HQ FoI !

[TheTeapot]

What an arsehole.

Made it illegal for me (and thousands of others) to go to work and offered £200 a week.

[Gladys]

Not a fan of HQ, but I cannot see what the fuss is.  He has declared interests which include holiday cottages and may have been in receipt of support that was available to other similar businesses.  

LL has also posted that the business did not rip the arse out of customers who had to use the cottages to isolate. 

Is the argument that his business shouldn't have been given the support or that he played the system?  Who knows what financing was in place (just because you own property does not mean that you have liquidity), who else was dependant on the business for their livelihoods or who was taking the day to day decisions?

Did his business receive preferential treatment?

[Boris Johnson]

One of the conditions of Covid support was that you agreed to the amount of money you got from gov being made public. You had to sign this as part of the agreement to receive support.

In the interests of fairness they should publish the names of all businesses that got money and how much.

 

[Gladys]

8 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said:

One of the conditions of Covid support was that you agreed to the amount of money you got from gov being made public. You had to sign this as part of the agreement to receive support.

In the interests of fairness they should publish the names of all businesses that got money and how much.

 

Well, quite. Was this not a condition of the support to HQ's business? 

The smelly bit in this is how the FOI was handled, perhaps some training is needed. 

[TheTeapot]

My problem with it is because they treated normal people like shit.

 

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, TheTeapot said:

My problem with it is because they treated normal people like shit.

 

Yes, but that is a different issue to the FOI. 

[Boris Johnson]

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Well, quite. Was this not a condition of the support to HQ's business? 

The smelly bit in this is how the FOI was handled, perhaps some training is needed. 

I am not in the same sector but the document read to me that it would apply to all sectors that got help

[TheTeapot]

3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Yes, but that is a different issue to the FOI. 

I know I know.

A question that could be aimed at some of those who claimed from support schemes is whether they lost actual money or lost projected money. 

We all know that right across Britain people and firms have taken full advantage of support schemes, and many of those could well have afforded not to access them, and frankly they should have to give it back.

[Gladys]

8 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

I know I know.

A question that could be aimed at some of those who claimed from support schemes is whether they lost actual money or lost projected money. 

We all know that right across Britain people and firms have taken full advantage of support schemes, and many of those could well have afforded not to access them, and frankly they should have to give it back.

To a degree you are right.  Many businesses in receipt did repay in Britain ( I am thinking of the support given to the retail sector).  We could have a debate about the integrity of claiming, but we need more info.

Like I say, no fan of HQ, but also not a fan of 2 + 2 =5, so he must be guilty.

[TheTeapot]

1 minute ago, Gladys said:

To a degree you are right.  Many businesses in receipt did repay in Britain ( I am thinking of the support given to the retail sector).  We could have a debate about the integrity of claiming, but we need more info.

Like I say, no fan of HQ, but also not a fan of 2 + 2 =5, so he must be guilty.

I have no doubt he stayed within the rules.

[Manx Resident]

I find it interesting that in his comments Mr Quayle said that he excused himself from CoMIN meetings when support for accommodation was under discussion and that this is shown in Minutes. Weren’t the PAC and various politicians knocked back on several occasions because Minutes relating to discussions about Covid weren’t supposedly available?.

[Manx Bean]

It could well be that the ex Fat Controller did nothing illegal, and did it by the book. However, and this is the rub..you are talking about a man who was the Chief Minister of the Isle of Man, a man who is incredibly wealthy in his own right holding his hand out for tax payers cash in a time when there were businesses and individuals who were literally struggling to eat. As for being a co-owner of his business - I think you may find the other owner is none other than Mrs Quayle.

Would he not have been a much bigger man (Ok, perhaps not the right word) if he had chosen not to apply, despite technically being able to? 

This is something quite disingenuous about his admission - and lets not forget he is quite good at making piss taking look almost acceptable - trip to New Zealand anyone?

[Will Halsall]

11 hours ago, Gladys said:

Not a fan of HQ, but I cannot see what the fuss is.  He has declared interests which include holiday cottages and may have been in receipt of support that was available to other similar businesses.  

LL has also posted that the business did not rip the arse out of customers who had to use the cottages to isolate. 

Is the argument that his business shouldn't have been given the support or that he played the system?  Who knows what financing was in place (just because you own property does not mean that you have liquidity), who else was dependant on the business for their livelihoods or who was taking the day to day decisions?

Did his business receive preferential treatment?

Gladys,

My issue is that the DfE refused to play ball and reveal the information requested in the FOI, resulting in the Information Commissioner ordering the DfE to release the info, then concluding: The DfE ‘demonstrated a blasé approach to complying with its statutory regulations’ and ‘acted contrary to the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act’.

I don't think it looks good either that HQ was the stand in DfE Minister when the request was refused by his department. I totally get that there will/should be procedures in place for the CS to deal with the request without being influenced by their minister, but in this instance it could be perceived that the FOI was refused out of blind loyalty to the minister?

[Gladys]

10 minutes ago, Will Halsall said:

Gladys,

My issue is that the DfE refused to play ball and reveal the information requested in the FOI, resulting in the Information Commissioner ordering the DfE to release the info, then concluding: The DfE ‘demonstrated a blasé approach to complying with its statutory regulations’ and ‘acted contrary to the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act’.

I don't think it looks good either that HQ was the stand in DfE Minister when the request was refused by his department. I totally get that there will/should be procedures in place for the CS to deal with the request without being influenced by their minister, but in this instance it could be perceived that the FOI was refused out of blind loyalty to the minister?

I think a later post alluded to the same point about the handling of the FOI request but I was being kind about there possibly being a need for training.

@manxbeanyou could argue that HQ took the piss. Despite being galling, we don't know the business circumstances, he has said he did follow the rules including absenting himself during votes and he is out of public life now.   That it not to say he is beyond reproach.  The greater concern is Will Halsall's point about the process for FOI requests. 

[Holte End]

11 hours ago, TheTeapot said:

My problem with it is because they treated normal people like shit.

 

My issue with it is because they wouldn't give self employed people payments if they were behind with their NI. But in the building industry it has become standard pratice to wait till the end of year because of the CIS twenty percent deduction. So many self employed people went without for three weeks. So those who set the rules, benefit from the rules.