Jump to content

Bus Heaven


Max Power
 Share

Recommended Posts

what is required here is a motion in Tynwald  moved by a back bencher  to see who was responsible for the settlement and gagging order , then Long tail  and Eric Corkish could be summoned to appear at the bar of Tynwald where Corkish  would have privilege  if he disclosed the amount of shut up money and who authorised it 

that way the public will get to know  to what depths this department will plummet to co cover up  their  un savoury  actions 

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

It seems James Corrin in his usual way has tried to link this to Blacks departure hence them only going public on this now after Black has gone. But to be honest Black is up to his neck in much bigger f**k ups than this so I doubt it is specifically over this. If I was to guess it’s probably clear some DOI officer pursued a personal vendetta on this which would have been uncovered on a third party investigation and so a compromise was reached to buy him off. It’s not made life any easier for any disabled people (including Eric - although he might not need the bus anymore if he’s bought a new car with his payoff). 

New Car? Would he not be entitled to get a new car via DLA? Mobility Car or specially adapted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the face of it, this looks like he's been paid off to shut him up. As other posters have alluded to, this is of no benefit to all the other mobility scooter users that EC would have been purporting to be campaigning for?

Unless he's going to use the payoff funds for their general benefit.

Edited by Non-Believer
Typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fear not, Skippy is on the case: 

https://taxpayersalliance.im/bus-vannin-mobility-scooters-and-confidentiality-agreements/

Michael Josem has submitted an FOI titled ‘Silencing Manx citizens’, and stating that he is happy to attend Gov Blgs in person with his USB stick too - . Good on him in fairness, but I did chuckle when I saw the ironic use of the word ‘transparency’ 🤔

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Will Halsall said:

Fear not, Skippy is on the case: 

https://taxpayersalliance.im/bus-vannin-mobility-scooters-and-confidentiality-agreements/

Michael Josem has submitted an FOI titled ‘Silencing Manx citizens’, and stating that he is happy to attend Gov Blgs in person with his USB stick too - . Good on him in fairness, but I did chuckle when I saw the ironic use of the word ‘transparency’ 🤔

Even saying that there is a NDA is probably contrary to the terms.   Sometimes it is better to keep your trap shut. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sheldon said:

Corkish is not coming off at all well from some of those exchanges. You'd think he'd have the good sense to just keep his mouth shut, but that's obviously not his style.

Not keeping his mouth shut has padded his bank account for him. Bet all the others with mobility problems are thanking him for taking the money at this very moment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sheldon said:

Corkish is not coming off at all well from some of those exchanges. You'd think he'd have the good sense to just keep his mouth shut, but that's obviously not his style.

I assume his cheque from Bus Vannin has cleared; surely he wouldn’t be vociferous if he hadn’t been paid yet?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bus Vannin have already announced that they are subscribing to the bus operators accessibility code. That benefits all wheelchair users and mobility scooter users. Eric has won.

He had threatened proceedings in the Employment & Equality Tribunal. Having caved BV wouldn’t have looked good having conceded the point. Lots of civil claims settle before proceedings are issued. It’s not necessarily sinister, or buying off, although the correctness of imposing an NDA gagging agreement is highly questionable, and frowned upon.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, John Wright said:

Bus Vannin have already announced that they are subscribing to the bus operators accessibility code. That benefits all wheelchair users and mobility scooter users. Eric has won.

He had threatened proceedings in the Employment & Equality Tribunal. Having caved BV wouldn’t have looked good having conceded the point. Lots of civil claims settle before proceedings are issued. It’s not necessarily sinister, or buying off, although the correctness of imposing an NDA gagging agreement is highly questionable, and frowned upon.

So BV, after all of their bluster and push back, have to make the necessary changes (new buses, new bus stops?) for accessibility scooter now? So once again taxpayer pays the price of some jobsworth (or knobsworth) refusing to admit they got it wrong. They'll quietly shuffle off somehwere and keep their head down knowing they now can't be named and shamed.

Maybe PAC should look into this.

The Committee shall –

(iii) consider any financial matter relating to a Government Department or statutory body

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, John Wright said:

Bus Vannin have already announced that they are subscribing to the bus operators accessibility code. That benefits all wheelchair users and mobility scooter users. Eric has won.

He had threatened proceedings in the Employment & Equality Tribunal. Having caved BV wouldn’t have looked good having conceded the point. Lots of civil claims settle before proceedings are issued. It’s not necessarily sinister, or buying off, although the correctness of imposing an NDA gagging agreement is highly questionable, and frowned upon.

Not sure if you are aware but Eric has copied and pasted your post to the thread on Facebook.  He has referenced it as "being posted by a lawyer on another site."

What's interesting is Corrin is busy alleging the Eric was bullied into accepting the settlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of NDAs with the IOMG, I agreed one a year or three back. The only stipulation was that I couldn't disclose the amount I was given, though strangely I could disclose it to my spouse and family. They were under no restriction as to whom they could tell. Made me wonder what the point was.

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...