Jump to content

A few more nails in the Islands coffin !


asitis
 Share

Recommended Posts

Cynically I would have to agree.  Speaking from the private sector dealing with anything at the Government nowadays is akin to torture.  They truly are a bunch of negative jobsworths that seem focused on making life as difficult as possible.  Up until a few years ago, I would happily refer to the IOM Govt as flexible, forward looking, business happy etc.  Not anymore. 

Just when the UK is looking into reducing the size of their swollen civil service.  We are of course doing the exact opposite. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

Cynically I would have to agree.  Speaking from the private sector dealing with anything at the Government nowadays is akin to torture.  They truly are a bunch of negative jobsworths that seem focused on making life as difficult as possible.  Up until a few years ago, I would happily refer to the IOM Govt as flexible, forward looking, business happy etc.  Not anymore. 

Just when the UK is looking into reducing the size of their swollen civil service.  We are of course doing the exact opposite. 

I thought it was just me getting less tolerant as I aged but I have found exactly the same, very negative "no you cant do that" why not? "Just because we say so" attitude in all departments of Gov with one exception, The MEA they seem  much more  customer focused and treat you like a client, not an interruption to their  surfing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boris Johnson said:

I thought it was just me getting less tolerant as I aged but I have found exactly the same, very negative "no you cant do that" why not? "Just because we say so" attitude in all departments of Gov with one exception, The MEA they seem  much more  customer focused and treat you like a client, not an interruption to their  surfing.

Exactly.  I honestly don't get it.  It just seems that they employ people to be absolute dicks, there is no benefit to them being so negative and awkward.  As flippant or obtuse as it sounds, there is no other possible explanation. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, The Phantom said:

Exactly.  I honestly don't get it.  It just seems that they employ people to be absolute dicks, there is no benefit to them being so negative and awkward.  As flippant or obtuse as it sounds, there is no other possible explanation. 

It's because dicks employ even thicker dicks so that they don't look such a dick!

Nobody is allowed to make a decision, which in many cases is just as well! 

ETA: This is a bit unfair on some of the rare, genuinely competent and helpful people who work in government.

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

Posted (edited)

Actually reading through the consultation now and looking at the fees etc. 

Basically from the Financial Services/Corporate/Trust service provider angle, it is exactly what I have suspected the FSA have wanted for years.

A couple of big trust companies that will pay a massive 'licence fee' so the FSA only have to concern themselves (or do any work other than saying 'no') with a couple of players. 

Quite a few big current or ex Govt players either have direct or family involvement with the BIG CSPs.  Strange that. 

Screw everyone else. 

Edited by The Phantom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the GSC scrapped the annual licensing fees for the gaming companies 5 years ago as they didn’t want to upset them by having to pay any costs of regulations even though the fees were used for charitable purposes! Obviously having a go at finance instead 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are moves throughout IoMG to have the regulatory bodies which they have set up, funded completely by the user. You can imagine some of the charges for some things, such as planning applications, which may begin to appear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Banker said:

Well the GSC scrapped the annual licensing fees for the gaming companies 5 years ago as they didn’t want to upset them by having to pay any costs of regulations even though the fees were used for charitable purposes! Obviously having a go at finance instead 

Say what? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

I think there are moves throughout IoMG to have the regulatory bodies which they have set up, funded completely by the user. You can imagine some of the charges for some things, such as planning applications, which may begin to appear!

That might not be such a bad thing.   As it's proposed they now fully fund regulation, the private sector might actually start demanding value for money, instead of having to tolerate/endure the current levels of 'service'.  Could get interesting.      

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well I hope the construction industry can afford to keep Government in the manner to which it has become accustomed, as the by far largest contributor to GDP is going to get very pissed off by this. The sector is already drowning in costly red tape and bureaucracy. Why do we pay people to discourage business and make being competitive difficult. Getting a few pencil necks working in the real world should be a priority, instead of discouraging others to do so !

Edited by asitis
  • Like 1
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...