asitis Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 The Hansard for the 11th makes interesting reading, it is clear ET cannot answer a straight question about Pinewood and resorts to petty name calling of the lady members asking the questions. It is high time someone censured this arrogant buffoon and got him to answer a straight question have a read its punch and judy politics with our money ! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Agree with you,he strikes me as one of the most contemptible fuckers ever to have occupied a Tynwald membership. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I thought Teare crossed the line this time, and the Speaker should have insisted he answered the question. It's taxpayers money and we're entitled to know the answer. The commercial confidentially argument didn't wash this time, and I consider his refusal to answer was contempt of court. No better than Anderson's misleading Tynwald over the Nobles consultants letter. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) Shares have just fallen from 445p to about 406p in the last 2 weeks so I can't see any further questions will be answered too cheerfully either. I assume the planning failure has a lot to do with such a significant fall. A 9% fall on £10m is around £900,000. Edited February 12, 2014 by localyokel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I listened to Tynwald questions yesterday and Kate Beecroft spoke with clarity and conviction,whereas our Eddie's behaviour was very very evasive to be polite. A talking Eddie Teare doll could be quite fun I think and quite easy to programme the voicebox, "Commercial confidentiality,commercial confidentiality" the man is like a f*cking parrot. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I thought Teare crossed the line this time, and the Speaker should have insisted he answered the question. It's taxpayers money and we're entitled to know the answer. The commercial confidentially argument didn't wash this time, and I consider his refusal to answer was contempt of court. No better than Anderson's misleading Tynwald over the Nobles consultants letter. It's taxpayers money and we're entitled to know the answer. Here is where you'll find further evidence of Teare's absolute contempt for the taxpayer as he has previously stated that the money Govt have invested isn't actually taxpayers money at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Agreed. And the way he spoke to Mrs Beecroft was disgraceful. How on earth can we ever begin to deal with bullying in the schools and workplace when it goes unchallenged in the High Court of Tynwald. Never mind unchallenged, it seems to be actively encouraged! Spot on Rox,if the example for good manners and etiquette is so glaringly lacking from our political leaders on a very public stage then there is very little hope for the right example to filter down through the lower echelons. To quote an old saying:' A fish always rots from the head' 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 A talking Eddie Teare doll could be quite fun I think... Inaction Man. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 A talking Eddie Teare doll could be quite fun I think... Inaction Man. Mortar attack,dig in we're in a hole,keep digging. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Shares have just fallen from 445p to about 406p in the last 2 weeks so I can't see any further questions will be answered too cheerfully either. I assume the planning failure has a lot to do with such a significant fall. A 9% fall on £10m is around £900,000. This is a very illiquid asset, for the shares to be actually of value a buyer would have to be found. I hope we do not need the money anytime soon ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Agreed. And the way he spoke to Mrs Beecroft was disgraceful. How on earth can we ever begin to deal with bullying in the schools and workplace when it goes unchallenged in the High Court of Tynwald. Never mind unchallenged, it seems to be actively encouraged! Yup but only by the weak minded Gollum and other dinosaurs ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Wow, just had a read of that and he was way out of order. http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/hansard/20002020/k140211%20RHC.pdf The Minister: I just advise the Hon. Member who has resumed her seat to try and keep her370 blood pressure down, because there are lots of strains on the Health Service as it is at themoment. WTF? Can you please please make sure this arrogant, incompetent and irresponsible individual is never ever re-elected? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Wow, just had a read of that and he was way out of order. The Minister: I just advise the Hon. Member who has resumed her seat to try and keep her 370 blood pressure down, because there are lots of strains on the Health Service as it is at the moment. I did not have a problem with that. Parliaments around the world have a history of such put downs and in my opinion Beecroft would have been better to laugh it off or come back with a clever comeback. Reacting diverted from the point she was trying to make and showed Teare that he had got under her skin in the way he intended. I thought Bell describing a question as silly was worse. My issue is basically Teare not answering the question. If he really cannot the question, rather than continually using confidentiality as an excuse not to answer questions, then he should not have invested the money in the matter he has done in the first place. If films etc want the money that the IoM are putting on the table it should be a discussion that such matters are not confidential. Bell and Teare seem to either want such matters to be confidential or unable to recognise that if you put money on the table usually you are in a position to dictate the terms. They showed the same lack of understanding with regard to the Sefton deal. Where ministers claim confidentiality as a reason for not answering a question who confirms this is correct. It seems the minister just decides and that is it. I think that if a minister claims confidentiality as a reason for not answering a question he must in advance notify the speaker and show the evidence that is the case to the speaker. The speaker will then rule. With regard to the investment we seem to have an "investment" which we have to take the word of one person on. I keep thinking of the financial crime units that if "something seems to good to be true it probably is. If you then asked for details, proof etc and the guy in charge said "I cannot possibly tell you but trust me it will give you 100% returns guarantee" you would run a mile. In my mind that is how Teare is behaving. I always thought Teare would stand down at the next election. I now wonder if that will be the case as I tend to view him as one of those dodgy businessmen who whilst they were alive or around could keep all the plates spilling and keep out of public view what was really going on. Then as soon as they die or disappear the terrible truth comes out. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
censorship Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I listened to Tynwald questions yesterday and Kate Beecroft spoke with clarity and conviction,whereas our Eddie's behaviour was very very evasive to be polite. A talking Eddie Teare doll could be quite fun I think and quite easy to programme the voicebox, "Commercial confidentiality,commercial confidentiality" the man is like a f*cking parrot. I listened to him on the radio the next day, and he, more or less, answered the question. He said the value of the shares now compared with the Island's purchase price means a 'profit' of £7m, which is more than had been invested from the fund in the four films. If that is the case, why didn't he just say that to Beecroft? If he'd said, out of ther £25m fund, less then £7m has been invested in four films so far, but due to the commercial sensitivity I am not able to say how much was invested in each individual project, he might not have come across as an evasive, arrogrant prick. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I listened to him on the radio the next day, and he, more or less, answered the question. He said the value of the shares now compared with the Island's purchase price means a 'profit' of £7m, which is more than had been invested from the fund in the four films. If that is the case, why didn't he just say that to Beecroft? If he'd said, out of ther £25m fund, less then £7m has been invested in four films so far, but due to the commercial sensitivity I am not able to say how much was invested in each individual project, he might not have come across as an evasive, arrogrant prick. He more or less did say that, but he was not asked about the shares he was asked "How many films have been made since Pinewood Film Advisors became the managers of the Media Development Fund; and how much has been invested in each of the films? He was not prepared to state how much was invested in each film although he gave a total figure and from the follow ups basically said it is for me to know and you to just accept what I say. The share value though is basically purely a hypothetical figure as the IoM Govt would be very very unlikely to be able to sell at the quoted share price. For Teare to therefore to use that as a justification for loosing a load of money in the actual films is basically ridiculous. Teare either knows this and is therefore deliberately being misleading or does not have the level of knowledge he likes to pretend he has. I actually thought the question by Beecroft was very badly worded as it the questions asks how many films have been made and how much invested in each film but does not explicitly state that this relates to films the IoM has invested in. OK it is probably implied but Teare could easily have answered the question by saying, "how the hell do I know, there are probably 100s of films made each year around the world" If they want to try and tie Ministers down they need to word their questions much better and more specifically so as not to give Ministers easy get outs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.