b4mbi Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 30 minutes ago, Phillip Dearden said: Is that not comparing an earlier apple with a later pear? Perhaps, but we still have a lot of fruit left in the bowl. Trying to illustrate the positive overall effect the film industry since 1995 has had to treasury. Clearly they weren't very good at investing in films directly, which is where the angst is. Should public money be used to invest in films? Should public money be used to try to encourage a new industry with the potential to provide jobs and new stream of economic activity? Got be better to draw a line under it and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 37 minutes ago, b4mbi said: Perhaps, but we still have a lot of fruit left in the bowl. Trying to illustrate the positive overall effect the film industry since 1995 has had to treasury. Clearly they weren't very good at investing in films directly, which is where the angst is. Should public money be used to invest in films? Should public money be used to try to encourage a new industry with the potential to provide jobs and new stream of economic activity? Got be better to draw a line under it and move on. Reluctantly I find myself agreeing with you about the move on bit ! I say reluctantly because we have "moved on " and been "where we are" so many repeated times in the past, the only film I could associate with the isle of man would be Groundhog Day !! Government playing fast and loose with taxpayers money on the island is nothing new and the participants and outcomes being firmly hidden behind Eddies commercially confidential and other "before the FOI" etc etc continue to annoy ! One day we will have to have a "real" enquiry with consequences and until we do I fear we will continue to see taxpayers money poured down the drain ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b4mbi Posted October 11, 2018 Share Posted October 11, 2018 48 minutes ago, asitis said: Reluctantly I find myself agreeing with you about the move on bit ! I say reluctantly because we have "moved on " and been "where we are" so many repeated times in the past, the only film I could associate with the isle of man would be Groundhog Day Totally agree. But really is best to let sleeping dogs lie on this one. Don't understand what you'd hope to achieve with another enquiry, there's no possible upside and just more mudslinging after the events. The previous enquiry made lots of recommendations about internal checks and controls and hopefully at least some were implemented to reduce risk of something similar happening. It's easy to accuse people of wrongdoing with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. It didn't work out, must be someone's fault. Lock people up for making bad investment decisions? Waste of time and more taxpayers money for what? It's an investment, may go well, may not. Should the island have been investing public money in films? Probably not. Should they have tried to facilitate the growth of a new industry? Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 If it's not investigated and stupid people not identified, those same stupid people move onto making even bigger mistakes getting away with it each time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Colombe Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Albert Tatlock said: If it's not investigated and stupid people not identified, those same stupid people move onto making even bigger mistakes getting away with it each time. What a stupid post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Albert Tatlock said: If it's not investigated and stupid people not identified, those same stupid people move onto making even bigger mistakes getting away with it each time. The major flaw in your "reasoning" is that you can't prevent them from standing for re-election.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 1 hour ago, P.K. said: The major flaw in your "reasoning" is that you can't prevent them from standing for re-election.... Perhaps but if the decision has been approved/ promoted by an identified MHK then the electorate will be aware, if the decision / recommendation was made by a CS why should that remain a secret and allow them to continue to have power without responsibility ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, paswt said: Perhaps but if the decision has been approved/ promoted by an identified MHK then the electorate will be aware, if the decision / recommendation was made by a CS why should that remain a secret and allow them to continue to have power without responsibility ? The ultimate responsibility lies with the minister. Unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 8 minutes ago, P.K. said: The ultimate responsibility lies with the minister. Unfortunately. ....... and that is collective if the wheels come off !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, P.K. said: The ultimate responsibility lies with the minister. Unfortunately. Perhaps but if he/she has been misled/badly advised then would you have a problem with identifying those individuals in order , as Albert posted, that those stupid/corrupt(?) may be sacked /not be given the same level of credibility in the future ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, paswt said: Perhaps but if he/she has been misled/badly advised then would you have a problem with identifying those individuals in order , as Albert posted, that those stupid/corrupt(?) may be sacked /not be given the same level of credibility in the future ? The minister will know who they are and should act accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, P.K. said: The minister will know who they are and should act accordingly. Yeah right , that's worked well in the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, paswt said: Yeah right , that's worked well in the past Don't shoot the messenger.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightBulb Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 5 hours ago, P.K. said: The ultimate responsibility lies with the minister. Unfortunately. It didn`t effect the minister who was involved with the " TT world series", he still got re-elected, did he not ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gettafa Posted October 12, 2018 Author Share Posted October 12, 2018 On 10/11/2018 at 1:18 PM, b4mbi said: Shh… £290-£26= £264 Makes as much sense as £290+£26= £316 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.