Jump to content

Lies, damned lies & experts


Chris Thomas

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Chris Thomas said:


 

Quote

 

Tynwald went on to retrospectively sanction the loans, which were refinanced by government when they became due for repayment - Treasury advancing funds to the MEA which then repaid Barclays.

It is that refinancing which forms a major part of the outstanding consolidated loans fund.

 

Could you explain what the bit in bold means, please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 376
  • Created
  • Last Reply
15 minutes ago, quilp said:

Great. So was Lol Skelly telling the truth about the 6 Chinese banks? It's a simple question which only requires a simple answer/explanation/retraction ...

 

The first new banking licenses were awarded in 2019, the first new ones for many years. Neither was for a Chinese entity. Please post what you think Minister Skelly said, when and where. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MrPB said:

I’ve read it thank you. It says nothing about the external debt of £95m which Treasury underwrote on behalf of the MUA subsidiary company which was loaned money by Barclays being repaid. Has it been repaid? I’m sorry to keep on asking direct questions. But you seem to suggest that we wrote off the internal MUA loan after the external back to back loan had already been settled by Treasury. So if that was the case when did Treasury repay £95m to Barclays? If you can recall of course. 

There was never £95 million of external debt. As stated in the newspaper, “there were two loans of £50m and £70m taken out with Barclays by an MEA subsidiary, the Manx Cable Company Ltd .... which Tynwald went on to retrospectively sanction the loans, which were refinanced by government when they became due for repayment - Treasury advancing funds to the MEA which then repaid Barclays. It is that refinancing which forms a major part of the outstanding consolidated loans fund.”

11 minutes ago, Rushen Spy said:


 

Could you explain what the bit in bold means, please?

MUA has CLF loan. This internally borrowed money includes money which was used to pay off external bank loans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rushen Spy said:

How would public sector pay negotiators be in a position to reference higher pay rises in private sector? They are not privy to that information. My own mum doesn't even know my salary.

Aggregated information about pay and other terms and conditions is available, as you know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Chris Thomas said:

The first new banking licenses were awarded in 2019, the first new ones for many years. Neither was for a Chinese entity. Please post what you think Minister Skelly said, when and where. 

Former Minister Shimmin: https://www.tax-news.com/news/Isle_Of_Man_Opens_Door_To_Chinese_Banks____60698.html

Former Chief Minister Bell et al: https://www.gov.im/news/2013/apr/12/chief-minister-welcomes-chinese-ambassador-to-island/

Minister Skelly: https://www.internationalinvestment.net/internationalinvestment/news/3501976/isle-adds-alternative-banking-licences-bid-lure-int’-business

Less then 5 minutes Googling time!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Your link for Skelly is the same one as Bell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Original post now corrected.

Cheers Andy Onchan, I was trawling for that myself but you were a lot quicker than me...the references I did eventually find also pertained to the return from the Chinese expedition in September 2014, with all manner of riches and agreements claimed. Obviously with IoM Newspapers having changed hands there doesn't seem to still be anything retrievable (that I can link to) regarding Mr Skelly's edict though I can clearly remember it.

@ChrisThomas: whilst you're honouring the forum, any sign yet of the 2019 FOM/MGP visitor statistics yet please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

It is not a mess. It is sorted with a financial, business and pricing plan. And the MEA failing 15 years ago was investigated with conclusions and some action for about 8 years thereafter. What is the point of going back repeatedly?

It is a mess though Chris, that should never have happened and never needed the complex accounting now in place to sort it out. We all know this has been a huge burden on our little nation.

and it is not ‘going back repeatedly’. Individuals made this happen. The investigation was unable to levy suitable sanctions because there aren’t any on our statute books. Whilst that is the position, there is no ultimate deterrent to prevent people in public office running fast and loose. If you can work so far out of your level of authority, massively damage the reputation of your country and cause it substantial financial damage, then walk away Scott free, then there is a problem. Those massive loans were “unauthorized”. Tynwald had to legalize them. We saw a similar situation with Sefton so nothing improved.

I don’t think many would disagree. Until there are clear implications and a likelihood of going to jail if you malfease in a public office, these things will continue to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's face facts here Chris, you are going to appear on this forum from time to time with "statistics". Why not just have the decency to admit the government past and present have let the voters down with their decision making and continue to do so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

With respect, the statutory annual earnings survey of 2000 + people is more reliable than your personal experience. But you are right that average earnings in private sector have been under pressure, although median earnings not so much, and some in the private sector have had static or falling wages. Thanks for your comment.

With respect, I don't think you understand peoples personal experiences is what  really counts,.not governments made up statistics.

i.e. Mr Thomas would this survey include all people whom receive benefits including pensioners from government, all governement workers including MHKs.

If so statistically this survey might not include any workers from the  private sector statistically. about a 1in 4 chance depending on which American reality

show this survey was based on.

 

Keeping Up with the Kardashians my guess.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

Aggregated information about pay and other terms and conditions is available, as you know. 

Yeh, which means it isn't indicative of sector-wide pay rises. The figures are skewed by people at the top who are seeing increases, while people on low to medium incomes have seen their salaries stagnate to the point that they do not match inflation and are therefore actually contracting in real terms. It's disingenuous to increase public sector pay based on the very top in the private sector having increases. It's not comparing like for like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

think Minister Skelly said, when and where. 

Minister Skelly????

Like all IoMan citizens, Mr Skelly is, no better, no worse than the rest of us!

What you call him in his office is of little consequence to rest of the population who are in fact, your employers.

It is particularly galling to see a person elected to the Govt. and then, the first thing that they do, is to elevate their selves above the electorate! First you give yourselves a title, Chis Thomas MHK,, this is before you have proved yourselves in your performance of that office. Then you are referred to as, Honourable or worse, Right Honourable! We will decide whether you are honourable and right. Possibly at the next election?

You are there to represent the People, you are, if you wish to create a hierarchy, the bottom, We would be the top and you, our servants!

Skelly or Mr Skelly would suffice.

In journalism, first  referring to someone by first and surname and thereafter by surname is the normal? OK Thomas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Chris Thomas said:

What is the point of going back repeatedly?

Perhaps to find and identify a guilty party?

To ensure the public  that the person who made the mistake has been identified and dealt with appropriately, fired, demoted or for an MHK, removed from all Depts and financially punished till the next election?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...