Kopek Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) Interesting? The Information Commissioner has told the DfE that they should reveal any and all payments to Howard Q for his holiday cottages during covid? It could be considered to be a private matter but I seem to remember the Corkills payment being revealed, probably should because of HQs political position? Edited January 21, 2022 by Kopek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Very interesting. I think we all knew it was happening. https://gef.im/2022/01/21/gov-ordered-to-release-quayle-holiday-cottage-covid-support-info/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 I thought he rents them out to for people to live in. I'm sure his 'stockmans cottage' has never seen a stockman either. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Johnson Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Most holiday cottages I know the details of have been converted with IOM gov grants and are then rented out full time to residents, not one or two week rentals to tourists as they are supposed to be. Cash is king and its a very hard thing to prove if you are taking tourists or other types of guests. I even know of one holiday rental cottage that had a lot of gov money thrown at it that ended up being a DHSS rental. One iom gov dept does not talk to the other apparently. Nice money if you can get it...................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doc.fixit Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Why don't gov depts speak to each other? I've just done a form for a friend and it asks questions such as, 'what is your IOM pension?' and what investments do you have? I don't know but it seems absurd to me. All the financial depts such as tax etc should have access to each other as I would presume that the forms answers have to be checked with the various depts anyway. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omobono Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 33 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: The gov must now release the info within 30 days or find another reason not to do so. I wonder which one they will do? I think the Welsh development agency publish all the grant figures paid out on an annual basis including agricultural grants its all in the public record , and so it should be here , the public are entitled to know where their money is being spent , and transparency is good to keep people on their toes , 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numbnuts Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 1 minute ago, Omobono said: I think the Welsh development agency publish all the grant figures paid out on an annual basis including agricultural grants its all in the public record , and so it should be here , the public are entitled to know where their money is being spent , and transparency is good to keep people on their toes , Not sure most of our CS know what the word transparency really means . And that applies to MHK's etc . 7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 1 hour ago, doc.fixit said: Why don't gov depts speak to each other? I've just done a form for a friend and it asks questions such as, 'what is your IOM pension?' and what investments do you have? I don't know but it seems absurd to me. All the financial depts such as tax etc should have access to each other as I would presume that the forms answers have to be checked with the various depts anyway. Simply to avoid Big Brother. Sometimes it seems inefficient and irritating, but the aim is so that you control the information flow between departments. That is the idea, whether it actually works in people's favour or not is another debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Penfold Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 1 hour ago, x-in-man said: I'm sure his 'stockmans cottage' has never seen a stockman either. I bet you’re wrong and the stockmans seen some action 😉 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Holiday cottages are absolutely essential to the future of tourism on the Island, those 500,000 people are going to have to stay somewhere. Plus the emotional cost of giving up all those derelict traditional cowsheds for conversion. Signed Howard and Alex 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0bserver Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 Is there any reason why every single penny the Government gives away in grants shouldn't be publicly available? After all it's our money being given away. Why should anyone fortunate enough to get a grant need to keep it a secret? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 While they’re at it reveal what the Sefton and other hotels were given 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 All the agricultural/land grants. The amounts were publicly available but the recipients had to remain anonymous? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 1 hour ago, Passing Time said: While they’re at it reveal what the Sefton and other hotels were given The interesting thing about the Information Commissioner's decision, is that as far as I can see, it wasn't based on Quayle being CM at the time and would apply to any recipient, at least of this particular scheme. It's just that Quayle was the person the FoI asked about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 1 hour ago, Roger Mexico said: The interesting thing about the Information Commissioner's decision, is that as far as I can see, it wasn't based on Quayle being CM at the time and would apply to any recipient, at least of this particular scheme. It's just that Quayle was the person the FoI asked about. Ten pages to say F-All. 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.