joeyconcrete Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 Oh silly me, from the Manx Radio archive; The Commission believes that former Treasury Minister, Donald Gelling, was persuaded to bring in a 250 per cent allowance, a massive increase from the 15% maximum capital allowance for Tourism projects in the late eighties. Treasury Officials were against the move because it would distort the tax system, and officials weren't present at the meeting where the decision was made. .. The Committee also maintains that the tax reliefs went to companies that were un-connected to tourism. So was this 250% allowance present before Mount Murray, eh No. Was it implemented for the Mount Murray development and its companies, yes. Which means it was brought it to "suit" a projects' needs. So you obviously dont watch enough TV or read the press.
joeyconcrete Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 Relating to competiton rules, my example wasn't that extreme. Here's an example of a BBC comp's terms; This competition is not open to employees or contractors of the BBC, Disney or any person directly or indirectly involved in the organisations or running of the competition, or their direct family members Maybe preventing 'everyone' in the government is extreme, but preventing members of the department who issues/controls the grants should be enforced. Otherwise, people will complain and think naughty things are happening when someone does get a substantial grant (hence the local press!) There's too much "pat my back and I'll pat yours", but this is here to stay.
Observer Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 FCMR, you may see that as an unjustified form of censorship - but please have some consideration for the fact that we are trying to provide forums which are going to last for longer than a few months before we are all moved on again. We're not Big Brother, we're just Joe Public with no hidden agenda.
ans Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 Deleted his post for obvious reasons. FCMR, if you can't obey the rules of the board, don't post here. If a topic is deleted, that doesn't mean it's ok for you to just details exactly what was in it in another thread. That too will be deleted.
purrrrrrrrrrry Posted July 3, 2004 Posted July 3, 2004 then we wouldn't have to worry about them offending later in life That is such a fallacy... They start offending whilst children themselves, or as older teenagers. In some ways I'm with Ripsaw of the chemical/biological thing, as most evidence suggests that paedophiles don't get better, they get worse. But at least for now they need to be making sure that they are effectively monitored, and that the next KNOWN case is not the trigger for implemeting something that should have been implemented months/years before...
Declan Posted July 4, 2004 Posted July 4, 2004 then we wouldn't have to worry about them offending later in life That is such a fallacy... He wasn't making that point. Next time you reply to a post, read it properly, and read the subsequent posts.
purrrrrrrrrrry Posted July 4, 2004 Posted July 4, 2004 So what did Ripsaw mean by beasts then? Unicorns? The Moddey Dhoo? Shrek?
ans Posted July 4, 2004 Posted July 4, 2004 Probably best you ask 'Crumlin' as he was the one who introduced them. Ripsaw was just paraphrasing.
Declan Posted July 4, 2004 Posted July 4, 2004 So what did Ripsaw mean by beasts then? Unicorns? The Moddey Dhoo? Shrek? Are you doing this on purpose? My point was that in the bit you quoted, Ripsaw was using hyperbole to discredit a particular attitude. You responded as if it was Ripsaw's point of view, despite at least three previous posts pointing that out, leading me to believe that you had not read the thread properly before replying. A view which your response to my post confirms.
geo Posted July 4, 2004 Posted July 4, 2004 Maybe preventing 'everyone' in the government is extreme, but preventing members of the department who issues/controls the grants should be enforced. I agree to a point but where do you draw the line. Can the cleaner or the receptionist who works in the department in question apply for a grant. I think it would be very difficult to find the correct balance. This sort of thing would no doubt require a select committee of Tynwald to look at the whole issue. I accept you point with reference to Mount Murray, with the caveat that we do have an excellent hotel, leisure facilities and housing on this site. I do not advocate that there was no underhand dealing, but I think our government is more aware now to ensure this sort of thing does not happen again. I also think that making such a generalised statement belies the numerous financial assistance scenarios that the government has implemented that have been both successful and have helped Jo Public without problem. Geo
Dave the Cardboard Box Posted July 4, 2004 Posted July 4, 2004 I accept you point with reference to Mount Murray, with the caveat that we do have an excellent hotel, leisure facilities and housing on this site. I do not advocate that there was no underhand dealing, but I think our government is more aware now to ensure this sort of thing does not happen again. But to support it on the grounds that "we have a nice hotel etc" is offensive. And the fabulous golf course with a magnificent signature par 5 18th hole? For totally spurious reasons (safety - which was no problem for the previous 8 years - why a sudden concern now?) the main fairway has been closed to build yet more private accommodation on this wonderful TOURIST development. Give it 18 months and it will be a 9 hole course, and no use at all to the hundreds of American tourists we were told would be visiting each year, just to use it....
manxbird Posted July 5, 2004 Posted July 5, 2004 Geo - It's probably obvious and I'm missing it - who is the largest employer on the Island?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.