Trevor Baines

[Chinahand]

Tugger - ignore legal nicities - just real politique. Barclays lent the MEA millions, it did so in good faith as part of a commercial transaction. If this money had not been returned what message would that have sent? Would Barclays - the only major Bank to move its offshore HQ to the Island from the Channel islands - have done nothing? How would other Banks which operate with the manx government have reacted?

 

Puffing on about caveat emptor will just be so many empty words - caveat monan would be far more relevent. What damage do you think the IOM Gov would face if it took advantage of the MEA fiasco to refuse to pay back the money?

 

The Banks would respond, and it would wreck the IOM reputation.

 

You are deluded if you think legal nicities would make Barclays etc just go - fair cop we didn't do the due diligence you keep it.

 

Branches would be closed, HQs moved, and lobbying made to undercut the IOM's reputation. Forget legal nicities - Barclays would black ball the Island from every club it could, and Barclays (with 2010 profits 20 times larger than the IOM tax take) is a member of lots of important clubs.

 

Even if legally it was a cut and dried case - which it isn't - there is no way the IOM Gov could just go the MEA doesn't owe you this money. Practical considerations do, surprise, surprise, apply, and the reputational loss would be FAR FAR greater than the immediate cash gain.

[Chinahand]

I've PMed Stu Peter's to ask him!

 

Dunno China - I'm not in the newsroom these days so not privy to who is tasked with what. Maybe we couldn't spare a reporter, maybe our normal court reporter wasn't around and nobody realised.

If true that's a very poor excuse, Stu. Fancy walking down the corridor and seeing if you've got a story about how incompetent your newsroom is?

 

Whether you are in the Newroom or not, I think you are aware of the international reach of this case - its an important one. A two line headline segment would seem worthwhile and a short paragraph on the website - which in my opinion will be more important as it isn't as ephemeral.

 

Or does Manx Radio just give up - PC Venables and Manx Forum has already done their job? I'd be very worried if that was the case.

[Lonan3]

In the absence of any interest from the news media, I think Mr Venables was very astute in placing it here. At the very least it gets a public airing and, at best, others are compelled to follow it up.

[Chinahand]

Published online at 04/10/2010 14:44:29

[Lonan3]

Also today - but no time on it

 

And another - likewise

[Lost Login]

Does raise question, when decision was handed down in open sitting of the Court of Appeal in Douglas oWednesday last week, why none of IOM Newspapers or Manx Radio have covered it before now

 

Manx Radio I have no idea, but it would have missed the cut off time for the Courier and The Manx Independants is first thing Thursday. It is in today's Examiner though judging from headlines outside Tesco and I expect that was put together before Mike Venables posted on here.

[manxy]

"usually makes it clear" - that's one reason for my post - I didn't know who he was, and he didn't make it clear.

 

A sig which will be visible on all Mike's posts would instantly clarify the issue, and make it clear that this was a policeman posting.

 

I'm not entirely against a policeman scooping Manx Radio and going direct to MF as has been done here, but there is some doubt in my mind, so raised the issue.

 

Quite definitely if PC Venables is posting as such I think a sig should be the equivilent of his number on his lapel, a public display of his profession.

I have to disagree with you on this one China, as that implies to me that everybody should put their profession's on view, regardless if you were a Policeman or not.

 

The way I saw it, was that the article about Mr Baines was a factual media release report and could easily have been put on there by persons who have an interest in his case. Mr Venables did just that and I noticed that he didn't add an emoticon or any other personal fact to the statement issued.

 

I personally have no problem as to whether the person I'm responding to is a Policeman, Dentist, Plumber, MHK or someone who is unemployed, as to me, they're all entitled to have their say and opinion and as long as it doesn't affect the conditions wrote on here, then I'm all for equality.

[piebaps]

I can't help but agree. The criminal appeal of a man the IOM lauded as a "millionaire resident" was a big news story at least in local circles. Frankly I'm astounded that it wasn't mentioned last week especially if the press are getting the Court lists as JW says.

 

I know news is a lotta different things to different folks but this was a big story. FFS it was a big story when the Sunday Times Rich list was published every year!

 

Here's the MR news page for example

 

Landslip road is quickly back in use

Diverse response from diverse groups

Island to host entrepreneurs and space engineers

Local heroes recognised at gala ceremony

Litter pick organisers hope for big turnout

Waste plant nominated for top award

Don't lose your democratic right!

 

How does the Baines appeal slot in here?

[Kopek]

The Deemsters gave as part of their reasoning to dismiss to appeal.....

 

"......struck at the foundations of the financial probity of the financial services industry in this Island."

 

While this may be of concern to many, it is not a crime in itself.

 

Sould this be considered when imposing a sentance?

[Lost Login]

Another One?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-11469931

[Theodolite]

One day I found myself in circumstances where I was forced to listen for about half an hour to a senior judge on the Isle of Man bragging about his work to a person he had just met. I was particularly amazed to hear him tell his 'conversational' captee "the isle of Man is that small we know who is guilty before a case comes to trial".

 

And you wonder why I'm occasionally so cynical...

[friela]

Also today - but no time on it

 

And another - likewise

 

these 2 were both online by 1pm, i read them on my lunch hour. no idea how long they'd been there though

[Stu Peters]

I've PMed Stu Peter's to ask him!

 

Dunno China - I'm not in the newsroom these days so not privy to who is tasked with what. Maybe we couldn't spare a reporter, maybe our normal court reporter wasn't around and nobody realised.

If true that's a very poor excuse, Stu. Fancy walking down the corridor and seeing if you've got a story about how incompetent your newsroom is?

 

Whether you are in the Newroom or not, I think you are aware of the international reach of this case - its an important one. A two line headline segment would seem worthwhile and a short paragraph on the website - which in my opinion will be more important as it isn't as ephemeral.

 

Or does Manx Radio just give up - PC Venables and Manx Forum has already done their job? I'd be very worried if that was the case.

Yes, CH, that sounds like a sure recipe for success - I'll go and tell hard-pressed colleagues in another department that they're incompetent because an anonymous poster on MF says so! I answered your question honestly, but frankly don't see that our people screwed up (nobody else seems to have 'scooped' us by a significant margin - and I think our online news editor was on a 2pm shift today). I guess that MV's media release went to everyone at the same time - the fact he posted it directly here gave MF a head start. Quite why we didn't have anyone in court is beyond me - but there are probably a dozen possible reasons I'm not aware of. Email the editor(s) direct and ask them if it's that important you have a definitive answer.

[Tugger]

I don't think Barclays would have wrecked the IOM's reputation, because it would not have been able to without wrecking its own.

 

"Do you know that lousy IOM government refused to pay us our money back?"

 

"Why?"

 

"Well, we fucked up basically."

 

"Why don't you sue them?"

 

"We can't. We'd lose".

 

The cash gain would have been substantially in excess of £100 million, and we rolled over.

[Lost Login]

I don't think Barclays would have wrecked the IOM's reputation, because it would not have been able to without wrecking its own.

"Do you know that lousy IOM government refused to pay us our money back?"

"Why?"

"Well, we fucked up basically."

"Why don't you sue them?"

"We can't. We'd lose".

The cash gain would have been substantially in excess of £100 million, and we rolled over.

 

You are displaying the same level of ignorance as you have done previously when discussing this subject.

 

You are assuming Barclays have no case to sue which in my view is very unlikley. To get the loan past their credit committee they would have done various amounts of due dilligence part of which would have been obtaining at the borrowers expense a legal opinion. If one set of lawyers stated that the loan was legal who is to say if it went to court that would not also have been the finding?

 

Now I expect that you will state that in 2007 the Courts found the loans illegal. I will quote John Wright from that time

 

"First was the loan illegal. That was the case before the court. It was being brought by the auditors. The MEA is owned by Government and has no income apart from what it sells electricity to us for. Governemnt were paying the auditors costs, both the accountancy firm and their lawyers, and consumers were paying the MEA's legal costs. The MEA board is not the same board that borrowed, thay have all been replcaed. What the present board have done is decided that they will throw in the towel and admit the loans were illegal. Saves a fortune. Does not let anyone off the hook. The court only had to find legal/illegal. It may have never uncovered the why's and wherefores and apportioned blame. It was not being asked to do that"

 

In other words the matter was never tested as basically a deal had been done which saved millions in court fees whereby the new MEA board agreed it was illegal so that Tynwald could goand retrospectivly approve.

 

The illegality of the loan has therefore never been propally tested and I have my doubts that if it was that would be found defective as Barclays would not have lent without legal advise but in addition the loan was to the Manx cable Company not the MEA and it would appear there is a considerable element of doubt that they had the same obligations as the MEA with regard to obtaining Tynwald approval. I am sure Barclays, the Lawyers who gave the opinion and the MEA board would all be of the belief that it did not.

 

Ultimately nobody knows the definitive position as it has never been tested.