Sock Puppet 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I am trying to find a "listen again" link for the emergency Tynwald debate that Alf Cannan requested and which took place later yesterday. I can only find the Handsard dealing with Shimmin's statement, the CM's Statement and the initial questions flowing from the CM's Statement - I can't find the later special debate. There are a couple of links on the Tynwald website but they only seem to be snapshots of the debate that took place which went on for ages but I only caught a bit of. Is there any way of listening to the full special debate and can anyone help me with this? Thanks PI This should get you there Princess http://www.tynwald.org.im/business/listen/again/Pages/default.aspx?&s=Listen&k=17%2F06%2F2014%20sefton&r= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubbiali Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 If integrity ruled, the resignation would have been offered and accepted. And if Teare will not accept it Shimmin should not withdraw it. Just ask Cretney. The whole set up is a shambles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IOMRS97 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 The Isle of Man is supposedly concerned with the image it project on the world stage. Perhaps those in power should ask themselves what sort of an impression this apparent ineptitude and lack of accountability gives to anyone thinking of investing in the Island? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 The Isle of Man is supposedly concerned with the image it project on the world stage. Perhaps those in power should ask themselves what sort of an impression this apparent ineptitude and lack of accountability gives to anyone thinking of investing in the Island? Not exactly World News though is it...? If Shimmin had any honour he'd resign, full stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hagar the horrible Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 The Isle of Man is supposedly concerned with the image it project on the world stage. Perhaps those in power should ask themselves what sort of an impression this apparent ineptitude and lack of accountability gives to anyone thinking of investing in the Island? The impression they probably get is that they can come over here borrow? a stack of government our cash set up a business, get away with any contraversial planning application and other regulations, get cheap foreign labour, bleed the business dry and/or go bankrupt and leave local suppliers etc as creditors/losers and then get a bailout with even more government taxpayers money. What have I missed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Bell, Teare and Shimmin have collectively brought the IoM Government into disrepute. If they carry on at this rate without censure, the Queen (Elizabeth II) may ask the Lieutenant Governor to take sole charge on her behalf. All three should go, now! TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 The Isle of Man is supposedly concerned with the image it project on the world stage. Perhaps those in power should ask themselves what sort of an impression this apparent ineptitude and lack of accountability gives to anyone thinking of investing in the Island? The impression they probably get is that they can come over here borrow? a stack of government our cash set up a business, get away with any contraversial planning application and other regulations, get cheap foreign labour, bleed the business dry and/or go bankrupt and leave local suppliers etc as creditors/losers and then get a bailout with even more government taxpayers money. What have I missed? Relocation support? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Bell, Teare and Shimmin have collectively brought the IoM Government into disrepute. If they carry on at this rate without censure, the Queen (Elizabeth II) may ask the Lieutenant Governor to take sole charge on her behalf. All three should go, now! TBT. Who''ll advise Queeny-poo's of this affair...? Anyway, there IS a big difference between illegality and unlawful. It'll all blow over, they know this, they've been here before. Even Bell's conduct over Mount Murray went without really a whisper from the population and look where he is now. Someone said earlier that people get the government they deserve. The apathetic, acquiescent-passivity of the electorate proves this to be the case, here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Teare & Bell can't accept Shimmin's resignation straight away, they need him to take the flack first. Get rid of him yesterday and they become the focus, keep him dangling and he's the target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Its just a one off....I mean its not like the Govt has been involved in any other dubious loan deals in the past now is it...... You may post here in jest. During yesterday's emergency debate Shimmin did actually say in defence that these sort of dealings weren't unusual for his Dept and they had been involved in a number of other actions similar to the Sefton one. This brought several comments, from other members, along the lines of 'I/we sincerely hope that hasn't been the case' and 'we hope his Dept haven't been involved in similar actions' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beelzebub3 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 The whole lot are a shower of hypocrites, would not trust this shower of shite as far as I could throw them! If they said said it was night I would look out the the window and check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 There will be a bit of huffin and puffin but as everyone said, it'll blow over and it'll soon be business as usual. The reason being that as much as they all play schoolground party politics this little cosy system offers them all a cushy lifestyle, one which they'd never otherwise get near. I liken it all to the mafia, who argue over bits of turf but all ultimately get a slice of the pie. However if anything/anyone ever came along to threaten the whole pie they'd all join forces to keep the game going. Our lot of parasites are just the same but on a micro scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebean Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Big difference between acting illegally and being ultra vires. The latter just means that DED gave a loan that it was not within their power to give. It is quite different from an illegal act, such as theft of vodka from Tesco. The questions here should be "was the loan the wrong thing to do?" "Did the loan lose any public money and did it achieve it's objective?" and most importantly, "was the loan given for the wrong reasons, for example as a corrupt gift?" There is nothing in the legal advice that indicates anything other than the loan was probably ultra vires. It is a legal opinion, not proof. Until,the other questions are answered or proven I am not seeing anything that makes resignation absolutely necessary, yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 That's bobbins. Tynwald is the highest court in the land and the government are entrusted with public monies. The loaning of millions of pounds to the Sefton Group, through the back door, was an abuse of powers, and a contempt of Tynwald. That's as illegal as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Big difference between acting illegally and being ultra vires. The latter just means that DED gave a loan that it was not within their power to give. It is quite different from an illegal act, such as theft of vodka from Tesco. The questions here should be "was the loan the wrong thing to do?" "Did the loan lose any public money and did it achieve it's objective?" and most importantly, "was the loan given for the wrong reasons, for example as a corrupt gift?" There is nothing in the legal advice that indicates anything other than the loan was probably ultra vires. It is a legal opinion, not proof. Until,the other questions are answered or proven I am not seeing anything that makes resignation absolutely necessary, yet. Semantics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.