P.K.

How very timely...

Slow day today, so I've just found it in here. To save wading through it: "Based on legal advice, the auditors and the current Board are of the opinion that certain transactions contained within these accounts were unlawful, and, following the year end, the auditors presented a petition under the Audit Act 1983. On 11 July 2007 a number of the alleged unlawful items were sanctioned by Tynwald, and the petition was subsequently withdrawn." But I still can't find the document where the MCC and Barclays entered into the loans agreement. Strange. Although it was bang on year end.

Thanks Gladys but the MCC was already set up wasn't it? Sorry Chinanhand but despite having been in the Met I don't think I'll keep up with your insistence that you have to state your profession on here - it's a bit of a drag...[/font] I am pretty certain no matter what your position in the MET PK you are not posting on here as a policeman. Tongue in cheek Mr C, strictly tongue in cheek. That was over 20 years ago! The guarantee letter to Barlcays is here - signed by good old Mr Proffitt! The expression "well and truly kippered" springs to mind here. The Select Committee on the MEA are scheduled to meet tomorrow. I wonder if this meeting is the Go/NoGo on their "Publish and be damned" issue? They've been at it quite a while now so I would have thought they can't be that far off their definitive report. Interesting times. Wait and see mode...

Interesting. I wonder how long that's been in the public domain. So the MEA (Tynwald) paid up on behalf of the MCC.

I've had that spiteful little person on "ignore" for years now. Try it, believe me, you won't miss anything... Of course Tynwald had to pay up to MEA. Who in turn had to pay up to MCC. Who in turn had to pay up to Barclays. Barclays gave the loans to MCC, who had the MEA as a guarantor. So the MEA had to prop up the MCC, because they can't afford to lose MCC assets in default. So Tynwald (no doubt MUCH pissed off) had to pay up to the MEA because they can't afford to lose MEA assets in default i.e. the whole house of cards would have collapsed. I'm also not entirely convinced that anything "illegal" has taken place. For that to happen you have to break a law, NOT a procedure. But somebody somewhere signed the LOI between Barclays, MCC and the MEA.

I'm (Profession: part-time LSS Project Manager but mostly caring for the elderly and infirm) sure the project team thought MCC taking the loan was the quickest way to get the bank (Barclays as it turned out) to release funds because they thought Tynwald approval was not needed. Now someone in the MCC must have signed a facility letter or LOI or whatever with Barclays which would have had the release and repayment etc schedules in it. The same document would have had a MEA signatory as loan guarantor. JW does the Select Committee have this? Who are the signatories? Because I can't see how MEA can guarantee a loan to themselves when their guarantor, Tynwald, doesn't know about it. Sorry Chinanhand but despite having been in the Met I don't think I'll keep up with your insistence that you have to state your profession on here - it's a bit of a drag...

Firstly anyone who thinks Barclays would have doled out £millions in loans had there been the slightest chance of not seeing their capital plus interest coming back really IS living in cloud cuckoo land. Secondly as I understand it (Profession: part-time LSS Project Manager but mostly caring for the elderly and infirm) Barclays didn't loan the MEA anything. In order to re-finance the MEA need Tynwald approval. So the loans were taken out by the MCC which doesn't need Tynwald approval. BUT the loans were guaranteed - by the MEA! There will be documentation to this effect copies of which will be held by the Select Committee. The money was then passed on by the MCC to the MEA probably by an inter-company loan. Again this will be documented. The issue is that the MEA is guarantor of the MCC and the guarantor of the MEA is muggins Joe Public in the shape of Tynwald. So even though MEA cannot re-finance without Tynwald approval (because Tynwald are their guarantor) it seems they can if it comes via the MCC. Now that might not be 100% accurate as I haven't looked at it for a long while but that's how I remember it. Anyway, it seems the Select Committee looking into the MEA have slowed a bit as their site hasn't changed since this: Watch this space!

Well done Stu. I've been of the opinion that Mr C has been moving up the pomposity scale of late. I particularly liked the way he accused you of coming up with "a particularly poor excuse" over the actions, or lack of, of another department in the same organisation - like it's your call to cover their ass! Hopefully Mr C will now drop down a couple of notches.

The Select Committee looking into the MEA issue are due to report soon iirc. Yet their website is a little light on future activities shall we say. Strange. ETA - quiet but not moribund: Title Amend Report Priority (2) Normal Status Not Started % Complete Assigned To Marilyn Cullen Description Amend report in response to submissions Start Date 09/09/2010 Due Date 28/09/2010 Created at 09/09/2010 10:47 by Marilyn Cullen Last modified at 09/09/2010 10:47 by Marilyn Cullen

You're having a laugh! Had the true costs been correctly identified at the start would it even have gone ahead in the form it took??? So no, the costs need NOT have been basically the same.

It makes it right for China me old china, and that's the point. Yes China has an appalling human rights record. But maybe, just maybe, that's what it takes to govern China. Not that you would know. Now chop chop...

I think you are missing a very fundamental point...that whilst it is the right of the Chinese to do this, and their laws are very specific, the fact is there is actually provision within Chinese law for people who are mentally ill. The Chinese seem to have not taken this factor into account in this case, not followed even their own process in this case, nor listened to the evidence provided to prove mental illness in this case - according to those organisations fighting the defence of this individual. I think you are missing a very fundamental point. Surely the ONLY issue is whether or not he has been treated any differently than a Chinese National. I suspect not...

In my experience it's nothing whatsoever to do with personal admiration of a certain purpose but selflessness is key. To take Afghanistan you may not agree with the political aims that have put your troops in theatre but that should not colour admiration of acts of courage and determination from those on the ground in the shit. The casualty lists ensure there is NO detachment by Joe Public of the realities of the situation. Although the situation is pretty much black and white (they're the bad guys, we're the good guys) the appalling UK "press" add a large grey element by trying to apportion blame for UK casualties on government failings. They really are crap at it as well e.g. some logistics clerk makes the inevitable fuck-up and the resultant "kit shortages", which could be Army Form Blank for all we know, are totally the fault of the Defence Secretary and he should immediately resign. It's just pathetic....

So LDV define what constitutes a "hero" and what element of it offends you? In a way I agree. Doing your duty doesn't make you a hero in terms of decorations. You have to go above and beyond what is generally expected of a nod on active service.

From what I have seen a lot of the recent reporting from Afghanistan is simply right wing rags drying to diss the government e.g. The Daily Wail is very prominent amongst them. It's mostly politickating bollocks which unfortunately detracts from the courage and determination being shown by the nods.

Durex.... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xBr98Nji-mA&NR=1

First out of the hat I suppose. I'd guess the "Escape The Script" bloke was John Wark. I just can't see Bobby "Greek God" Moore playing ruggers.

Question. If Liverpool and Man U both make it to Moscow who wears home strip and why, alpahabetic order perhaps? Just curious.

Yes it is! Very well done.

Well done Declan, you have three out of four. And I've stopped you getting the fourth by telling you the answer! So which premiership player has won the European Cup, the UEFA Cup, the FA cup and the Premiership? Clue: it's NOT Carvaliho.

Which league ground is the highest above msl? Who is the only player to have played in the Conference, League 2, League 1, Championship and Premiership?

Well done Declan - Swindon Town is correct. Although you edited your original post to make it look like you're quicker than you actually are - so you get a Red! Off you go...

Two questions from Jack - Rochdales' exciting u-12 no. 8 shirt: Which premiership player has won the European Cup, the UEFA Cup, the FA cup and the Premiership? Which team out of all 4 leagues does not have a letter in it's name from the word "Mackerel"? Good luck!

Tottenham vs Arsenal (strong language!)

The Moulin Rouge: "Voulez vous etc etc"