Non-Believer

I'm not sure, but I think that back-pay sum will be taxed, NI'd and probably have Pension Contributions taken out of it as well. For the lower earners they'll probably end up with about a quarter of any back-pay lumpsum as clear money. No they won't. They'll get the same as they always would. They may get slightly over taxed but would get a rebate. I don't understand how you think 75% disappears. Quite simply because it happened two years ago. A lump sum was negotiated in lieu of an annual percentage pay increase for Whitley Council workers (and it worked out a lot less than a pay increase would have). By the time deductions had been removed it left around 30% of its value as clear money, as I stated in my OP. I know - I was one of the recipients at the time....

I'm not sure, but I think that back-pay sum will be taxed, NI'd and probably have Pension Contributions taken out of it as well. For the lower earners they'll probably end up with about a quarter of any back-pay lumpsum as clear money.

+1. It's difficult to appreciate just how far IoM has come in terms of tolerance and acceptance in the last 30yrs. EQ's attitude is extreme and unacceptable as seen from today. Back then I'd suggest it was pretty much the norm. His military and Hong Kong Police background wouldn't have helped back in those days, either.

Who could possibly remain an ally with Edgar Quine? True, but he was consistently voted for MHK by somebody. He must have struck a chord somewhere...?

It's Election year. All manner of assurances will be made, including those pertaining to improvements in our, "Democratic Processes and Government". And after the Election it all goes out the window and we revert to the same old same olds that we have done for decades. 'Twas ever thus. Our Elected are not the ones who run the Puppet Show....

As I said what is the point in arguing with a mentalist who is having a forum breakdown? Mr Shoe makes a really reasoned and valid point that I don't disagree with. I also support the e-gaming industry. All I said is that I genuinely believe that the work permit system does not add much protection or much value so I don't see an issue with this change. Do you want the Manx to be a protected species like some special needs job applicants protected by heavy laws? I don't think that's sensible policy. I think we should be looking at our education system and making sure everyone (the next generation especially) has the best skills possible to compete head to head with the imports. I also said some of them have attitude problems based on personal experience, and I wasn't the only person to say it. +1. I see it all too frequently in new, "younger" recruits in my workplace (and I certainly don't wish to tar all kids with the same brush) and it has nothing to do with qualifications or any skills already possessed. It's attitude. Bone idleness coupled with a quite remarkable sense of "entitlement". An attitude that "I shouldn't have to work too hard, I can't be asked to do anything that I don't feel like doing and anything other than something leisurely is too much like hard work". No application or even preparedness to "stay on the job". And it's all, "My rights". Me? I blame the education system and maybe the parents who are also products of that system. I don't know if, nor am I trying to suggest that it's purely a local thing. Schools don't seem to teach discipline or work any more. It seems to be all leisure subjects and rights. A GCSE in Photography or P.E. is no good to any employer (other than a Photographer maybe) when somebody can't spell, write or add up. A great many young people seem to leave the education system with a very poor work ethic and that makes them poorly prepared for life in the working world. And as a consequence the older generations are still doing a lot of the work that the younger generations can't or won't do? Or maybe I'm just getting old.....

A ditch for the two of them would be more appropriate. Let's hope they're "ditched" at the next election.

Why don't you just put it in a bag and stick it in the bin? Cat's don't have much in the way of scrub land in towns, they go out and poop in gardens, my neighbours cat comes in for food, then craps in my garden! I scoop it up and chuck it out, no need to get flustered about it. Not flustered about it at all, Bees, just a way of life... :-)

Maybe the cat just thinks you're a dick, so he shits in your garden. Put your binoculars away and stop perving on him having a shit and he might stop doing it. Pop round some time. I'll show you my collection of cat scalps over a coffee and biccies.

I beg to differ, makes no attempt. And would this be so I can find it on the occasions I do a bit of weeding? We moan about dog owners not picking up shit. Cat owners are no better, usually permanently in denial.

How do you know it's their cat? Could be any cat. Mine will shit anywhere. He doesn't give a Fuck. I know it's the neighbour's cat cos I watch it now and again. Ever tried to scare a cat off when it's in the middle of a crap? They won't budge til they've finished. At which point it then goes back over the fence. Closely followed by its shit. And my dog if he got the chance. 8 million UK cats they reckon. We cull fucking badgers and there's less of them.

They shit in my flowerbed. And the owner don't pick it up, either. So I throw it back over the fence. And the owner moans. Says it all.

It would appear that in your haste to defend IoM FSA (amongst others, as usual) you, yourself have either disregarded or failed to recognise what has gone on or what the implications of our refusing to attend this are. Nor have you answered either of the questions in my last post. You are John Aspden and I claim my £5.

Notwell, you clearly earn your keep defending IoMG's cock ups. I suggest you read iomtoday headline (sorry, can't link). We stand accused of a huge regulatory failure. If it's nothing to do with us, WHY HAS IOM BEEN ASKED to attend the enquiry? And "declined" on the grounds of "information restrictions"? This doing us no favours at all. It just adds fuel to the shady tax haven view. And makes it look like we have something to hide. Particularly when senior local politicians are involved.

Certainly not. But the City is not the focal point in this issue. IoM has been mentioned, if not implicated in some way. A large number of people have lost a considerable amount of money to the degree that UK Govt are now investigating. The least we could do is have the courtesy to respond with attendance. We have presumably been "invited"...

I'm in no way defending IOM FSA but why would IOM FSA appear before UK Parliamentary Select Committee? If it was the other way around do you think UK FSA (or equivalent) would turn up to a Tynwald select committee? I think not. You wouldn't realistically expect anybody in Westminster to be at the beck and call of Tynwald. I suspect that given UK's attitude to IoM "tax haven" existence that we're doing ourselves no favours by not turning up. "Absence noted" sort of thing.

IOM Newspapers names the President of Tynwald in the article, which very interesting Does anyone have a full copy of the article Brief resume on the 3fm website but doesn't mention President. More info in today's Examiner, maybe?

As the FSA "decline" to appear before Parliamentary Select Commission on grounds information leading to £75m Scottish Power scam is "restricted"..... Openess and transparency, anyone...? Another nail in the coffin, more like.

The contractor probably charges for the tidal movements to wash the stuff away as well; most unlikely that the Corpy would know or notice the difference.

Anybody else remember when the sign proudly declared, "Radisson Hotel at Mount Murray"? What was that all about?

Yes. I'd rather that I spent MY money on Amazon than A Civil Servant spent MY money on Amazon.....

Oh come on. We are talking about tax breaks (ie. the state removal of a requirement to pay a certain type of tax to a certain type of person or business) which are not subsidies. For a tax break to be considered a subsidy requires the assumption that a company's (or an individual's) money belongs to the state which effectively 'loses' money through the granting of a tax break - which i don't believe is accurate. Here the state is giving up the right to receive corporation tax from a certain business, in order to collect more money (than it would have collected in corporation tax) from the several hundred new people who will be employed by that company. It's not a net loss to the taxpayer (ie, a subsidy), it's a net gain if enough new employment opportunities are created. The subsidy argument is a false argument especially where new employment and new taxpayers are being created as a result of that tax break. Giving £100k tourist grantS to SEVERAL millionaire farmerS to convert derelict cottageS on THEIR land into tourist holiday accommodation - that's a subsidy. Fixed?

Mr Bell has his strings pulled and orders given in turn as well. IMHO.

Then why wasn't 'the industry' told that they were going to be closed down suddenly when bookings had already been made this year? Because govt and the corpy don't talk to each other until the absolute brink is reached? I believe that similar approaches exist in respect of govt and other LAs around the island as well. Mutual distrust and loathing is the expression, I think...?

I'm advised that the idea has, at least been temporarily shelved, despite all the investment, on the grounds that it would be unworkable. Quite simply because once "some" residents realised that they were actually being charged by weight of refuse produced (to be reflected in their annual rates) they would find "other" ways of disposing of their domestic waste, namely, as has been posted above, by dumping their rubbish in their neighbour's bin (which would lead to calls for bins to be fitted with expensive locks so the neighbour didn't cop for the disposal charge), fly-tipping or even just throwing their waste into the public litter bins within the town. In short, it would create an even bigger, unregulated problem to clean up. Or you'd need 100 wardens to try and monitor the fly-tipping. The new bin issue will continue, some of the old green bins are more than 20 years old but already have chips in them - only those without are being replaced, but the reason behind the technology incorporated is getting put on the back burner - or so I'm told.