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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Excellent

1 Follower

About bankerboy

  • Rank
    MF Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The Tynwald answer makes it clear that “In terms of numbers of jobs created, the Department records the minimum and maximum employment forecast by a project and uses an average as an indication of the employment forecast to be created during any year in question”. It seems to me likely that any application for Govt assistance will have a tendency to over-egg the upside potential on the job creation side, particularly if so doing helps along the application and given that there is (presumably) no risk or other implications from so doing - such as funding being recovered if the upside projection is not met. Also, projects are always optimistic about outcomes, otherwise nothing would ever get done! So, if an application says that there is likely to be a minimum job creation of ten places but that it could be as many as 150, that will be recorded by the Dept as 80 jobs created. My instinct is that most applicants will be running closer to the minimum number projected, with only a small number of applicants hitting anywhere near the maximum figure, hence this method (quelle surprise) will probably over-state the numbers. There can’t be that many FAS approvals each year, so it wouldn’t take a lot of work to do a quick sample of applicants to gauge exactly what jobs have been created.
  2. Sorry, my response was addressed to WTF...
  3. Ok, but I though the issue in this case was that Ronaldsway wasn’t open due to ATC staff being deemed out of time. I was pointing out that the limits for ATC time dont appear to be as black and white as they are being presented. You seem to be suggesting that the problem actually lies with easyJet staff being timed out?
  4. John, you’re the lawyer, not me, but have you actually read CAA CAP 670 part D? Seems to me, from a superficial reading, that there is sufficient flexibility to remain open, more at least than to which the air traffic controllers here (or retired ATCs perhaps) allude: Para D28 “At units where workload for any part of the day is judged to be low and the activity is spasmodic rather than continuous, periods of operational duty, at these times, may be extended to a maximum of four hours, provided that the following break is taken pro-rata (e.g. 45 minutes after 3 hours or 60 minutes after 4 hours).” Might be considered applicable to the IOM situation which is generally inherently less intense that, for example the control towers at Heathrow, Gatwick, Birmingham etc and particularly as all other traffic would have quietened significantly mid evening that night to allow sufficient rest periods. also Para D52 “In exceptional circumstances a Provider at a unit may in its discretion modify any Limitation through persons exercising its authority.” Exceptional circumstances being, perhaps, a one off delay caused by completely unexpected events at Gatwick, in the run up to Christmas? To me, these time limits don’t seem as black and white as painted.
  5. 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/
  6. 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!
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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!
  10. 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.”
  11. 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.
  12. 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!
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  • Create New...