maynragh

A thought that occurred to me after reading some of the comments above… if the original shit stirring news articles were mostly factually incorrect is that not defamation against the department and or staff involved? I don’t know obviously.

100% it starts at the top… however you shouldn’t be letting Edge off the hook that easily. She’s given the position and the money by the system, but she’s only able to accept that because of the deal she made with the electorate. Has she acted in their interest first here? You could argue that she has by following the orders she’s signed up to accept I guess, but is following orders always right? Hmmm…

It may be true that he’s not particularly academically gifted (I don’t know), and that he’s also been more fortunate than he would probably openly acknowledge in terms of opportunity (I was also told he won a local lottery when he was younger?), but that doesn’t cancel out the fact that he’s clearly very cunning and ruthless - which has stood him in good stead in career & business. That doesn’t mean he’s a likable character (quite the opposite), but that’s not the point I was making. No matter what is being thrown at him now this whole episode will probably be in his favour (financially at least), no matter what the outcome for the community. With a side bonus for him that he’s made all those in charge look like idiots again.

JT and Energy taking some flak now eh. I don’t think he has ever made a secret of the fact he thinks the IOM is not fit to self govern. Whatever you think, he’s done a great job of generating traffic for his business with a side bonus of displaying how inept and easily manipulated the people at the top of our governmental structure are (again), to the backdrop of moronic mob shrieking on all sides. Spineless wasters in charge is the most concerning point proven by yet another embarrassing debacle. I bet JT’s probably laughing his cock off, booking another first class transatlantic ticket on the proceeds as we speak. He’s a sharp cookie.

Hit the nail on the head there. Some people like a bully if they think the bully is on 'their' side - thankfully not enough to get him elected. The tone is that of a spoilt child having a tantrum because they didn't get what they wanted.

I thought the local commissioner had been quite effective a few times, even when dealing with IOM Gov? Surely if an individual were to request a review after the use of their data (or a failure to comply with a request not to use it), the office would have to at least respond. If it were a private company posting photos of customers for promotion purposes without their permission, I'd have thought they'd do something wouldn't they? What was your experience? My assumption as noted originally is that this is currently riding on the 'prevention of crime' exemption - as it clearly is personal data being used. However I think using one person's data to prevent another unrelated person (or persons) from committing an offence is probably not the original intention of the exemption - and probably nobody can do anything about that without going through a court as you say.

https://gdpr.eu/eu-gdpr-personal-data/ ‘Personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person. There are more factors to consider with indirect identification. Indirect identification means you cannot identify an individual through the information you are processing alone, but you may be able to by using other information you hold or information you can reasonably access from another source. A third party using your data and combining it with information they can reasonably access to identify an individual is another form of indirect identification. Any information that can lead to either the direct or indirect identification of an individual will likely be considered personal data under the GDPR. The way I read it the fact that numerous people have already been identified by photos of their vehicle only (without registration plates showing) proves that such photos are personal data. I realise a lot of people couldn't tell one Ford Fiesta from another, but a lot of people could tell you if they see a specific vehicle they know - and therefore know the owner - without needing to see the reg plates. It is personal data. The police have proven this again by showing photos of cars with no reg plates, and asking people to identify the owners. Can't have it both ways.

The commission have put that in writing have they?

You may well be right Augustus, I can see that the tide of public opinion could be turning on the use of humiliation as a punishment. If that is the case it needs to be clarified in law though doesn't it? That could then lead to some problems with Article 3 of the ECHR, but who knows that too may one day be trashed I guess. What a joyful future we can look forward to. Why did they create it in the first place, can anyone remember? @Gladys Part of my original post was the point that a photograph of someone's car is personal data whether the number plate is obscured or not, which is regularly proven by how easily people are identified when virtually nothing anyone would guess to be identifiable is visible.

My assumption was that the use of personal data in this way was being justified under the premise of 'prevention', however it would certainly be interesting to find out if that was the intended purpose of the exemption. My guess would be that the exemption was intended to allow the police to use a person's personal data to prevent them from committing an offence, not to prevent others. That's sort of an underlying principle of data protection isn't it? As noted, the police are themselves confirming how thin this ice is by covering up the number plates. If the position is that they clearly do have the right to use personal data like this why cover up number plates? The issue of conviction being a matter of public record is an interesting one. If I want to find out what convictions someone has, and I walk in to a police station and ask, what am I going to be told? @Derek Flint? Are you sure about not being able to turn off the comments Derek? As far as I'm aware it is a setting available on all 'page' formats on Facebook at least. It should be possible to turn of commenting for any specific post - it is on any page or group that I have ever managed, why would the police page be any different? If the police are looking for information there is a clear logic to having comments sections open. If they're trying to educate people and want an open dialogue, then again a clear logic for open comments. If they're using the personal data of an individual who's been picked up for an offence to educate others, then open comments hosted by police feels a bit dicey to me. It's been many years since I've had a ticket, but if I were ever pulled again I would make it very clear I didn't want my personal data used in public. Which way would the information commissioner lean on this one do you think?

The police posting photos to social media of vehicles belonging to persons who've been fined or apprehended for motoring offences is now a daily occurrence. It is my understanding that the police are exempt from data protection requirements where necessary for the prevention or detection of crime. Posting a photo of someone's car after they have been done for a bald tyre or no tax disk is neither prevention nor detection. Maybe there is some other exemption relating to public education or warnings that I have missed? Does anyone know if the persons concerned are asked for their consent prior to the photos being posted? If they are asked, is that reasonable given the situation they are in? I saw a photo today where the number plate of a car concerned had been obscured which made me think on this again, as clearly there is an awareness that data protection might be an issue. I don't think I've ever seen a photo of a person concerned, only ever vehicles. Due to the nature of social media (especially in a small community like the IOM), it is almost inevitable that the person concerned will be identified anyway by those who know them, know of them and or their vehicle or situation - a point regularly proven in the comment sections (which are left open for some unfathomable reason). Such photos are inevitably data which can be used to identify an individual in most cases. I remember a photo of a motorcycle posted a few months ago, taken in the dark. Most people would be hard pressed to even identify what model of bike it was, but within a few minutes the person concerned had been identified in the comments section. Not long after that their extremely distraught mother was posting comments in an attempt to try and defend the situation from the 'bear pit' that was inevitably unfolding. I fully understand and support the reasoning behind the posts. It is worth reminding people, making them aware of enforcement activities and consequences, however I'm not sure the use of private data in this setting is correct or required. It seems like a rather regressive form of arbitrary punishment, which due to the nature of the offences concerned tends to be extremely socially stratified in the way it is applied. I assume that offences are public information, and I understand the logic of 'can't do the time, don't do the crime', however the punishment is whatever has been specified in the law. That doesn't included the hosting a court of public humiliation 'post offence' does it?

The red meat derogation was scrapped on the basis of being incompatible with EU requirements, so I wonder if that has / will change with Brexit. Cost of agricultural production is higher on the IOM, in line with generally higher cost of living on a rock - which is worth it. All modern agri subsidies have their roots in the world wars when food was seen as an essential service, an idea that had all but died with globalisation (the subsidies remained for all the wrong reasons, though places like New Zealand have been smart enough to break the addiction) and then Covid came along. Still a strong possibility of global food crises linked to covid & climate. Do you want to control your own means of production and how much is that worth?

Alternatively view, it could be the best thing that ever happened to IOM. Depends if you think the direction we're currently heading in is benefitting the place.

Do you think IOMG are being harder on the SSS & Mera this time as a form of social engineering? Like... "you should be able to survive without income through at least a month... "

That was sort of my point. Irrespective of who's fault it actually is the contract should (should) be structured in such a way that it can be put to one side. IOMG as client should be able to force it to move forward, even if the fault ultimately lies with them. The fact it is not being forced forward indicates either a problem with the contract, or a lack of desire to use the contract as it should have been set up.

I see the latest comment is that they cannot even give a guesstimate on a completion date. Aside from the original error does this not now also point to a problem with the contract itself and or a lack of desire to use the terms which presumably would be in the contract if it was set up correctly to enable this sort of mess to be dealt with? It simply cannot be possible (or maybe it is) that there is no way for the client to dump a non-performing contractor or sub-contractor given of much this has effectively already cost in lost service.

In theory IOM Gov could have simply tendered the whole package out to an off island specialist, however there's no guarantee that would have avoided the balls up we've seen here (I've seen a lot of specialists fuck things up - indeed I used to work for a specialist who did on almost every job. All management generated / information related I should add), and in my experience a certain amount of local knowledge can - should - improve the overall efficiency of a project in the IOM context. In addition, it should be the case that the value of IOM reputation works in our favour - which is why the fact these things are not discussed and those who are actually fucking things up remain faceless is actually feeding the problem. The problem with the idea that an off island specialist would 'get it right' is that off island specialists will still be reliant on information supplied (or not) from the IOM - and I would guess almost all of them would draw a line there. That is my experience of specialists - they want someone else to provide their data, for all the wrong reasons. Its the way almost the entire industry works and is the crux of the problem - you will find, usually in the top right hand corner of every drawing, a disclaimer on the accuracy of the data. It's bullshit. When the delays were first announced at the NSC the blame was laid on the substrate below the supports for the flumes. The first thing that entered my head was - 'well someone built it the first time, there must be survey and construction data from the original build somewhere... why the fuck did nobody look at that?' The only possible excuse would be that the substrate has changed since it was first build. That's not impossible. Highly, highly unlikely but not impossible. However if it were that bad the building would probably be showing signs of stress by now if that were the case, and again if it were that critical (and the load was going to increase so significantly it's caused this problem) it should have been checked before work started. My guess would be it's more likely that basic checks on the existing structure simply weren't done. Either way its just basic engineering 101. The problem has apparently now evolved to a design issue with the levels on the support steelwork itself - again just really really basic stuff - classic tape measure fuck up. If an off island specialist was not supplied with the required data you've got exactly the same cock ups - with the finger pointing back at whoever did not provide the information in the first place. It's the same over and over again in construction. Sadly there is a now a widespread culture of responsibility dodging in the industry, and the normalisation of tendering doesn't help either. Tendering is one of the stupidest ideas ever if you think about it logically. If we were designing the entire process from scratch what would be the best solution? To my mind... a small team of professionals working directly for government (architects & engineers), who's job it should be to fully 'know' all government buildings inside out. It should clearly be part of their job to openly take on responsibility - their name, their face on every project - pay them above average for their role (so that they are inclined to stay in job for life) and give them big bonuses if they bring stuff in on time and on budget. The bonuses will be far less cost than the additional cost of fuck ups. Never, never pick the cheapest tender. And pay bonuses to all contractors if things get done right - retain some of the bonus for long enough to know for sure. If you find the right people (that's a big if) this system works, I've seen it done. Facelessness, transience, not-my-job, looks-ok-from-my-house, it's all starts at the top. In response to other comments above - it's not a Gov specific problem. I've seen just as bad on private contracts.

To be fair there aren't really any 'specialists' in this type of work (refurbishing leisure facilities) on the IOM as far as I'm aware, and probably very few anywhere. At the end of the day the main contract was effectively no more challenging than any other large project. The specialist elements have been subcontracted to specialists - the floor was done by a dutch firm who do this type of work all over the world. I doubt very much there would be an issue with their work (that they wouldn't resolve), though there may be issues with how their work integrates with others. The major fuck up with regards the flumes is the same fuck up you will find on pretty much any construction project (and on most) - just a classic communication failure not specific to this project. And there's hardly a firm you can name anywhere who this couldn't happen to. Anyone who's ever worked at any level of project management in construction will know that communication is the single biggest cost in the industry - by far. That said, the impression I got was that the issue didn't lie with the main contractor on this, but with whoever had design / project management responsibility - which would make sense if that is the case. So far I've seen very little comment or question on this in the media (probably for obvious reasons), though there was a small clue in one of the media videos that appeared when the first delays were announced. At the end of the day it was someone's job to get this right, but we probably don't want to know who do we?

I thought the excuse of 'commercial confidentiality' had now been expunged in this type of situation after the 'bus contract' FOIs... Information Commissioner Iain McDonald noted: ’Public authorities are expected to be accountable and transparent where considerable expenditure is incurred. Improving public awareness of how public money is spent, and the integrity of those expenditure decisions, are drivers of the FoI Act. ’The public expects value for money - any assessment of whether public services offer value for money cannot be ascertained without knowledge of the cost.’ Same would apply here no? Or has this position been overruled since?

A quick google indicates NEC3 would cover much the same ground - performance bonds, low performance damages, limits on liability and compensation events all nice and clear. So it should be pretty easy for the government to clarify who exactly is going to carry the can for this right?

Cretiney or Cretney? Cretney was heavily involved in the EFW contract wasn't he. I have a copy of that one and it's decidedly not in our favour. It should be possible to FOI the contracts for things like the NSC and the promenade as the two current examples, I just wondered if anyone knew what form they took.

I have experience in construction, so yes I fully understand how those things happen. I also understand the difference between truly unforeseen (actually fairly rare), and merely 'can't be bothered' to foresee, or worse 'not in my interest' to foresee (producing the vast majority of additional costs and delays in most construction projects). Even a bog standard construction contract like a JCT covers contractor caused and employer caused delays - and the cost consequences of each. Given what has been stated about the NSC delays already it seems fairly clear it's one of those - either required specification not correctly relayed by government, and or then managed by the main contractor. If the contractor dropped the ball then presumably it will cost them, if the department dropped the ball it will cost us - but does anyone know which of those it is, and what form of contract they use?

Does anyone know if there are usually any cost implications / penalties for overrun to the main contractors on government projects like this and or things like the promenade? Would be interesting to FOI the contract on this, unless it's already been published somewhere? If delays are truly unforeseeable then that is understandable, however in this instance (as with the vast majority it feels like) it doesn't sound like that is the case.

Slides have all gone (I assume they're not putting the same ones back) and there's been fairly extensive remodelling in that area (new concrete). Floating floor has been replaced entirely. £4.5m seems steep but I wouldn't agree to do it for any less. Whether the refurb was necessary in the first place is a different matter - I don't think it was in bad shape. Floating floor had apparently reached the end of it's life - not quite sure how considering what it was made of, but there you go. Again whether it was necessary in the first place is a different question. If you consider how the island's pools are actually used it does seem a bit odd to spent so much on one pool.

I believe the Mondeo estate set off for pastures new this weekend. £550 at auction if I remember rightly, or something like that. Bargain. Also sold the silver Accord estate I hadn't seen out and about for years - can't remember if that was police or docs now.