HQ FoI !

[2112]

51 minutes ago, Manx Bean said:

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?

You would hope that in time, that ex CM Quayle hasn’t done anything illegal, as any conviction would mean that he runs the risk of having to hand back his CBE. 

[Omobono]

1 hour ago, 2112 said:

You would hope that in time, that ex CM Quayle hasn’t done anything illegal, as any conviction would mean that he runs the risk of having to hand back his CBE. 

I hope the covid support grants are subject to the properties  being empty ,and unavailable for let , 

there are many tourist  cottages that due to the housing shortage have been fully occupied for years  there has to be fairness in the system ,but Mr Quayle did have a pecuniary interest in the properties ,and once the emergency funding was granted I would have thought it should be disclosed in the register of  Tynwald  members interest  ,

even though he is no longer an active farmer , I would think that there have been substantial   agricultural grants paid there as well , 

the whole thing wants looking at properly ,

[A fool and his money.....]

2 hours ago, 2112 said:

You would hope that in time, that ex CM Quayle hasn’t done anything illegal, as any conviction would mean that he runs the risk of having to hand back his CBE. 

It says a lot about where we are as a society if we're happy as long as our leaders haven't done anything illegal.

As has been mentioned, many people did without Government support during Covid, it doesn't really show much leadership that HQ feathered his own nest using government support at that time. It's not as if he were on the bones of his ass is it?

 

[SleepyJoe]

Empty holiday cottages have few operating costs

[code99]

33 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said:

It says a lot about where we are as a society if we're happy as long as our leaders haven't done anything illegal.

As has been mentioned, many people did without Government support during Covid, it doesn't really show much leadership that HQ feathered his own nest using government support at that time. It's not as if he were on the bones of his ass is it?

 

Agreed.

Of course he complied with the rules; but not necessarily because his government made those rules; more likely because he would have acted on legal advice. Has he also been successfully applying for (farmers) grants for years?

What is interesting is the rationale behind the Covid rules, e.g., the mandatory self-isolation for patients seeking off-Island medical treatment and procedures. Anecdotally, many owners of short-term accommodation, who ‘operated’ under similar rules, have been boasting that Covid has been a ‘lucrative trade’ for them. And let’s not forget that the market values of those properties almost certainly rose sharply because of the Covid induced surge in MANX property prices.

For me, with current and former politicians, especially wealthy ones, the optics of these types of ‘requests’ matter as much as what they actually receive. When rich people have the gall to ask for public handouts, even if it is perfectly legal, they are effectively saying that at the time of an unprecedented national crisis what is most important to them is to preserve their own wealth. And that they are not prepared to suffer any financial losses in ‘solidarity’ with many ordinary people who don’t have the luxury of having fat bank accounts and valuable properties. As a result, some ordinary people feel alienated and disaffected by these types of actions. A wealth and entitlement chasm of this type is never good for a healthy democracy.

[2112]

9 minutes ago, SleepyJoe said:

Empty holiday cottages have few operating costs

Let’s get things straight. A lot of providers aren’t operating as ‘holiday cottages’ per se. Some are providing ‘shorter term’ accommodation to people coming up the island to live - stop gap before getting longer term accommodation - private rental or purchase. The true holiday cottages have long gone. It wouldn’t surprise me if IOMG are using ‘holiday cottages’ providers with an income by housing their top civil servants relocating to the island as a temporary roof over their head. 

[The Old Git]

9 minutes ago, 2112 said:

Let’s get things straight. A lot of providers aren’t operating as ‘holiday cottages’ per se. Some are providing ‘shorter term’ accommodation to people coming up the island to live - stop gap before getting longer term accommodation - private rental or purchase. The true holiday cottages have long gone. It wouldn’t surprise me if IOMG are using ‘holiday cottages’ providers with an income by housing their top civil servants relocating to the island as a temporary roof over their head. 

A bit like Richard Corkill, allegedly?

Sorry, I meant Ned 

[0bserver]

4 hours ago, Manx Bean said:

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?

I wouldn't be surprised by his morals. This was the CM who was responsible for exiling Island residents around the world and preventing them returning to their own homes. 

[hissingsid]

He was entitled to the payment as much as the other people who claimed.   Why anyone would want to do an FOI on the payment is beyond reason.  So much jealousy and Manx crab attitude about .

[cissolt]

I wonder how much the sefton was paid out of the scheme?  Figures tend to become hazy when anyone enquires about the sefton. Wasn't the head of DfE a sefton director?

[Barlow]

dot dot

Edited January 25, 2022 by Barlow

[Gladys]

39 minutes ago, Barlow said:

It was made clear by the Government that the payments were for businesses struggling, and application shouldn't be seen as automatic. ICBA to look through all the announcements for the exact phrase, but it was made clear that businesses shouldn't claim unless they really needed to.
People working for Government getting their gold-plate guaranteed salary and who own a business could hardly be struggling.

Am I jealous? Up to a point, probably. Manx crab attitude? Probably that too. It doesn't change the situation and the spirit in which the money was made available.

We're Isle of Man, not UK.

We don't know what the pressures were on the business, nor how many employees there were that needed to be paid.   

As I keep on saying, I am no apologist for HQ, in fact my opinion of him is quite low.  But that is an opinion formed on what I have seen of his performance as CM.  I do not know anything about the business to form an opinion as to whether the support should have been claimed or not.

Was it a misjudgement to claim? Possibly.  Did he need to? Who knows. 

[Gladys]

2 hours ago, SleepyJoe said:

Empty holiday cottages have few operating costs

Except rates, maintenance, staff costs (or should they be laid off?), financing costs (we don't know if there was bank borrowing that needed servicing, if not serviced there may have been a default and repossession.) 

[Dunroamin]

All I can say is I emailed the company’s website seeking information on pricing and availability and after nearly four weeks - nothing, nada, zilch! Why should it get taxpayers money when they are not interested in repeat business of up to 30 days a year?

Mind you, I am still looking for a website where you can find availability of most Accomodation for let! All I have found so far is that you have to go through every property and enter the dates you want (which may give you options but most just say no availability) or you have to email/telephone them! 

[Andy Onchan]

18 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?

Was he open for business (ie. taking rent money from the tenant) as well as claiming from DfE??