Jump to content

Kopek
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting? The Information Commissioner has told the DfE that they should reveal any and all payments to Howard Q for his holiday cottages during covid?

It could be considered to be a private matter but I seem to remember the Corkills payment being revealed, probably should because of HQs political position?

Edited by Kopek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most holiday cottages I know the details of have been converted with IOM gov grants and are then rented out full time to residents, not one or two week rentals to tourists as they are supposed to be.

Cash is king and its a very hard thing to prove if you are taking tourists or other types of guests. 

I even know of one holiday rental cottage that had a lot of gov money thrown at it that ended up being a DHSS rental.

One iom gov dept does not talk to the other apparently.

Nice money if you can get it......................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't gov depts speak to each other? I've just done a form for a friend and it asks questions such as, 'what is your IOM pension?' and what investments do you have?

I don't know but it seems absurd to me. All the financial depts such as tax etc should have access to each other as I would presume that the forms answers have to be checked with the various depts anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

The gov must now release the info within 30 days or find another reason not to do so. I wonder which one they will do? 

I think the Welsh development agency publish all the grant figures  paid out on an annual basis including agricultural grants its all in the public record , and so it should be here , the public are entitled to know where their money is being spent , and transparency  is good to keep people on their toes ,

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

1 minute ago, Omobono said:

I think the Welsh development agency publish all the grant figures  paid out on an annual basis including agricultural grants its all in the public record , and so it should be here , the public are entitled to know where their money is being spent , and transparency  is good to keep people on their toes ,

Not sure most of our CS know what the word transparency really means . And that applies to MHK's etc .

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, doc.fixit said:

Why don't gov depts speak to each other? I've just done a form for a friend and it asks questions such as, 'what is your IOM pension?' and what investments do you have?

I don't know but it seems absurd to me. All the financial depts such as tax etc should have access to each other as I would presume that the forms answers have to be checked with the various depts anyway.

Simply to avoid Big Brother.  Sometimes it seems inefficient and irritating, but the aim is so that you control the information flow between departments.  

That is the idea, whether it actually works in people's favour or not is another debate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holiday cottages are absolutely essential to the future of tourism on the Island, those 500,000 people are going to have to stay somewhere. Plus the emotional cost of giving up all those derelict traditional cowsheds for conversion. 

Signed

Howard and Alex

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any reason why every single penny the Government gives away in grants shouldn't be publicly available? 

After all it's our money being given away. Why should anyone fortunate enough to get a grant need to keep it a secret? 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the agricultural/land grants. The amounts were publicly available but the recipients had to remain anonymous?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Passing Time said:

While they’re at it reveal what the Sefton and other hotels were given

The interesting thing about the Information Commissioner's decision, is that as far as I can see, it wasn't based on Quayle being CM at the time and would apply to any recipient, at least of this particular scheme.  It's just that Quayle was the person the FoI asked about.

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...