mæŋksmən

Respect to anyone that can watch it all in one go.

Looks like it acted like a bear with a sore head, boom boom.

Ive had to put that on pause at 3 mins, honestly it was making me feel a little sick in the guts, that free climbing is unreal.

Whether he would or would not is immaterial he chooses to live his life here. lhiu lhiu {translation} nanu nanu

Thats quite a good reply that gladys. I think the extra directors fees paid for the subsidiaries on top of their M.E.A. salaries/fees gave mr proffitt et al alot of leverage however. An extra 25k to 65k per annum is alot to lose once youve had a sniff of it.

Not trousering gladys, more like proffitteering.

So your establishing that mr proffitt was on the board that in your opinion set precedent with the midland bank loans, you start proceedings by announcing that those dealings were somehow responsible for the barclays loans being drawn on a fashion that skirted direct contact about the barclays loans with either tynwald or treasury. Can you show me where the attorney general says a precedent set, i must have missed that bit or maybe its still to come. it is 165 pages after all. Who is !1THEY!! please keep to specifics without all your padding, the report is very disillusioned with their antics from what i am reading. Did the midland accept a comfort letter from its own chairman as collateral enough to loan £50 mill. oops sorry 125 million £££££. Did the midland bank loan millions to the M.E.A. or its GUARANTORED Subsidiary when enron burned, no they tendered on the understanding that treasury were informed, the same decision the i.o.m. bank tender was based on, so they were ignored and they didnt even go to the pretence of tendering for the 50 mill loan. 12.28 No tendering process was carried out in respect of the second loan on the basis that it was a relatively short period of time after the first loan had been drawn down. Were not talking here about !! THE M.E.A. !!, this only really concerns 3 people in the main, the 3 people you know fine well sought that. !! no doubt a culture which encouraged the breakdown in communications existed !! seems to me it was actively encouraged. Seems to me they were very well prepared, they had consulted a london specialist about their previous dealings and the current setup, they also sought and paid for advice from caines both for themselves and for barclays, advices caines would not divulge when asked to, that word THEY is very versatile, when i use it, i use it in reference to 3 people. See here you just simply make appeal to pity, no-one has or is blaming him for everything as you well know, but it meshes so well with the rest of your post and is again no more than emotional padding. Again you throw in a red herring to gently nudge us in the direction you want, stick to the loans and proffitts part in them if you want to take on the white knight in shinning amour then fine, dont dodge the awkward parts with padding. Dunno whether this comes under strawman, opinion, sweeping generalisation or just sheer rhetoric to the cause, OR ALL. The bolded part is the only thing of reference in your entire post, the rest is simply strawman/men. Your right i remember that, that was also the company that there are no minutes avaliable for. Total Bull - the minute book was referred to extensively in the PKF report. They have an entire section chapter 11 devoted to the MEA, MCC and PGT board minutes and actions. You are talking total and utter bollocks. PKF report p127: MCC Board minutes 11.4 We have reviewed the MCC Board minutes from April 2001 to date. No-one said there were no minutes AT ALL did they. i should have expressed myself better, we will get to decisions made that are un-minuted later.

Why didnt you just say Option 1. Never let a chance of a 200 word reply go begging do ya.

no its called a back-pedal. do you really believe cheekyboy thinks he just trousered 180 mill, i think not. Your right ofcourse about the thread topic, but since when has that mattered here. You avoided giving your opinion on options 1 or 2, and !A get it done kinda guy! just doesn't cut it{you've used too many PROBABLYS and COULD/s. 1] That mr proffitt acted in good faith at all times during his tenure as top man at the M.E.A.,to the manx government/people his employer. 2} That mr proffitt acted in his own best interests at times during his tenure as top man at the M.E.A. However we all have differing opinion of motive/s i can live with that. Could you or i find out how much mr proffitt was payed at the time by barclays, or would directors bonuses of publically owned companies be private. and ps. If 2 options are not enough, then give us a fallacy free third option. I can add an option 3 , i could call it the smoke and mirrors option. people as enboldened in option 1 is a fallacy that i knew of when writing the post, if you want to be picky, take your pick Argumentum ad numerum / Argumentum ad populum, leave people out however its a different story. I think they are the only 2 logical explanations, you first have to decide which holds true to you, before proceeding to discuss the matter, there is no grey area.

My understanding is that the loan was to a subsidiary company of the MEA and not the MEA itself. Therefore the matter would have had to have been approved in accordance with its mem & arts, which I have to admit I have not reviwed, but presumably the approval that was required was the majority of the board of directors. Prima facie I expect it would have legally been in order as both sides presumably had lawyers advising, and in general lawyers the lawyers for the borrower require a legal opinion, which would involve sight iof minutes, review of mem and arts confirming the borrower had the relative powers etc. I will repeat for the last time as that this is the wrong thread for this discussion that as far as I see it rings may have been run around government and they were left with little choice in the matter, but once the power station had been planned and building started in reality could the overnment have pulled the funding plug or not agreed aditional loans from wherever. I do not see that there was any fleecing of the Manx tax payer, but rather a complete breakdown in relationhips which nobody did anything about as there was more than enough leeway to be able to carry on almost autonomously without reference to anybody else with the realisation that ultimately that nobody was able to pull the plug on the project. The bolded part is the only thing of reference in your entire post, the rest is simply strawman/men. Your right i remember that, that was also the company that there are no minutes avaliable for. Now for some logic as you cannot seem to entice yourself away from the strawman rhetoric of muddying the water. The collapse of enron provided means and opportunity. Thinning the loop of people that needed to know by slieght of hand with a subsidiary made the situation even seedier in my opinion. Reading strawmanned grey areas is getting tiresome. Feel free to find a fallacy in the 2 following appraisals of mike proffitts actions during his time at the M.E.A. 1] That mr proffitt acted in good faith at all times during his tenure as top man at the M.E.A.,to the manx government/people his employer. 2} That mr proffitt acted in his own best interests at times during his tenure as top man at the M.E.A. There are no grey areas either he acted as he did in an honest fashion, and that the circumvention of proceedure is all just an extremely unfortunate set of circumstance created by the collapse of enron. Or the collapse of enron was viewed as an opportunity to gain personally through other business interests.

But let us say the MEA had toddled along to the Treasury for approval would have anything different happened. Very unlikely. Aye PK in lost logins world why bother with competitive tendering. Just sign up with someone and let them charge what they like.

LL. You still haven't told us who else needed to be in the loop with proffitt to sign the loan/s, for and on behalf of the M.E.A. with barclays. It is my proofless contention that the loan/s from barclays were a foregone conclusion for months prior, and i also contend that no-one on the M.E.A. board {minuted} were aware of proffitts involvement with barclays, excepting the finance officer, until 1 day before he signed for the first loan {minuted}. quote lost login. Do you actually know anything about banking and business. There is no way Profitt or any one person would have had the power to authority to approve such a loan or lending. The decision would have been taken by the banks credit committee. end quote. So who else had to be in on the loop, apart from barclays representative's who mike proffitt could have a discussion with anytime he wanted. Or do you except that only proffitt and and his finance officer were the only 2 people apart from barclays staff who knew about the loan/s until 1 day before it was signed off. And even then it was only those present at the M.E.A. board meeting. And PS. the reason his representitives did so well in negotiating his re-payment/s down on the fraudulent use of M.E.A. funds, was because the gov reps negotiated a much better deal on pension matters bilaterally. You must have read or heard all this at the time, it is just a matter of stacking it all up.

Yes if system failure by clever manipulation counts, seems to me that the manipulation went past the point of deception, by circumvention of both treasury and the ministers.

Do you actually know anything about banking and business. There is no way Profitt or any one person would have had the power to authority to approve such a loan or lending. The decision would have been taken by the banks credit committee You know fine well i am talking about his M.E.A dealingS, correct i do not know anything about banking. Do i need to know about banking to know that not one minister was aware that he was signing the loans, treasury must also have been kept out of the loop aswell {i will check about treasury tomorrow}. The above was the whole scandal ffs. Some Ministers/MHKs were furious, and i mean proper, not crocodile, they were for lynching him, SO HIS AND THE BANKS GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD MUSTA BEEN A GOODUN.. I liked him, i worked for him several times, he tucked them and us up, i think.

Cant point you directly to the minutes no, proven fraud you want. Try this how many thousand did he repay them, for his arbitrary usage of his mea checkbook ?. How much did he refund them for flights hotels etc etc for him and his family, when on his new companies business ?. He refunded because it was fraud and had no choice, and his legal team still negotiated on the final amounts and got them slashed, even tho they had him bang to rights . The whole DEBACLE is a cesspit. Proffitt by name profit by nature how much was it his new company made this last year profit 30 mill was it ?. I think the ex mea finance office is a very lucky man to be abig part of that company now, really fallen on his feet.

Its ok they have dudley to double check what i am claiming, i got it straight from a ministers mouth inbetween postings as i wanted to be sure. And everything ive said is a matter of public record i asked him to be sure only whats a matter of public record, comprende.. When i speculate, i will say !i think /if!.

Sorry one company loaned money from itself to another and if you believe that Proffitt would have had the power to authorise the loan I am sure you are probably mistaken. The decision for that sort of money would have been well out of his hands. As for a bonus I have no idea but presumably if bonuses were paid had he not been a director whoever was would have got the bonus. Or if the money was lent by another bank they would have paid similar bonuses. I do not like Proffitt, he comes across to me as very smug and oily, and it would appear that Government may have been taken for a ride in the way it was done in terms of information etc, but ultimtaley whilst there may have been a faiure of systems I just do not see the Manx tax payer was fleeced to the tune of £180 million as Cheeky Boy asserted which is my lst comment as it is basically way of f topic. Your right you know little and use alot of words to express it. If proffitt didnt have the authority to arrange and sign the loans, then who did. Not one of the ministers was informed either formerly or informely, so give it your best shot, who else do you think has the clout to authorise multi million £ loans.

listen i know, it was all public record.. He only declared an interest to the board at the mea the day prior to signing the loan on behalf of the mea the meeting was minuted/recorded, most however were NOT. He nor his chief finance officer never at any point declared his interest to the council of ministers during any meetings he had with them his intention to sign loans with barclays. 6 months later he was promoted to chairman of barclays international, the company he signed the loan/s {2} with.

Here you go gladys who were the signatories to the loan, and which firm are they now directors of.

illigally gladys, only one word, but quite a significant one. he also had a meeting with treasury only hours before signing the loan, and just forgot to mention it. there was proven fraud, he was asked to repay it. they even bargained that down, to peanuts, he used the company checkbook as if it was his own personal account..

lost login, generally it helps if you actually have a fucking clue what you are talking about. Proffit loaned the money from a barclays subsidary he had not long been made a director of, and pressumably profitted directly in bonuses, from illegally arranging the loan, Mucho has indeed been brushed under the carpet, such as the other companies he was involved with having tie-ins with the M.E.A. effectively subsidising them. He and his legal representitives ran rings around the ministers after the shit hit the fan.

Yes its a wonderous place alright. http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn18775/dn18775-1_300.jpg Something in there is producing an unusually regular radio signal (Image: NASA/ESA/STScI/AURA) There is something strange in the cosmic neighbourhood. An unknown object in the nearby galaxy M82 has started sending out radio waves, and the emission does not look like anything seen anywhere in the universe before. "We don't know what it is," says co-discoverer Tom Muxlow of Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics near Macclesfield, UK. The thing appeared in May last year, while Muxlow and his colleagues were monitoring an unrelated stellar explosion in M82 using the MERLIN network of radio telescopes in the UK. A bright spot of radio emission emerged over only a few days, quite rapidly in astronomical terms. Since then it has done very little except baffle astrophysicists. It certainly does not fit the pattern of radio emissions from supernovae: they usually get brighter over a few weeks and then fade away over months, with the spectrum of the radiation changing all the while. The new source has hardly changed in brightness over the course of a year, and its spectrum is steady. Warp speed Yet it does seem to be moving – and fast: its apparent sideways velocity is four times the speed of light. Such apparent "superluminal" motion has been seen before in high-speed jets of material squirted out by some black holes. The stuff in these jets is moving towards us at a slight angle and travelling at a fair fraction of the speed of light, and the effects of relativity produce a kind of optical illusion that makes the motion appear superluminal. Could the object be a black hole? It is not quite in the middle of M82, where astronomers would expect to find the kind of supermassive central black hole that most other galaxies have. Which leaves the possibility that it could be a smaller-scale "microquasar". New Scientist

Nice one.

One of your better postings. And i must say against your natural tendency to stay on the side of the majority. Although the link you put up just sounds like an i told you so about global warming that you have been argueing.