained earnings for at least the next ten years, so this clearly not a crisis requiring immediate attention.
×