Jump to content

Attorney General Retires On Grounds Of Ill Health


ManxTaxPayer
 Share

Recommended Posts

You shouldn't wonder. It certainly isn't you and I more than cover what I cost. More than.

 

Anyway, the original point here was that a former public servant was essentially slagging off the possible pension package Harding received.

 

Whilst I largely disagree with the pension packages government gets (outside of health and teaching) I don't think those who benefit from it have much to moan about even if they did pay towards it. The payment towards it is nowhere reflective of the benefits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You shouldn't wonder. It certainly isn't you and I more than cover what I cost. More than.

 

Anyway, the original point here was that a former public servant was essentially slagging off the possible pension package Harding received.

 

Whilst I largely disagree with the pension packages government gets (outside of health and teaching) I don't think those who benefit from it have much to moan about even if they did pay towards it. The payment towards it is nowhere reflective of the benefits.

 

I was NOT slagging off the individual but just the system.

Also bear in mind that I and other public service pensioners paid and continue to pay income tax to support the payments.

Some would say it's double taxation having paid it on original salary and subsequently the pension.

But that's another argument you might like to pontificate on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

with a handsome lump of taxpayers funds, include a non disclosure clause

Sometimes those handsome lump sums hardly make up for the way the employer allegedly treats decent hard working professionals should any dispute arise. It's the non-disclosure bit that pisses me off.

 

I know nothing of this particular case other that what is in the public domain but let's say an employer decides on very dubious grounds, to 'go for' a good, decent and hardworking employee. Let's then say that employee goes through probably the worst time in their career (maybe life) whilst being treated abysmally throughout the process due to manipulation of every underhand tactic* in the book. Despite having the hugely significant upper hand to start off with, the employer and its managers and lawyers comprehensively (and despite the underhand tactics) fail to prove any case and may have to admit, directly or indirectly, a very serious charge like CD. A significant payout then become inevitable but it is completely hushed up by a non-disclosure clause...

 

It's clearly put in to stop you and I finding out how unfair and despicable that employer may have been and to what degree their managers may have mismanaged and just how much the public, as a result, has been disadvantaged. If we did know there would be hell to pay especially if an employer was say taking on, fighting (maybe for years with the employee on full pay) and then loosing a case with public funds that likely will be mostly used up paying a defendant's advocate's fees.

 

I have been told of two separate cases of this type of imo disgraceful behaviour in one very small part of a ps organisation here in the last 25 years and yet joe public, who one imagines have paid each time, don't even know they have happened due to non-disclosure. In the first case, the manager concerned eventually left the island but in the more recent case I understand they may still be in post on a significant remuneration package despite previous investigations of management deficiencies which were also allegedly hushed up.

 

In the IOM where you can......

 

 

* I clearly can't go into any more detail on a public forum for something that didn't happen to me but be assured, you would not believe how imo evil an employer's manager reportedly was in their sustained (over years) attack of one professional I know. None of this is hearsay as some may have seen documentary evidence, maybe from years ago, prior to a non-disclosure agreement. That must be a trifle inconvenient if you have done something wrong because how do you hush them up assuming they aren't daft enough to identify individuals or embellish/ exaggerate the facts?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Some would say it's double taxation having paid it on original salary and subsequently the pension.

 

 

That's a bit tortuous, I don't think many would say that.

 

An employee who earns a pension (this is not restricted to CS or PS) gets his salary in two chunks, an initial salary and later a pension. Each one gets taxed, once - except the lump-sum which isn't taxed at all.

 

Some of the "contribution" was your own-money but you get tax relief for that so I cannot see why you would say you are double-taxed.

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

  • 4 months later...

I do believe that we still have an acting AG as well. Tim Green, Barrister, is appointed in connection with the on-going VAT fraud case. Not sure quite why John Quinn cannot deal with this......

If you are referring to the Hill Street case then i suspect it could be very time consuming?

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...