Jump to content

Ministers conflict of interest


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, jaymann said:

Personally I'm all for moves like this.

Just to clarify... you're "all for" a two tier planning system?

One for those with enough money and the right friends, and one for everyone else? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There's only one solution to this mystery, an unpalatable one for sure. Someone is going to have to go buy the paper.   

I wasn't criticising, I just wanted to put up the Commissioner's statement.  The Cabinet Office response was quite extraordinary; basically saying that because the Ministers were people, any decisions

Until there is an offence of misconduct in a public office, Manx officials will not give the consequences a second thought

Posted Images

8 minutes ago, maynragh said:

Just to clarify... you're "all for" a two tier planning system?

One for those with enough money and the right friends, and one for everyone else? 

I'm all for a political review of planning, definitely.

Sometimes the planners don't get it right for their own self interest reasons and it is perfectly right and proper that this can be politically overruled.

More recent example - http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=47937&headline=Boot: Planning appeals power 'rest with me'&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2019

In this example: we have a shortage of nursing and care home beds to meet future needs and it creates ~100 jobs. 

There should definitely be a considering of economic impact when considering an application over some rejection because someone is a mate with a commissioner.

Edited by jaymann
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

On the planning side, money doesn’t always curry favour. A wealthy individual I’m aware of has persistently come up against issues.

The 'right' approach or connections are also essential of course. As Roger has mentioned, some people probably fall foul of playing things too 'straight'. I remember working on a fairly extensive set of plans back in the early 00s purely so the client could take them to a meeting with someone in government - to "rattle their cage" (his words). As far as I could tell there was never any intention to follow through on the proposal despite a not inconsiderable amount of money spent. It was purely a leverage tool to get something else agreed (which they did ultimately get).

It's a game. You've got to know how to play it, and play the right people. Sometimes the people being played know it, sometimes they don't I guess. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said:

They have more history of throwing money at con men who pretend they have money  but know how to blow smoke up the MHKs arses.

It is embarrassing the way they suck up to money, I have first hand  experience of this with what went on at the new private hangar at Ronaldsway that the "VAT couple" built. Whatever they wanted they got, "keep him happy" was what I was told. 

I thought that was Dr John Taylor's venture? My mistake probably but isn't his man running the thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jaymann said:

I'm all for a political review of planning, definitely.

Sometimes the planners don't get it right for their own self interest reasons and it is perfectly right and proper that this can be politically overruled.

More recent example - http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=47937&headline=Boot: Planning appeals power 'rest with me'&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2019

In this example: we have a shortage of nursing and care home beds to meet future needs and it creates ~100 jobs. 

There should definitely be a considering of economic impact when considering an application over some rejection because someone is a mate with a commissioner.

So... Can you explain why we have planning policy at all then? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

The length of time it was buried under refusal of FOI suggests other people could be implicated IMHO....draw your own.....

Technically it wasn't buried that long under the FoI refusal.  The original request was only made on 4 June 2020.  What was buried was the Report itself, which was published in February 2017.

It's worth reading the Decision Notice of the Information Commissioner to see the way they tried to handle it.  Initially the Cabinet Office refused to admit that the report even existed or that people were entitled to ask if the Report existed or not.  They certainly then dragged the process out with every reply delayed to near the maximum time they were allowed.

It finally got to the Information Commissioner in September, the government response was again delayed for the maximum time, but the decision was then handed down in October saying that CO's response was nonsense and they had to produce the Report[1].  They're still quibbling over details and doing silly redactions where you can work out who was who, but they finally produced something just before Christmas.

 

[1]  It was then treated as new request hence the October date on the FoI archive - conveniently burying the response a few months ago.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Technically it wasn't buried that long under the FoI refusal.  The original request was only made on 4 June 2020.  What was buried was the Report itself, which was published in February 2017.

 

Apologies Roger, that's what I meant to say.

Purely conjecture, but there was already history, with one or two people of the time, concerning HNWs and planning.

Another critical report involving it and arising from the period when they were still around might have been more than a little embarrassing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The very nature of attracting HNWs to the island is that they will probably want to invest their time in building things, both for their accommodation and perhaps business. They may want helicopter pads and hangars, unusual architecture, privacy, places to enjoy their hobbies and to socialise. If they can't have them, why would they bother moving here, to meet a barrage of nimbyism and petty officialdom which can't see its way clear to publish a clear set of guidelines as to what can and can't be done! 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Apologies Roger, that's what I meant to say.

Purely conjecture, but there was already history, with one or two people of the time, concerning HNWs and planning.

Another critical report involving it and arising from the period when they were still around might have been more than a little embarrassing?

I wasn't criticising, I just wanted to put up the Commissioner's statement.  The Cabinet Office response was quite extraordinary; basically saying that because the Ministers were people, any decisions they made were personal and so not subject to FoI. It was such complete nonsense that it showed how desperate they were to keep things quiet.

Incidentally it would be interesting to know how the skim-reading Skelly could claim he didn't know he needed to declare an interest when he had done just that on the same topic at a previous meeting.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, quilp said:

Not for me. 

Me neither now but they were fine yesterday, came up as downloads. Can they expire?

Edited by Non-Believer
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

The planning permission for the development has now lapsed as it wasnt implemented. Basically the whole premise for the development was on the back of a business being operared with fraudulent elements. We'll convert the VAT money into bricks and morter 

This applucation is the same one an objector pushed to be determined by Council of Ministers rather than dept via Committee because a public footpath ran across the holding. It shouldn't have been anywhere near Council of Ministers in the first place on that 'interest'.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...