Trevor Baines

[ian rush]

 

Probably because if not Barclays would have gone straight to court and it would have dragged on for yours at enourmous cost to the Tax payer & MEA customers.

 

Secondly what would it have done for the the Governments & The Islands reputation and ability to borrow if it had defaulted for whatever reason

 

In one. The auditors took action for an account and it was a fairly brutal meeting at MEA HQ with some pretty senior Barclays dudes over.

 

And we have got a nice power station

[Theodolite]

We've got a beautiful Power Station and an even nicer Incinerator. I wish people would be more thankful. True, the Power Station does look like an Opera House as was mentioned by Peter Karran in the House of Keys. But beauty does not come cheap you know.

 

And don't forget, all that money that has been spent (hundreds of £millions) by the MEA goes back into the economy such as to people who sell BMWs and Cruises and Caribbean holidays and what have you. And I must say that I have seen some pretty fancy footware like those big pointy ended shoes which cost a bomb but were only in fashion for a matter of weeks and even the Red Cross can't get rid of them.

[WTF]

 

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.

Fair enough. Can you point me in the right direction to find where it is a matter of public record that there was "proven fraud". I am aware of a couple of parties who might be interested in being made aware of that.

 

nothing was 'proven' because the government didn't want to fully demonstrate its incompetence in public. 'draw a line under it' but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. other things that haven't happened include a mother on a motorbike at hillberry being killed by a dangerous driver. no conviction in the courts there either so it didn't happen right!!? what is a matter of public record is the necessary information to take someone to court over it, BUT it is being portrayed as not in the best interests of 'the island' which translates as those in government who fucked up, so NOTHING was or will be done about it throught the courts. but certain people without manx sounding names won't be back to work for the government again. and those with manx sounding names will be moved sideways so they are no longer in the same department so they no longer need to express a view about it when asked in public, 'not my department mate' and please don't ask me about my current department because i haven't got a clue here either.

Edited September 9, 2010 by WTF

[mæŋksmən]

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.

Edited September 9, 2010 by mæŋksmən

[P.K.]

But let us say the MEA had toddled along to the Treasury for approval would have anything different happened. Very unlikely. The Government seem happy to spend money like there is no tomorrow now when there is a shortage of funds. Would they really have said no then, especially if they did it presumably meant a partly completed power station. The Manx Tax payer were not fleeced out of £180 million. It went into building the power station which from my understanding is of a size the Island requires.

 

The MEA was a failure in systems and quite rightly people should have been castigated. However ultimately no money was lost or gained, nothing syphoned off. Procedures and systems were wrong but the funds went into the building of the power station. Whichever way it was done the costs would have been basically the same except Tynwald would maybe not have incured the ridiculous costs to look into.

 

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.

[Lost Login]

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}.

 

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.

[mæŋksmən]

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.

Edited September 9, 2010 by mæŋksmən

[Chinahand]

mæŋksmən, you are talking bull. Proffitt declared right at the begining his interest. As a result Clive Wilcox and Charles Fargher were directed by the board to form a separate committee to look for tenders for the loans. They approached 3 banks -HSBC, Isle of Man Bank, Barclays. Barclays came in with the best offer. Proffitt recused himself from the Board Meeting which examined these results, and was uninvolved with the decision to go with Barclays.

 

Its all in the PKF report and I interviewed the board for hours about these issues - and many many others.

 

The MEA then went to Cains and got a legal opinion that what they were doing was legal.

 

After the scandal broke Barclay's reviewed there procedures - and lets be honest if you think Barclays would have put up with Mr Proffitt dicking their systems to his advantage you are living in cloud cuckoo land - they'd have hung him out to dry. The result was: "The loans were subject to Barclays' rigorous approval processes which include a review of appropriate security and that the loans are within the powers of the borrower."

 

I totally agree with you MHKs ministers and all were out for Blood - Brenda Cannel described it as a blood lust actually in a Tynwald sitting - and I think the so called "facts" - in fact highly libelous allegations - you are throwing about come from sources very much clouded with that bias: they don't fit in with reality.

 

This has been done to death - check out this from 2005.

 

http://www.manxforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/6335-mea-megathread/page__view__findpost__p__88915

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2005/jun/30/11

 

And see this interview with Proffitt from last year.

 

 

Edited to add: second part of video specifically about expenses claims.

[mæŋksmən]

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}.

 

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.

Edited September 9, 2010 by mæŋksmən

[P.K.]

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

Edited September 9, 2010 by P.K.

[Lost Login]

OK for the very very last time, this is off topic and I will not be replying to any more posts. If you want to debate start a new one on the MEA.

 

What I will say is that nobody is perfect and there are many things I am unhappy about with regard to this matter. Nobody in my view comes out smelling of roses but what I see based on what has been produced todate is somebody trying to get something done and not wishing to have to spend time getting everything rubber stamped by other parties and presumably hanging around whilst committees sat, decisions referred made etc. In the same position if I was trying to do my job and I thought that that was an unwarranted level of political interference and it got in the way of doing my job I might do something similar.

 

I agree that this probably went to far and there should have been a much more harmonious relationship and the MEA should have probably acted less as an autonomous body. I also expect that if that had been the case costs and savings may have been available e.g. would the loan interest rate have been less if the govt was guaranteeing the loan, However what I do not believe which was the central point of cheeky boys post was that manx residents, the government were fleeced to the tune of £180 million and that there are any substantial similarities between the MEA matter and the Baines case.

 

End of debate on the matter from me on this topic as it realtes to Baines and not the MEA.

[mæŋksmən]

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.

Edited September 9, 2010 by mæŋksmən

[Chinahand]

I'll ruin Lost login's attempts to stop the derail!

 

The causes of the MEA's troubles go back to the late 1990s when MCC was set up. MCC resulted in the MEA operating far more independently of Government - back in the late 1990s the Government thought that was fine, Treasury and Tynwald etc didn't approve MCC's operations in advance, but they didn't react or criticize as MCC took out £30-£40 odd million in loans in 1999.

 

That set the precedent for when the later loans were taken out.

 

The MEA didn't think it was doing anything different from what it had done in the past - it had operated this way before involving multimillon pound sums and no one had blinked. They didn't think they were circumventing systems, or escaping oversight, they thought they were getting on with the job operating in a manner acceptable to their political and treasury masters.

 

They were wrong about that - and no doubt a culture which encouraged the breakdown in communications existed - the MEA thought of themselves as commercial separate from the Civil Servants, but the board wern't being underhand. They reported their spend to Treasury quarterly, and just sent in the accounts, and were totally unprepared for the politicians' reactions when the later loans were declared.

 

Could it have been done better - of course. But to blame Mr Proffitt for everything misses the mark by a country mile.

 

Should we just have had two cables and no gas or powerstation? That's what the MEA recommended, but the politicians said no - so plan B came in and it cost £220 million or whatever. I doubt it could have been much less. All big projects have challenges and the MEA saga was about average in that - with hindsight you might have been able to manage it better, but not significantly and it could have been managed a lot worse.

 

Given the way they reacted I'm glad the politicians didn't get involved when the station was a building site and all the contractors were concerned after the collapse of Enron - the project would still be in committee now with no electricity being generated!

 

P.K. - if you think the Committee isn't doing much you should get "no the other one" to ask about their legal fees - I think you'll find they are wracking them up quite happily!

[Chinahand]

My understanding is that the loan was to a subsidiary company of the MEA and not the MEA itself.

 

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.

[mæŋksmən]

Why didnt you just say Option 1.

 

Never let a chance of a 200 word reply go begging do ya.