Jump to content

Taxpayers to dig for £20M for Liverpool Dock


Non-Believer
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, 2112 said:

I’m curious, and wonder if this is a new created role at the request of a Moneyval inspection? Is it a permanent role? Why internal applicants? If the role is so specific then surely it should be thrown open to skilled, qualified and experienced people from the Private Sector? Could the Financial Supervision Authority not have an input and possibly second one of their officials?
 

Why the Cabinet Office? Are each IOMG department going to a have Anti Bribery and Corruption Manager? Some would say it would be apt for one to be recruited for the Department of Incompetence.

It’s also ironic that the Treasury has a few inspectors at Markwell House (surprise surprise ex police!) who deal with fraud etc. Only thing is they are really useless as is evident when you see DHSC fraud cases over £25-35k reported in the local press and broadcast on the the Nations Propaganda Mouthpiece. 

I think it’s more outward looking. Bribery & Fraud elsewhere and developing strategies to ensure that IOM based financial services advisers and providers and traders avoid getting involved.

As for the inspectors at Markwell House, the fact we see those cases is a testament to their success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Chief said:

Only the isle of man would think it's a good idea to dump £60m of its money on another islands construction project. could we not a get a monorail to a waterpark with flumes on the calf for the same money?

Or just admit it's a vanity project for the gov's day trip jollys to Liverpool One?At least it will be clear then and we can move on.

It'll be a longer walk - they'll have to lay on a bus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This is really beyond a joke now, we don't have the ability to do deals with professional organisations, our Executives are low calibre dumbfucks. Does anyone in Government know how to stand up to gangsters, or know the words 'No' and 'Go away and come back with a realistic price'?

Who will lose their jobs over this total fiasco please? 

Edited by Max Power
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/5-million-added-to-new-liverpool-ferry-terminal/

And so it goes on. And the land isn't even ours. I hope the lease is 199yrs minimum.

It makes you wonder what sort of lease our bright sparks negotiated. It has cost Government to clear bombs from the site and they are also going to have to pay to strengthen the dock walls "to protect the Landlord's assets". The site should have been fully surveyed before entering into a lease so they should have been aware of the possibility of bombs, the removal of which should have been the Landlord's responsibility. They should not have started work until the full scope of the works required had been established and the costs quantified. I would put money on the strengthening works required being Rolls Royce mega expensive.

Those responsible would not survive in the real commercial world. 

     

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the farmers and shopkeepers got excited when they were offered an £8 million stop off for the away days jollies and signed off the open ended paperwork, £30 million later it's still being added to.

This government has a habit of handing over wads of cash without asking for deliverables or milestones. 

Still it will be ready in time to link up with the irish sea tunnel, the monorail and the NSC flumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Max Power said:

This is really beyond a joke now, we don't have the ability to do deals with professional organisations, our Executives are low calibre dumbfucks. Does anyone in Government know how to stand up to gangsters, or know the words 'No' and 'Go away and come back with a realistic price'?

Who will lose their jobs over this total fiasco please? 

it was going to be free ???

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2021 at 2:43 PM, Non-Believer said:

I found Barber's question paper with the alleged Terminal typo again, it's still on Jason Moorhouse's FB page.

I wonder how one typos £38M into £53,108,000? And without initially noticing it on an official Govt document too?

 

 

20210412_150640.jpg

Don't forget the previous "mistakenly released" figure too....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mistercee said:

It makes you wonder what sort of lease our bright sparks negotiated. It has cost Government to clear bombs from the site and they are also going to have to pay to strengthen the dock walls "to protect the Landlord's assets". The site should have been fully surveyed before entering into a lease so they should have been aware of the possibility of bombs, the removal of which should have been the Landlord's responsibility. They should not have started work until the full scope of the works required had been established and the costs quantified. I would put money on the strengthening works required being Rolls Royce mega expensive.

Those responsible would not survive in the real commercial world. 

     

Why should we be paying for WW2 bombs to be removed from a site that we do not own? Why are we paying to strengthen someone else's property when they themselves are leasing us a dock. Is this not fit for purpose? 

I think the whole thing boils down to cowardice, they don't like confrontation. They just roll over whenever there is any contentious issue so that they can go home at 5pm and dream of what to spend their pensions on without having any sleepless nights!  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Mistercee said:

Those responsible would not survive in the real commercial world. 

     

Do you have much experience of commercial leases?

The tenant is often responsible for repairs, renews, insurance, unlike renting a domestic property where you just phone them landlord to sort it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Old Git said:

Do you have much experience of commercial leases?

The tenant is often responsible for repairs, renews, insurance, unlike renting a domestic property where you just phone them landlord to sort it. 

But only if you're daft enough to sign up to it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine all of the above requirements were listed by the Landlord in a "take it or leave it" Heads of Terms for the lease. Looking at the comments on page one of this thread and it appears that the Great Manx Forumites of this Parish foresaw what was going to happen with this in any event.

I think the question to ask is should the IOm have entered in to this deal at what is quickly becoming at any cost? I understand that Peel's grip on that side of the Mersey is absolute. Would there have been uproar if the DoI or whoever had walked away from a Liverpool side landing?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, The Duck of Atholl said:

 Would there have been uproar if the DoI or whoever had walked away from a Liverpool side landing?

Yes

It's easy to cast scorn on a decision with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight

The same people would have called the IOM Gov mad if they'd chosen a site away from the city centre of Liverpool

  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
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...