Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with LinkedIn Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo

Charitable Trust


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Caeser

Caeser

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 03:38 PM

On page one of this weeks paper, we have our esteemed leader delling a hole at the North Ness for the £12million Mareel project, while back at the ranch, they have cut the old folks christmas bonus because there are not enough baw bees to go around....?

Maybe our pensioners could go to Mareel and keep warm with all the hot air going around there.

Or am I missing something.

#2 Caeser

Caeser

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 04:09 PM

Think there is already a Mareel thread


Its not 'Mareel' I am worried about, it is the pensioners who seem to have taken the hit?

#3 TeeAyBee

TeeAyBee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 866 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 04:15 PM

On page one of this weeks paper, we have our esteemed leader delling a hole at the North Ness for the £12million Mareel project, while back at the ranch, they have cut the old folks christmas bonus because there are not enough baw bees to go around....?

Maybe our pensioners could go to Mareel and keep warm with all the hot air going around there.

Or am I missing something.


There is no link between Mareel and the change in the bonus to the old folk. Read the article. This is about the fact that the Inland Revenue are forcing the Charitable Trust to means test their bonus or face a tax bill on behalf of those they give the bonus to.

Whether you want Mareel or not why is it always Mareel's fault if anything changes/happens/goes wrong? Get a grip.

#4 JustMe

JustMe

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3596 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 04:16 PM

On page one of this weeks paper, we have our esteemed leader delling a hole at the North Ness for the £12million Mareel project, while back at the ranch, they have cut the old folks christmas bonus because there are not enough baw bees to go around....?


Not exactly true. The Christmas bonus is being looked at as the dear old tax man has said that a bonus paid to all who now qualify is liable to be charged a lot of tax which the charitable trust will have to pay. Guess we all ought to be aware that currently all people need to do to get the bonus is to be old or disabled. Can be a millionaire and still get the bonus. Surely that is not right?.

#5 MuckleJoannie

MuckleJoannie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3228 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 09:24 PM

When the Xmas bonus was set up 30 plus years ago old folk were not in a position to benefit from the oil boom. Now anyone turning 65 has had the opportunity to earn far more money than their parents (I remember in the 1950's the job opportunities were roadman or go to sea). The present generation have also benefitted from other aspects of the oil money eg sports centres, care centres, good main roads etc.

Another problem for the Xmas bonus is demographics. People are living longer so there will be more who would qualify for the bonus.

#6 Guest_Anonymous_*

Guest_Anonymous_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 May 2009 - 09:41 PM

The only reason the pensioners of Shetland, as a whole, benefited from the Christmas Bonus, in the past, was purely down to the efforts of the late Cecil Eunson. He campaigned hard for the bonus to be paid equally to all, irregardless of status, thus taking away the stigma that some elderly people have about claiming benefits.
Now, obviously, in these hard times, savings have to be made. And perhaps this decision is the right one.

BUT!!

If anybody here has an elderly relative, who previously received this bonus, and no longer qualifies because they don't want to claim benefits,, eg. they are proud,, Shame on Shetland
:evil:
But, old people are of less importance than a music venue or a new high school....

OR ARE THEY?
:wink:

#7 ArabiaTerra

ArabiaTerra

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3015 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 10:19 PM

... But, old people are of less importance than a music venue or a new high school....

OR ARE THEY?
:wink:

But that's not what it's about, Auld Een. It's the bloody taxman who's insisting it's means tested. Whether or not it continues to be affordable is another debate entirely.

#8 Guest_Anonymous_*

Guest_Anonymous_*
  • Guests

Posted 29 May 2009 - 10:33 PM

I'm heading for bed, because of the time zone difference I don't have the staying power I used to have.
It's a pity that Ghostrider can't get into Shetlink just now or he'd be able to emphasise, in a far more eloquent way than me, the stupidity of slashing funding for the elderly, while multi millions are being wasted on white elephants.
I can fully understand, before you criticise my stance, that the tax man is causing problems. But.....
The council always manages to find ways around such problems, when it comes to throwing away money that they really want to throw away...
:wink:

#9 EM

EM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1751 posts

Posted 29 May 2009 - 11:03 PM

... to emphasise, in a far more eloquent way than me, the stupidity of slashing funding for the elderly, ...

I did once hear a very considered and convincing argument which did exactly that. You may be surprised (as I don't think you are a big fan) but this was given by Jonathan Wills during his hustings debate. Despite having a general "time to restrain spending" flavour to his manifesto, he made a clear exception for the bonus. He was wholly against cutting it and also claimed that means-testing would probably cost as much to administer as it would save. I've no idea how the new taxation information may have modified his stance.

#10 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8966 posts

Posted 31 May 2009 - 11:29 PM

In the same week as it was made known that councillors had paid themselves circa £500,000 for the last year, it rather sticks in the craw that they also pull the plug on the majority of OAP's bonus, to save themselves paying the Tax Man circa £200,000 every year. "I'm alright Jack" is alive and well in the Town Hall it seems.

Had the same people who are pocketing their own cheques, been a little more prudent and applied a little more wisdom to the Trust decisions that saw Millions vanish in to questionable investments in fish etc in the last few years, they'd still have had those to pay the Tax Man with. For the sake of around £200,00o from the Trust kitty, considering the Millions from it that have been and are thrown around like confetti, I'd say that if paying the tax Man just £200,000 p/a could keep the bonus going, it would be money well spent.Giving it to the Tax Man is not one bit worse than every £ they've ended up giving to sundry lawyers, bankers, and Accountants who've been the only profiters from the ashes of the multiple failed "ventures" the Trust has poured capital in to.

#11 Guest_Anonymous_*

Guest_Anonymous_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 June 2009 - 08:36 PM

**Mods, please move this if there is a thread which makes sense, but I haven't seen one yet**

I find it very sad that within a year of the death of Cecil Eunson, who was the great campaigner for the elderly in Shetland, and in particular the Christmas Bonus, this scheme has been curtailed on the excuse of tax.
Cecil Eunson maintained, quite rightly, that many Shetland pensioners are too proud to claim benefits.
And, agreeing with his sentiments, I cannot fail to see how withdrawing this bonus payment, from all but those registered as needy, can do anything other than place vulnerable pensioners, who don't claim benefits, in greater poverty.

Although, of course, it gives the council more money to throw away on stupidity.

Once again, shame on Shetland. :cry:

#12 MuckleJoannie

MuckleJoannie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3228 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 09:58 PM

There is a thread here where tis has already been mentioned.
http://www.shetlink....opic.php?t=8349

I mind several years ago the SIC tried to persuade needy pensioners to apply for extra benefits, as the more people on benefits the more money the SIC would get. I don't know if the same criteria apply today.

#13 oddtablet

oddtablet

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 436 posts

Posted 04 June 2009 - 09:58 PM

As you say..."it gives the council more money to throw away on stupidity."


I have to agree...how much money have the three directors of failed halibut farm had from the public purse over the years ? :(

Their businesses have done wonders for their bank balances I suspect and they always find something else for SDT to throw money at...grrrr


It is you and me who are funding them...........
:x :x :shock: :shock: :x :x
:cry:

#14 shetlander

shetlander

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 10:12 AM

**Mods, please move this if there is a thread which makes sense, but I haven't seen one yet**

I find it very sad that within a year of the death of Cecil Eunson, who was the great campaigner for the elderly in Shetland, and in particular the Christmas Bonus, this scheme has been curtailed on the excuse of tax.
Cecil Eunson maintained, quite rightly, that many Shetland pensioners are too proud to claim benefits.
And, agreeing with his sentiments, I cannot fail to see how withdrawing this bonus payment, from all but those registered as needy, can do anything other than place vulnerable pensioners, who don't claim benefits, in greater poverty.

Although, of course, it gives the council more money to throw away on stupidity.

Once again, shame on Shetland. :cry:


I'm by no means saying that poverty among the elderly doesn't exist in Shetland, but speak to an average pensioner elsewhere and see how they have it in comparison.

Yes some do, but many of them don't need the bonus. Unlike the early days, many folk now of a pensionable age have benefitted from the work and other perks it has brought about. Anybody aged 65 or over today would have been 31 or over when work started on Sullom Voe in 1975 and I daresay many are now living comfortably off pensions built up during their time of employment in the boom years.

I don't see (and I'm sure many of them will agree with me) why merely being of pensionable age should entitle folk to receive an automatic annual payout if they don't need one. And I agree that spending needs to be curtailed in other areas just as much.

#15 Guest_Anonymous_*

Guest_Anonymous_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 June 2009 - 10:52 AM

^^
You're right Shetlander, there are many who don't need it, there are many who will get it because they are already on benefits of some kind, but there are a lot of proud old folk who will not claim, and it is those people who we should be concerned about
.
It's a bit like the free school meals debate which has gone on in some areas throughout the UK. Some people don't want to display their poverty by claiming free school meals, so some kids go without. Hence some authorities opted for the free meals for all strategy.

It's always going to be an almost impossible thing to get right, but IMHO saving a few hundred thousand, compared to the millions being thrown away on hellery, just isn't right.

#16 shetlander

shetlander

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 330 posts

Posted 05 June 2009 - 01:10 PM

^^
You're right Shetlander, there are many who don't need it, there are many who will get it because they are already on benefits of some kind, but there are a lot of proud old folk who will not claim, and it is those people who we should be concerned about
.
It's a bit like the free school meals debate which has gone on in some areas throughout the UK. Some people don't want to display their poverty by claiming free school meals, so some kids go without. Hence some authorities opted for the free meals for all strategy.

It's always going to be an almost impossible thing to get right, but IMHO saving a few hundred thousand, compared to the millions being thrown away on hellery, just isn't right.


I’m not disagreeing with you – but just because it’s being peed against the wall for one thing doesn’t make it okay to continue to be peed against the wall for something else. I'm sure we both agree on where cuts need to be made elsewhere but pensioners who are better off need to show some willingness to bear the brunt just the same as everybody else.

Some pensioners may indeed be too proud to claim benefits that they may be eligible for but it’s not up to the local public purse to compensate for that. I would hope that all previous recipients would be given sufficient information by those who administer the bonus on what alternative support they may be entitled to and where they can go for advice on how to get it.

#17 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8966 posts

Posted 27 June 2018 - 01:11 AM

Is this for real? This is how the SCT describes one of the latest trustees they've appointed to freck up our money.

 

 

She is a highly accomplished professional with a vast array of experience leading national and international organisations, teams and operations.  Most recently, she was Directing Intelligence Operations for US Special Forces on the Continent of Africa.

 

https://www.shetland...wo-new-trustees

 

Two things, if true, WTF are we doing with an ex U.S. spook dabbling among our cash....

 

Secondly, isn't there some sort of State Secrets legislation someplace that stops retired spies bragging about it. Maybe someone should let Trump know before Putin makes Google his friend.



#18 George.

George.

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1055 posts

Posted 27 June 2018 - 07:11 AM

Two things, if true, WTF are we doing with an ex U.S. spook dabbling among our cash....

 

Secondly, isn't there some sort of State Secrets legislation someplace that stops retired spies bragging about it. Maybe someone should let Trump know before Putin makes Google his friend.

 

There is only one thing that Shetland is doing with a Yanky spook. It is pandering to him for no good reason.



#19 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8966 posts

Posted 27 June 2018 - 04:37 PM

^ I'm most concerned about what was going through the minds of the incestous bunch of rogues who appointed her, when they took that decision.

 

*If* she was appointed because of the person she is as an individual in her private life, then fine, no problem. I known next to nothing about her, but she seems a nice enough person on that level. However, *if*, as is their usual, she was appointed because they perceived her life experience/CV brought beneficial assets to the future management of the trust. Just what in hell are they up to that a career military spook in a foreign country is going to 'benefit' them with.


Edited by Ghostrider, 27 June 2018 - 04:38 PM.


#20 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2022 posts

Posted 27 June 2018 - 05:33 PM

Personally, I'm still more than a little p*ss*d that she was appointed rather than elected.... :cry:


  • Ghostrider and Suffererof1crankymofo like this