General Election 2011 - Onchan

[Skoots]

Hamiltons wanted a pub licence, Stowell said if they get one they will sell the club, they got a pub and sold the club read the public minutes.

[ham yam]

Quite simple, we were fed up with the actions of “some” of the Commissioners who were our landlords over 2 specific issues, but certainly not with squash.

After wrongfully objecting and failing to prevent a change in our alcohol licence, required by the Police and Manx legislation, they wrongfully attempted to prevent the renewal of our lease.

Had the change in our alcohol licence not taken place, the club would have closed at that time, there would have been no lease to sell, and Views would not exist today as they actually operate with the licence they took over.

The latter issue was the subject of totally avoidable legal action when the High Court ordered that the lease be renewed, and awarded costs against the Commissioners in excess of £10,000.00, which were inflicted on the Onchan ratepayers. Strangely, as some may say, the Commissioners have never reported this fact publicly!!

With respect therefore it seems you are missing the point. Whilst it’s natural the squash people were disappointed in the loss of the courts the major issue however is the incorrect reasons why it was done…….

Described in the Manx Independent as outspoken, Brian Stowell was a main objector against the 2 above issues, which he had failed to prevent from taking place and afterwards clearly harboured a grudge, which is palpable.

The democratic process of the discussion and vote regarding the future of the courts was flawed because he should not have been involved due to his conflict of interest.

 

As Chairman, his incorrect involvement combined with his forceful and outspoken nature objecting to the continuation of the courts was certainly highly influential in their closure and he even confirmed on the radio he cast the deciding vote.

The grudge was compounded when he stated later that it was the support for these 2 issues by the squash people, which occurred years earlier, and which should have had no bearing on the current decision, which was the main reason for his objection to them keeping the courts. Please bear in mind however that he should not have been involved in the decision any event.

These issues are highly documented elsewhere by others, and I would again refer you to the quote of Edmund Burke.

QED

[ham yam]

I think we get your point, it's been well and truly rammed down our throats. You've won, the man's withdrawn from politics. Isn't it time to give it a rest?

Couldn't agree more old chap.

However, as long as the media allow a man a platform to put out inaccuracies, the democatic right of reply is of paramount importance.

[Skoots]

Very interesting but you have not answered. Why did you sell if you wanted to keep them?

[Passing Time]

Hamiltons wanted a pub licence, Stowell said if they get one they will sell the club, they got a pub and sold the club read the public minutes.

 

I did read the minutes and they are only tennants not owners.

[Skoots]

Yes tenants, with security of tenure under the business tenancies act and free to sell the ingoing as in any other business case. You will be aware that in the licencing trade public houses can be free houses, or managed houses or tenancies. Mrs Hamilton had a tenancy which she sold as part of her business. The fact they are tenants is irrelevant, any business tenant of over three years duration has the right in law to sell his business. The landlord of a business tenant can only object to the sale if the person purchasing can be deemed as unsuitable. Mrs Hamilton sold her business, the business had the tenancy agreement with Onchan Commissioners. Onchan Commissioners would not have had grounds to object to the transfer of the lease.

[Passing Time]

Yes tenants, with security of tenure under the business tenancies act and free to sell the ingoing as in any other business case. You will be aware that in the licencing trade public houses can be free houses, or managed houses or tenancies. Mrs Hamilton had a tenancy which she sold as part of her business. The fact they are tenants is irrelevant, any business tenant of over three years duration has the right in law to sell his business. The landlord of a business tenant can only object to the sale if the person purchasing can be deemed as unsuitable. Mrs Hamilton sold her business, the business had the tenancy agreement with Onchan Commissioners. Onchan Commissioners would not have had grounds to object to the transfer of the lease.

 

I understand that, I wasn't trying to provoke an argument, just clarifying that they cannot sell the building only the goodwill etc etc of the business should they wish to