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

Doitonce

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

53 Excellent

About Doitonce

  • Rank
    MF Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Sounds like a messy do this one, from the local rumour rounds.
  2. Doitonce

    TT 2018

    Answer to all - because that's what protocols dictated, as has been made clear. No one is denying there is a monumental screw up by sending the bikes back to the Grandstand, no one (it appears) is supporting the decision to withhold the content of the report. What is being commented on however, is the apportioning of blame, which, according to the comments of some in this thread, is being apportioned squarely at the feet of the driver of the car, which for me, is out of order (and arguing the toss over who was behind the wheel, police or not, doesn't make a shits worth of difference to the outcome). It is clear that the cause of the problem is in the communication, be it either the message that was given, or the (mis)understanding of it, so if there is ire towards those directly involved in the incident, or the decision to withhold the report into the incident - this is where the focus of the ire should be directed.
  3. Doitonce

    TT 2018

    This being my point. The car was responding to an incident, under instruction. Who was behind the wheel, doesn't make a difference to the end result.
  4. Doitonce

    TT 2018

    Would it really make a difference? Car heading one way, bikes other, on 'closed' roads. If the supposed 'limit' on the car was 90, and it hits a bike, sorry, the bike(r) is getting hurt. Suggestions that the car was supposedly doing over 100mph (how do witnesses know - can they tell the difference between 90mph and 100mph, without speed cameras?), with a 'non police' driver, result is still the same - bike(r) is getting hurt. I'm not excusing anything here, but finger pointing/willy waving (delete as appropriate), by people who are unaware of the facts (as they HAVEN'T seen the report) is pointless. Further, tbf, Derek has provided some interesting insight, that few, if any of us are aware of regarding the logistics involved in responding to such an incident, which for one, I value. I would also suggest that Derek has done very well to resist replying in kind to your multiple, unjustified jabs - fortunately, restraint has never been my strong suite, so I will say what everyone else is thinking - Buncha - you have a clear agenda, and you are acting like a cunt.
  5. The general gist of it Gizo, is the fact that you rarely have to chase money where government is concerned, so you aren't so reliant on the general public, where a percentage can be slow to pay. For me personally, the appeal is only for a limited number of contracts, with my target being long running contracts i.e., 5 year terms where you are the sole contractor, as this assists with budgeting purposes. This combined with prompt payment is very valuable to small businesses. For me, the so called 'reputable' tag, and free sticker aren't worth a carrot - I don't need MACCS, or anyone else, to endorse my credentials or workmanship.
  6. I'll take things further again - are MACCS checking the professional qualifications of the companies on their list? Another example, on the list I have provided above, there are 6 companies that offer tree surgery to their customers, one of which being the government. The problem with this is, there are multiple 'layers' of qualifications required to work in this field. A basic chainsaw qualification does not qualify someone to climb a tree, or to dismantle a windblown tree for example, yet there are examples of members of MACCS undertaking these works on behalf of private clients, and government departments, where their qualifications do not extend to cover the level of works that they are undertaking, thereby rendering their insurance for said tasks null and void, as well as being bloody dangerous.. The subscription is little more than an opportunity to put a sticker on one's van which 'suggests' they are a reputable tradesman, when the reality of the situation is that in some cases, there are no checks being carried out which prove that the work is being carried out by reputable tradesman, the quality of the work isn't checked/measured against industry best practice, and where situations arise like the football pitch referred to above, a situation which puts people in significant danger, there is no sanction or comment from MACCS. I could go on and on about this, but there is more than enough content contained in this thread to show this shambles for what it is.
  7. So, reputable tradesman ehh? I will make one example here, and whilst i'm not knocking or criticising any contractors here, can anyone tell me how a current MACCS accredited contractor (with no qualifications for this type of work, or work in this arena) was permitted to spread 100 tonnes of sand, heavily contaminated with glass onto one of the islands football pitches, leading to a significant 6 figure rebuild, ensuring the new surface was safe, and free of all glass fragments, yet not receive any sanction from MACCS, or removal from the so called 'list of reputable tradesman'. What makes this more ironic is the following statement from the MACCS constitution: "Clause 5.4.2 - Membership shall cease and all privileges shall be forfeited if the Executive Council orders the name of the Member to be removed from the list of members because the Executive Council believes it not to be in the interests of the Federation for such a Member to remain in membership. The Executive can only take such measures at, or after, a meeting to which the member has been invited within fourteen days notice, and at which the Member has been given the opportunity to present their case and be heard. The Executive Council shall not invoke this article vexatiously." To take the above a stage further, when the owner of one of the companies that took part in the repair works (and milked significant sum off it) is a board member of MACCS, it smacks in the face somewhat. This is one example of many, similar scenarios which have occurred, courtesy of these 'reputable contractors'....
  8. So, some MACCS members: A.M. Tree Care Ace Carpets Ltd Blastaway Ltd Castle Carpets Curtains & Blinds Chris Bell Tree Surgery Ltd Cleervu Aerial Specialists Ltd Countryside & Garden Contractors Ltd Countryside Maintenance Ltd D.G. Wood & Son Garden Maintenance Dave The White Van Man David Noble Gardening Discount Plastic Merchants How many of the above are construction companies? The list goes on - this is only a small amount of companies who do not fall under the category of construction for their core services. So, MACCS accreditation is clearly, and PROVEN, to not be required for Government work, if the work is not construction related. If this is the case, why are the above contractors afforded the opportunity to be awarded government work in their specific, non construction related fields, but other contractors in the same line of business, not allowed, due to them being unwilling to stump up the £250 odd quid to pay for membership of the prawn and pork pie brigade. Stinks.
  9. Ohh the irony! Register yourself on the gov tender portal and look at how many of their non construction related tenders supposedly requires MACCS accreditation. Furthermore, take a look at the MACCS member list - you will see company make sandwiches (does constructing a sandwich class as construction?), tree surgeons, gardeners, farmers, fencing companies and various other non construction related companies. This is the whole problem with the scheme. Treasury make no ruling for MACCS accreditation, unless works are construction based. Other gov departments, say DOI, Utilities etc say MACCS accreditation is required for all works as Treasury apparently say so (but Treasury do not say this), so say you go for the current grass cutting tender for utilities (mowing the grass at the pumping stations), Utilities say MACCS registration is required. Since when was cutting grass classed as construction work? To my knowledge, it isn't. I have challenged this with several government departments, and got them to back down and allow me to tender, and win work, based on the fact that I have proven them wrong. MACCS have basically 'spread their wings' and are now offering registration to ANY form of company, irrespective of the line of business. The issue here is, some government departments have misinterpreted the criteria set out by Treasury, and expect ALL companies, in ANY line of work to be registered with MACCS, which is an erroneous conclusion, discriminatory, and illegal.
  10. Providing it is not, by definition, Constructions works, you can challenge it, and providing you meet the financial requirement set out by Treasury, no government department can stop you from applying. For info, I carry out contract work for the government, and am not MACCS accredited...
  11. No, you don't need to be registered for gov work. Some gov departments say you do (as per above), but this exclusion based on misinterpretation of Capitol Procedure notes is discriminatory, and therefore, illegal.
  12. Ohh, I almost forgot, how the government are so able at contradictions - seems DOI & Treasury don't read from the same script... "I am led to believe that there is an agreement in situ whereby all contractors wishing to undertake works on behalf of the DoI must be MACCS accredited. I would like to see any supporting documentation of this relationship between DoI and MACCS (or information which otherwise prove that it is not a requirement to be MACCS accredited to undertake works on behalf of the DoI), so I can be fully conversant with the terms and limitations of this agreement." While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance some of the information is available by other means. The requirement for MACCS accreditation is one set by Treasury through the Financial Regulations, a link can be found below: https://www.gov.im/media/1362161/iom-government-financial-regulations-june- 2018.pdf Part of the Regulations refers to a document called FPN C.02 Capitol Procedure Notes which is not available online, however after consultation with Treasury we attach it to this response. Please quote the reference number 624568 in any future communications." So DOI say that the requirement for MACCS accreditation is a requirement set out by Treasury for ALL categories of work. Well, it seems Treasury beg to differ... "While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the Treasury does not hold or cannot, after taking reasonable steps to do so, find the information that you have requested. As a result, a practical refusal reason applies under section 11(3)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2015. A search of our records has revealed that the Treasury does not hold any agreement or other formal documentation between the Treasury and the Manx Accredited Construction Contractors Scheme (MACCS) that establishes the scope of Government construction work or other categories of works, for which MACCS accreditation is required. I can advise you that requirements in respect of construction works being undertaken on behalf of Government are set out in the Financial Regulations (see Financial Practice Note C.02 Capital Procedure Notes). Paragraph 1.1 of Financial Practice Note C.02 (FPN C.02) states – “For all construction work, designated bodies must use Accredited Contractors included on the Manx Accredited Construction Contractors Scheme ...” It is each Department’s responsibility to assess each stand-alone project it is undertaking to determine whether it would reasonably consider it to be ‘construction’ for the purpose of paragraph 1.1 of FPN C.02. The Treasury does not provide Departments with any guidance on the interpretation of ‘construction’. However, it has been recognised that further clarification of this term may be helpful and we will consult with Departments to consider both the wording of the current requirements and whether additional guidance can be developed that would assist Departments, potential contractors and the general public. Paragraph 1.2 of FPN C.02 also states – “All Officers involved in Capital Projects must ensure that they are undertaken in accordance with the Procedure Notes for the Management of Construction Projects issued by the Treasury.” Paragraph 8.5.12 of the Procedure Notes for Management of Construction Projects requires that any sub-contractor of a Capital scheme construction project must be MACCS accredited. The requirement for Government to use an approved list of contractors came as a result of a recommendation included in a 1993 Council of Ministers report which reviewed the administration of Government’s construction contracts at the time. As a result, a Government maintained list of approved contractors came into operation. In 2005 the Construction Federation presented a proposal to the Department of Trade and Industry (now the Department for Enterprise), for an ‘approved contractors’ scheme for use by both Government and the general public. The proposal was accepted and resulted in the Manx Accredited Construction Contractors Scheme. The requirements of the Financial Regulations are a minimum standard in respect of construction works. Each Department undertaking any general procurement, or tendering for goods or services, will of course be responsible for setting any requirements considered reasonable in respect of the good or service required. Please quote the reference number 649565 in any future communications." Seems the stance of treasury is that there is no such requirement in place, outside of construction based works (yet DOI, and others, stipulate MCCS accreditation for ALL categories of works nowadays). Moreover, ongoing communication reveals that DOI have misinterpreted the Capitol Procedure Guidance Notes. Not only this, but powers that be in DOI are aware of it, are unwilling to engage with contractors who challenge it, and are restricting employment opportunities to those whom refuse to subscribe to this shambles of a scheme. So, to be clear: DOI - "The requirement for MACCS accreditation is one set by Treasury through the Financial Regulations" Treasury - "Treasury does not hold any agreement or other formal documentation between the Treasury and the Manx Accredited Construction Contractors Scheme (MACCS) that establishes the scope of Government construction work or other categories of works, for which MACCS accreditation is required." So much for the good old "Freedom the Flourish", on the IOM. Muppets.
  13. Its a load of absolute shite! The implementation of it in certain government departments is, as far as I can see, discriminatory, and illegal. Allow me to post an excerpt from an email to a minister regarding this scam of a set up: "We discussed various points, and where I feel the current set up is not fit for purpose, which is summarised below: The current scenario: The DoI select list for xxxxx contractors has been extended, to now expire in December 2020 - this is unfairly excluding qualified and competent contractors from securing government work, and is thereby limiting opportunities for growth of said companies. DoI are resistant to discuss the issue with contractors due to prior agreements which are, as above, due to expire on December 31st, 2018. Extending the period closes off any avenue for review and adaption, and precludes any start up companies from applying for DoI work for a further period of 2 years. MACCS are charging a supplement for services which are already provided, and subsidised via our business and personal taxes: Proof of up to date insurance - this is already covered by employment law, and is therefore a legal requirement which is policed by central government Proof of a Health & Safety policy - as above, this is already covered by employment law, and is therefore a legal requirement which is policed by central government Advise on the settlement of differences between Members and their workforce - this is covered by the Manx Industrial Relations Scheme Issues with MACCS/DoI procurement strategy: MACCS do not have specific industry expertise within the xxxxxxxxxxx sectors MACCS do not have any set framework to support the above industries MACCS do not have any platform in place to check that members are undertaking works to the level that they are qualified to, and not beyond MACCS do not have any structure in place to sanction any members who are not following specific industry best practice (because they are unaware of what best practice constitutes within the respective sectors) MACCS have not demonstrated any pro-active efforts in lieu of any of the above points, despite the fact there have been repeated instances of substandard work being completed by MACCS accredited contractors There have been repeated instances of government work being completed by non MACCS accredited contractors - this is mainly actioned by MACCS accredited contractors securing work, which is then sub-contracted to non MACCS accredited sub-contractors Clause 5.24 within the MACCS constitution states the following: "The decision of the Executive Council as to whether or not to allow membership is final. The executive Council shall not be required to give any reasons for their membership decisions". This lack of accountability and transparency is unacceptable for any representative body; particularly when considering that the Executive Council is made up of members with commercial interests - this could lead to the suppression of a competitive market whereby the Executive Council can look after their own commercial interests without challenge or explanation (hence much of the cynicism regarding the scheme). Several local government bodies are directly employing non MACCS accredited contractors for xxxxx works, despite setting forth that MACCS accreditation is a requirement to undertake works on their behalf - where this statement is challenged within local government, there is proven evidence that the parameters are subject to change internally and at the discretion of the local authority - this may be unfairly limiting opportunities to non MACCS accredited contractors who choose not to challenge the existing framework Several MACCS accredited contractors are using the marketing strength of MACCS membership to promote their business/secure private work with statements such as "employment of certificated staff in the categories relevant to approval" - it is proven fact that this is not always the case. Clause 6.6.4 in the MACCS constitution states: "Promote training sessions, seminars and the like for the continuous professional development of Members" - I am yet to see any of the aforementioned take place the are relevant to the xxxxxxxxxxx sectors be delivered by MACCS, yet xxxx have taken a pro-active stance on this and delivered a number of opportunities for training - why are the Government suppressing the efforts of xxxx by seemingly limiting the resources for xxxx to deliver support that is specific to the industry sector, whilst outsourcing to what is effectively a 'competing' independent body with no relevant experience, and no delivery of promises set forth within its constitution? Clause 6.6.5 in the MACCS constitution states: "Arrange, attend and minute meetings of the Executive Council with appropriate external bodies" - where is the evidence that this has taken place? What external bodies have been met that have specific industry knowledge? What was the outcome of such meetings, if they have taken place?
  14. Ballacregga - down Port Soderick way, 40 some odd acres. Owner is a multi millionaire. No stock put into the system from his land. He effectively closed off the section of the coastal walk across the stretch of coast that he occupies. Receives income from the Countryside Care scheme... and he ain't no Manxman. Meanwhile, some of the more genuine farmers, who do put stock into the system are on their arses. This is exploitation of a scheme that is there to be exploited.
  15. Doitonce

    TT 2018

    Maybe not - i'm not a TT fan myself, but this is a tragic accident where a young man has died - a little respect for a loss of life isn't a lot to ask. Whether a fan of the TT or not, one's impatience to see a road opened following a death is quite appalling really.
×
×
  • Create New...