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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

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. bankerboy

    Chaos At Gatwick...

    Sorry, my response was addressed to WTF...
  2. bankerboy

    Chaos At Gatwick...

    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?
  3. bankerboy

    Chaos At Gatwick...

    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.
  4. 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/
  5. 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!
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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!
  9. 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.”
  10. 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.
  11. 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!
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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.