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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by thesultanofsheight

  1. It’s been on the cards for a while. There’s been a team out there working on the migration for a while I hear. As you say there isn’t really a future for growth in the IOM so they have to look at how they best manage costs instead. It’s cheap to employ back office staff in Dubai and they have pretty much no employment rights.
  2. I thought most trusts according to you and Gladys were discretionary trusts which would happily circumvent the requirements of registering the company UBO? Contradictory? Why would notail not want to be doing it if everyone else is apparently doing it?
  3. In some businesses .. As I said there are a whole pile of factors that need to be taken into account. I’m not sure just hiding behind the ‘it’s discretionary’ argument is going to cut it if a whole pile of Registry entries show no UBO other than the trust company. They are likely going to want to see the validation work behind the assessment at some stage as the number of documented none owners is one thing the FSA is sure to be keeping an eye on before the whole thing has to go public as realistically it’s the first thing public viewers are going to spot and submit questions about.
  4. I’m not sure another slab of text cut from somewhere else adds much value. Not every trust set up here is a discretionary trust. I know that you know that. A huge number aren’t and a significant number of trusts have protectors appointed to them, or contain all sorts of other mechanisms in them which mean that you can make a good assessment of who actually controls it (like who pays you bill for one). You can’t deliver a trust lecture on discretionary trusts and say that’s why nobody knows who owns it as you know that often they are not discretionary trusts in the truest sense of the word in a large number of scenarios. I really cannot see the FSA looking at the register (as they will before it goes public) and not requiring CSPs to validate why there is no UBO recorded if a significant number of entries end up as just the trust co. Despite what they say in their own guidelines.
  5. You’ve posted that before I think but does anyone really think the FSA won’t start wanting to see proof of how the UBO has been derived if it starts seeing a huge load of registrations in the name of trustee companies? Or that these won’t be the very structures people outside the IOM (journalists etc) are going to home in on when the register goes public as they will just claim it’s another firewall. This is the whole idea behind the push for a public register. Guidelines are only guidelines and at some stage the FSA are presumably going to want to check that CSPs aren’t just hiding behind claims of discretionary trusts to not report.
  6. Their only plan is to meddle in things, generally stopping people from doing things, then trying to do some of the same things themselves to make it look like they have ideas and that they’re doing something, and then failing massively at doing those things.
  7. It doesn’t. As the OP says it appears to be a straight cut and paste from an identical UK exercise. By default every train journey I take excludes underground or metro travel so I suppose the outputs will be sort of accurate!
  8. I understand the issue but you have chosen further obfuscation rather than answer the question put. Philip Dearden answers more openly above. I wasn’t talking about BO for trusts obviously (as you well know despite adding your hope that clarifies sarcasm). I was talking about registering the BO for a company owned by a trust as just the trust company when, as you clearly state above, you know who the UBO of a trust is in pretty much every case. I’m amazed some trust companies are getting away with this (if they are doing it). If you are doing what you claim to be doing I’m surprised that they are accepting the filing at the Registry stating the UBO of ABC Company Limited is XYZ Trust Company as there is no identifiable owner of the trust structure sitting above it without querying it. I would imagine once the register goes public these will be the very records which will be subject to extra scrutiny very quickly.
  9. Looking at the thread above that’s confusing. So are you seriously claiming that what you disclose on the register is not what your records actually document? You claim firstly above that you don’t have to disclose the UBO in certain circumstances (where trusts are involved), and when challenged you say but the CSP always knows who is the UBO. So if that’s the case it’s the UBO (who you say you always know) who gets recorded on the register? You probably need to clarify.
  10. If I had a Ferrari and a Hawaiian shirt I’m sure they would think I’m Thomas Magnum. I’m not sure what your point is other than mouthing off as you can’t get your own way. You seem to be the stereotypical easily taken offence cyclist who thinks they can do no wrong - Ever!
  11. Is it you who also secretly recorded Boris Johnson’s domestic?
  12. I think that’s what most cyclists in this thread are pretty much suggesting. They aren’t responsible for anything so why should they be made to insure themselves? After all they never cause accidents, never injure people, and are responsible for anything really because they’re cyclists who should be able to just do what they want!
  13. I understand that but you do have to go a good way back to see any examples (as you’ve shown) and those examples would pretty much not have much grounds to them today either. Think I’ve seen DT post that claim before and I have no doubt it’s probably true. Which puts you at a loss to understand what motivation could possibly have been behind it.
  14. It does seem to be just pond-life on pond-life attacks.
  15. Isn’t that what did for John Hougton and got him banned from entering the building? Seems odd they even pretend to claim that they might mythical powers in relation to private citizens.
  16. I’d forgotten about him. Was never sure whether it was a ‘thing’ though. Donald’s very specific reply intrigued me though. I take it you were talking about Watterson above DT?
  17. Sounds like an attempt at sarcasm to me.
  18. I was just interested what was said as I haven’t seen any mention in the media or Facebook who I’d have thought would have been all over such a gaffe. Interesting answer. So are you suggesting that he also regularly posts here under a pseudonym? I don’t think asking people to back up silly statements voluntarily made is trolling either.
  19. I don’t think it is really. Only if you have no sense of self-awareness and an inflated sense of self-importance to believe the public should in some way defer to your superior status and not point out the silly things you might do or say. As you said Corkish had that attitude and went for MF and where is he now? Richard Corkill had that attitude and went for MF and where is he now? Hooper chucks his toys out of the pram a lot on FB and Twitter and John Houghton was the same but he went for the mainstream media in general. I’m sure Juan Watterson doesn’t give a toss what anyone says. Neither does Chris Thomas appear to. I’m sure Quayle doesn’t give a shite either. There are lots of MHKs who just roll with a few of the punches on social media as that’s part of the engagement. It’s not one-way traffic where adoring fans have to blow smoke up their asses even if they post rubbish. If you expect it to be that way then your likely mentally impaired in some way.
  20. That’s good value. Amazing more don’t do it.
  21. What was said? It’s hard to see what grounds exist to say that the public is not able to disagree with things an MHK says on social media or pick holes in many of the Swiss cheese like social media statements a politician chooses to make. Chris Thomas is just about the only a dignified social media user who gives as good as he gets usually. If people can’t take criticism they shouldn’t make statements that seem to be open to attract criticism as they seem to be perpetually clumsy or ill-advised.
  22. It gave Nigel Farage and his smug face another couple of hours of airtime. I’m sure he was happy.
  23. You are clearly a very responsible cyclist who values the need to insure yourself and other people in the event of accident and / or injury. It really is just a prudent and sensible precaution isn’t it? I can’t really see why so many posters have become so hot-headed just because I mentioned the benefit of adequate insurance for both parties in these situations. Luckily this was only £4,500 of damage to property not paying for someone on a life support machine for 6 weeks. It works both ways when differently insured / uninsured parties use the very same roads.
  24. You will find that he generally follows this forum relentlessly 24/7. Quite why nobody knows. Years ago good old Neddy Flanders (another Onchan based RC) used to do exactly the same. I’m not sure whether having those initials and being an Onchan MHK is a contributing factor to obsessively following Manx Forums and then making embarrassing statements when you see negative comments about yourself or not.
  • Create New...