Jump to content

Resignation of Minister


commish
 Share

Should John Shimmin's resignation have been accepted?  

188 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

MHK'S who overstep their authority should resign from not just their position as a minister but from their position as an MHK.

This might just be a way of stopping what is being done and spent in our name by this out of touch and control Governmentdevil.gif

 

So hands up all those who believe John Shimmin gave all that public money to the Sefton Group without the explicit knowledge and permission of the nice Mr Bell.

 

So where is the Bell resignation then?

 

He says Shimmin had done the honourable thing.

 

Time to follow suit and pick up his cards on the way out the door.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the only way to keep many if not most MF members happy would be for the whole of COMIN to resign, that would be great, Karran as Chief Min, Beecroft at Treasury, Houghton at Home Affairs, Cregeen DED......looking good so far, well I may be alone but I hope a few of you on here don't get what you crave for.

 

It's hard to imagine them being less effective and more disreputable as a government. Let's be fair, you could put Bonnie and Clyde in charge and there's be less robbery going on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting admission that apparently neither Shimmin nor his civil servants nor CoMin took any advice from the AG's chambers, and remember the only thing that puts this outside the scope of the Enterprise Acts was the fact that Sefton was in arrears with its tax and NI at one stage, otherwise it fulfilled all of the criteria. it isn't really as big a scandal as you are making out. REALLY. Its an administrative error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a an administrative error, we all know that you can't do any work for the government if you are in arears never mind get a grant. The minister willfully ignored the legislation, as he knew the situation with the Sefton group with regards arrears.

Edited by j2bad
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do seem to be a nation much troubled by "administrative error" - poor do's really when we have the finest, most expensive, best of the best, civil service known to all humanity

 

Are none of this issues properly recorded in the minutes of CoMin meetings?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting admission that apparently neither Shimmin nor his civil servants nor CoMin took any advice from the AG's chambers, and remember the only thing that puts this outside the scope of the Enterprise Acts was the fact that Sefton was in arrears with its tax and NI at one stage, otherwise it fulfilled all of the criteria. it isn't really as big a scandal as you are making out. REALLY. Its an administrative error.

you are talking a load of bullshit,but then i suppose you also are sucking on the government teat as are most of the legal profession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do seem to be a nation much troubled by "administrative error" - poor do's really when we have the finest, most expensive, best of the best, civil service known to all humanity

 

Are none of this issues properly recorded in the minutes of CoMin meetings?

 

 

The subject of lax minute-gathering has been covered before....

 

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/51656-is-govt-note-taking-lax/

 

If we ARE to have FoI introduced the common practice of NOT taking minutes has to be addressed.

 

Roger Mexico (Where he?) provides the link for the relevant question, posed by John (Tom) Houghton.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't bullshit.

 

You have to decide if you have ministers to micro manage (in which case why have civil servants) in which case the expectation that Shimmin would have checked all the minutiae may be fine

 

or

 

you have civil servants to deal with the admin and the minister sets policy and signs off what is put in front of him having checked it complies with policy

 

I'm pretty sure option 2 is the correct one and is the one I prefer.

 

and no, I don't do lots of Government work, I don't do much legal aid work, I help run, unpaid, the two duty advocate schemes. I do undertake up to 6 summary courts and 10 on call summary courts as duty advocate each year. I do up to 27 12 hour out of office sessions at the police station every year and 15 day time office hour sessions. I get paid for turning up and representing people in the police station, often at 3 in the morning, or weekends and ensuring their rights are observed and they get good advice, or in court I try and ensure that any cases I see for the first time on the day are dealt with there and then and the cases are dealt with expeditiously and very cost effectively. I'm often the difference, as are my colleagues on the duty advocate panels, between someone being wrongly detained or charged or someone pleading not guilty and setting a trail running to a hearing costing long thousands because they do not understand the law. The average cost per court duty advocate appearance for a defendant is about £40 to £50 and that includes seeing the defendant, reading the prosecution papers and advising and then sorting out a plea and mitigation or full legal aid, bail, and other things.

 

It means courts that used to stretch to 6 and 7pm are frequently over by 13.30, with consequent savings of cost and time because the judiciary, staff and prosecutors can do something else.

 

But don't let your jaundiced view of advocates be influenced by the truth.

There are 250 advocates and only about 25 or 30 do legal aid

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"interesting admission that apparently neither Shimmin nor his civil servants nor CoMin took any advice from the AG's chambers, and remember the only thing that puts this outside the scope of the Enterprise Acts was the fact that Sefton was in arrears with its tax and NI at one stage, otherwise it fulfilled all of the criteria. it isn't really as big a scandal as you are making out. REALLY. Its an administrative error".


I disagree with your conclusion for the following reasons.


The Sefton Group was under the control of Graham Ferguson Lacey and his long-standing associates because they owned the majority of the shares and therefore decided who was and who was not to be a Director of the main board or the Companies owned by the Group.


It is on the public record that the conduct of the Directors was in the opinion of the Chief Minister and the MHK’s who delivered a Report to the Tynwald on the Sefton Group, fell far below the acceptable standards of good corporate governance.


The evidence of that failure of good corporate governance was found in the non-payment of tax and NI and for that breach sanctions had been applied against the Group.


To my mind because of the findings as published in the Sefton Report it was not a matter of a simple administrative error on the part of a few government employees or the over-enthusiastic application of Ministerial powers, I suggest there are more serious considerations to be made.


Other companies have failed to meet their statutory obligations in payment of tax and NI and have also been subject to applied penalties and prosecution, why therefore are they not treated as the same as the Sefton Group? Should they not also be afforded loans bearing interest?


The Government having set the precedent down that incompetence or failure to maintain standards of corporate governance being no bar to being eligible for a loan from the Government then why not apply that across the board?


The Enterprise Act is according to the MHK’s who authored the Report on the Sefton too narrowly constructed to fit the circumstances of the situation the Sefton (and presumably other companies in the same way) found itself in?


What then is the criteria to be applied? That it must be in the public interest? The preservation of jobs? The underwriting of unsecured creditors? Any business could make a case that would cover to a lesser or greater extent those grounds.


There was no argument that the creditors of the Sefton were at serious risk of not being paid a penny unless the public purse covered that contingency, at least that has been the main plank the Government has stood upon to justify the financial interventions it has made to the Sefton.


This situation has demonstrated at best I suggest that civil servants and Minister’s put blinkers on as it suits their own objectives but in the act of so doing blind themselves to the very serious ramifications and as we have seen consequences of their decisions.


The Learned Lord Hoffman has much to say that could be of interest in this matter? I think it is entirely possible to be disqualified in the Isle of Man on the grounds of incompetence in matters corporate.




In all probability it is reasonably safe to say that it is most unlikely that any of the other Directors of the Sefton Group will be joining Graham Feguson Lacey on the register of disqualified directors, just as I am also equally convinced that few MHK’s will consider the comments made by Mark Wilson, managing director of Sleepwell Hotels Group, said at the time


“The government’s actions will undoubtedly have a detrimental effect upon the large number of local businesses that are engaged in competition with the Sefton Group across various sectors.


At a time that many companies and individuals toil to succeed in a difficult economic climate, the government has rendered that struggle all the greater by favouring one enterprise over many.”


He also stated that “Sleepwell could have guaranteed the jobs of the 300 employed by the Sefton Group, without government becoming involved - but they weren't approached despite having previously stated their interest.”


This is a far bigger problem, I respectfully suggest than a mere technical or administrative error, but one that the business community might like to consider in all its ramifications when dealing with Government?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...