Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

If they are, it is a function of accounting convention not of the legal reality that the assets and liabilities of the SP belong to the SP.  IOMG owns the shares. 

Just because someone owns the shares in a company does not mean they can walk in and take whatever assets they like because they 'own' them.  It is a bit of an arcane area, but the SP is a private company with its own distinct legal personality to its shareholders, even if its shareholders are the IOMG. 

So if there was a will of Tynwald, what would happen then,

could the SP say no stick your will of Tynwald up your arse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 35.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Banker

    2712

  • TheTeapot

    1464

  • Gladys

    1362

  • Nom de plume

    1099

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

OK. For what it's worth I'm going to try and explain why genomics is important in a ssRNA virus epidemic. No doubt it will end up being recited badly at a briefing, but, well, whatever. You read it he

Rachel has tried every which way to re-offer her services. This last tweet wasn't the first time she's reached out. Government has made it very clear they do not want her to be involved. I want h

I think you'll find most so called anti-government rhetoric is focused on government-stupidity and government-selfishness. In recent times - under Brown, Bell and now Quayle - all too many govern

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, Holte End said:

So if there was a will of Tynwald, what would happen then,

could the SP say no stick your will of Tynwald up your arse.

It's a private company.  What makes you think it should be subject to anything other than exactly what other private companies are subject to?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Holte End said:

So if there was a will of Tynwald, what would happen then,

could the SP say no stick your will of Tynwald up your arse.

I refer to articles like https://www.three.fm/news/isle-of-man-business/directors-appointed-to-steam-packet-board

Looking at 'separation', the Gov direct involvement is very clear.

If we look at Abbotswood, the investigation is trying to come after the shareholders who had no day to day involvement in the management or running of the home. I still don't see how the Government/AG can realistically pursue that avenue but not when it comes to a business of which it is the majority shareholder.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Holte End said:

So if there was a will of Tynwald, what would happen then,

could the SP say no stick your will of Tynwald up your arse.

There may be some shareholders agreement which sets out certain reporting and other obligations.  But on strict company law  they could, but the shareholders could then pass a resolution to instruct the directors to do a certain thing and if the directors don't the shareholders could remove them.  Then you will have a shipping company with no board. 

The will of Tynwald might be pressed upon Alf Cannon to reveal the report he has. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Banker said:

Unemployment down in February which is no surprise as we were out of lockdown, will rocket in March to a very high level.

Theres going to be more unrest between those struggling on the low support payments & the vast army of public sector workers on full pay whether working or not

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/unemployment-fell-in-february-but-remains-high/

Over 1400 people unemployed and we are still importing managers etc for the DHSC. Announcement expected on off island candidate for Chief Nurse. (we have been without one for a couple of years but apparently we desperately need one now)

DA highlighting the stress the DHSC is under in Tynwald this morning but it still using bank staff, overtime and probably agency staff to prop up the services we can still afford to run. 

He should have asked for more people to help out with his jabs, rather than deplete other areas.

At least the Private Patient Unit is open for NHS patients. Wonder who will be paying to get that ward back up to private patient standards again after Covid has left the building. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Gladys said:

To be honest  the public interest is in what IOMG did, not the SP, although of course if there was any suspicion of illegality, then they would be subject to a criminal investigation.  

Given his A level in law The Chief Minister this morning indicated there was no legal implications. When further questioned whether this was supported by the AG or the police he said it was officers views who were at the coal face.

It seems like he was advising what he believed the outcomes of whatever enquiry / investigation should be. It will be whitewash, a waste of money and time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Apple said:

a waste of money and time.

.......but you can bet the farm on it - lessons will be learned and instantly forgotten/ignored/buried. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Apple said:

DA highlighting the stress the DHSC is under in Tynwald this morning but it still using bank staff, overtime and probably agency staff to prop up the services we can still afford to run. 

He should have asked for more people to help out with his jabs, rather than deplete other areas

Exactly, there’s been numerous reports of volunteers to give the jabs ,retired doctors, nurses etc but as far as I know none are being used. 

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Gladys said:

If they are, it is a function of accounting convention not of the legal reality that the assets and liabilities of the SP belong to the SP.  IOMG owns the shares. 

Just because someone owns the shares in a company does not mean they can walk in and take whatever assets they like because they 'own' them.  It is a bit of an arcane area, but the SP is a private company with its own distinct legal personality to its shareholders, even if its shareholders are the IOMG. 

IOMG are ultimately the owner and that’s it. It’s a bit like saying Chelsea football club is a private company and the owner Roman Abramovich has no say in what happens when in fact he sacks the MD or manager whenever he feels like it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Banker said:

Exactly, there’s been numerous reports of volunteers to give the jabs ,retired doctors, nurses etc but as far as I know none are being used. 

My sister who's a nurse in district offered to help months ago on her days off but heard nothing. In the end she kicked up a stink to those in charge and eventually she had some shifts. Now she is doing a few days a week over and above her usual duties. As a footnote she offered as felt she should and so not for any monetary reason. All a bit incestous it sounds tbh between managers and their own staff . 

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

There’s a summary of today’s Tynwald discussion on SPC on gef page but here’s one exchange 

Claire Barber - What legal qualification does this officer have? What other breaches of the law can they decide on?

HQ - I believe that the Chief Secretary has the responsibility for deciding if a crime has occured and if that gets referred to the police, see what the review says

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TerryFuchwit said:

What are they doing in holidays cottages?  They're not for long term residence.

holiday cottages can be used for a winter let, which we are coming to the end of at the end of this month  but they are not to be used for permanent residence,  it may be that the long term actually refers to winter let in the context of those being asked to move out.  winter lets don't pay the same as weekly summer lets or covid isolation lets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gladys said:

It is a private company that happens to be owned by IOMG, it is not a branch of government like a statutory board or company. IOMG is only entitled to information as a shareholder, although there may be some shareholder agreement setting out reporting. 

Would you expect any other private company which happens to have IOMG as a shareholder to make all its information available to the public?  

To be honest  the public interest is in what IOMG did, not the SP, although of course if there was any suspicion of illegality, then they would be subject to a criminal investigation.  

But Treasury is not really a passive shareholder and nor is it really a private company, is it? It has non-execs on the board, looking after the tax payers investment (allegedly). It also controls the other assets that allow the IOMSPCo to operate, again on behalf of the taxpayer.

And of course there'll be no external investigation, criminal or otherwise because it's not in either IOMG or IOMSPCo interest to have one in case there was a screw up that could have been avoided.

I did wonder how long it would be before something like this cropped up where IOMG would be conflicted.
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Banker said:

There’s a summary of today’s Tynwald discussion on SPC on gef page but here’s one exchange 

Claire Barber - What legal qualification does this officer have? What other breaches of the law can they decide on?

HQ - I believe that the Chief Secretary has the responsibility for deciding if a crime has occured and if that gets referred to the police, see what the review says

 

That's a staggering remark to make.

Edited by Andy Onchan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Chris Thomas is looking again at his citizens  data bases this time on the back of the details of the vaccination records and the census.

I don't think k he will be happy until everyone of us is databased, categorised, shoehorned and put and kept into our little boxes.

1984 will arrive in the next parliament I'm sure.

 

Link to post
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...

×
×
  • Create New...