As Isle of Man Today reported yesterday:
THE Manx public owes nearly £171 million to the Isle of Man Bank in local authority loans.
The figure — branded ‘alarmingly high' by one MHK — was revealed on the eve of the Budget and in the wake of the news that interest on all of those loans has increased by 0.25 per cent as a result of a clause in a deal between Treasury and the bank. The clause states that if the island's credit rating is downgraded — as happened in November when Standard and Poor's downgraded the Isle of Man from AAA to AA+ — then the bank can increase the interest rate on the loans.
The actual figure owed in local authority housing loans is £170,737,446.20.
The island's politicians always like to claim it has no debt: that's clearly not true. It actually owes £2,074 per head of population. OK, that's not quite the £16,500 per head of the UK. But then, nor can the Isle of Man print its own money either and it's also now running serious budget deficits of more than 11% of income - again smaller than the UK, but so it should be given that as yet it is still being heavily subsidised by us as not all the VAT subsidy has gone as yet and we're still massively subsidising the island in some ways - such as defence.
It strikes me that times are just going to get tougher in the middle of the Irish Sea.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Please could you elaborate on the ‘massive’ subsidy the UK gives the Isle of Man in terms of defence. You use words to suit in your slating of the Island. The Isle of Man is no more of a tax haven than that of the City of London which is heavily, or massively subsidised by the UK. Your continuous rants about the Isle of Man are massively incorrect and heavily flawed!!
The MOD budget is about £37bn. Toward this the IOM are directly contributing only £3 million p.a. (see article below)
UK mainland taxpayers are therefore paying approximately £593 per head (UK population 62.3 million).
IOM citizens are paying approximately £34 per head (IOM population 86,000).
If the IOM were paying pro rata (per head) then their annual payment to the UK should not be £3 million but approximately 17.5 times more than this i.e. about £53 million. The implicit subsidy is about £48 million therefore.
Richard,
Re “see article below”, you seem to have forgotten to include the link. I presume you were referring to this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-17026446
which in turn refers back to the earlier report on the UK’s spending review:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11556770
The figures you quote are all there and appear to be accurate.
Richard,
but surely you’d agree with Paul’s comments about “the City of London which is heavily, or massively subsidised by the UK.”
although not, I appreciate, for defence.
Yes, I accept that
Mr Murphy, I have explained this nonsense about the “defence subsidy” to you before. The Isle of Man is not, and never has been, part of the United Kingdom, so its residents do not pay any form of UK tax and nor do they have any representation in the UK’s Parliament. As such, we contribute nothing to the UK’s defence spending, and nor do we have any say in its defence policy.
The defence contribution of £34 per head is for the defence of the Isle of Man, should it need to call on the UK’s services in this regard; in effect, an insurance policy. The closest analogy would be to the Falkland Islands: were Ireland to invade us, we would call on the services of the UK army, navy and air force to protect us. In short, you are comparing two completely different things to produce a deliberately misleading conclusion.
Since there is no realistic possibility of anyone wishing to invade the Isle of Man, there are many people here who feel that the £34 a head we are paying is a complete waste of money in these straitened times. Similarly, many feel that we should cease our voluntary contribution to the BBC, which maintains local TV news services for the Channel Islands but has no dedicated service for us.
Ah, the old “I haven’t got kids so I don’t need to pay for education” comes out.
You really don’t get this idea of government, do you? It’s all about free riding the system for you.
A ridiculous analogy, if I may so. What has actually come out is “I live and vote in Country A so I don’t pay tax to Country B”. (Strictly speaking, not true in my case: I do have some business interests in the UK, on which I pay UK tax – so unfortunately I am to some extent subsidising the UK’s endless illegal wars.)
You really don’t get this idea of constitutional niceties, do you – that two territories can have a limited political relationship whilst remaining separate for democratic and fiscal purposes? It’s all about making up statistics on the spot then blustering pointlessly when caught out for you.
You do not live in a separate country
You’re internationally part of the UK
Deal with it
And then pay for it
No, Mr Murphy: we are not “internationally part of the UK”. We are represented in international matters by the UK, a service which we pay for. They are two very different things. Saint Helena, for example, is also represented in international matters by the UK, but I don’t think even you would argue that it is part of the UK. Respectfully, I really can’t decide whether you are struggling to grasp this important constitutional difference or are simply being rather obtuse to make a point.
I am stating a fact. You’re not.
I rather like Wikipedia on sovereign states.
It says of the UK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states
Member of the EU.[Note 4] The United Kingdom is a Commonwealth realm[Note 6] consisting of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The United Kingdom has the following overseas territories:
Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Anguilla
Bermuda
British Indian Ocean Territory (disputed by Mauritius and Seychelles)[5]
British Virgin Islands
Cayman Islands
Falkland Islands (disputed by Argentina)[5]
Gibraltar (status disputed by Spain)
Montserrat
Pitcairn Islands
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Turks and Caicos Islands
British Antarctic Territory [Note 9] (disputed by Argentina and Chile)
The British monarch has direct sovereignty over three self-governing Crown dependencies:
Guernsey, with three dependencies:
Alderney
Herm
Sark
Isle of Man
Jersey
Note you’re not a state. Just part of the UK
Now shall we stop discussing whether black is black since it is and move on?
While you constantly attack the Isle of Man for “free riding the system”, could you please take note that
1. Manx residents and Manx citizens have no access to health care in Europe, and we are not allowed to participate in the reciprocal scheme and hold an EHIC (European Health Insurance Card)
2. We are not members of the European Union, and receive none of the generous agricultural subsidies and other freebies in the EU gravy train.
3. We receive none the money spent in the UK on defence procurement, which has a huge effect on UK employment. We get none of this trickle down effect.
4. Manx resident young people going to the UK to study at university have to pay the full “overseas student” price.
5. The UK defence budget is nothing of the sort. It is a war budget, for fighting wars for which we had no opportunity to vote for or against, since we have no representation in Westminster.
I could go on . . . .
You don;t need to do so
You’re not in the EU by choice so you can try to carry on tax abusing
That’s your choice
You can change it
Who is expected to pay for the sorting out when one of those Manx Registered ships get into a spot of bother somewhere?
Excellent point
But don’t you know marines come for free?
Well, no: I can’t let this rest here, as I think the Wikipedia entry proves my case rather than yours. The significant words are “the British monarch has direct sovereignty over three self-governing Crown dependencies”. The clue is in the self-governing: we’re not a sovereign nation, but we’re not part of the United Kingdom either, and hence we don’t pay UK taxes for defence or anything else.
As for Spoon of Internet’s point: that’s the sort of thing our payment to the UK for consular protection covers.
Self governing? When you have tio ask the UK for permission to pass any law?
Please pull the other one
Yes, internally self-governing, whilst the UK retains responsibility for defence (of the island, before you suggest I’m now undermining my own argument about paying UK taxes), international relations and ultimate good governance. That’s the way it’s always been with the UK’s colonies/crown dependencies/overseas territories, none of which have been liable for UK taxation. In fact, the last time the UK tried taxing a colony that had no representation it its parliament, I recall that things got pretty ugly.
It’s the same for other countries such as Denmark, with their dependent territories. This is hardly novel stuff, and I have to suspect you’re being a little obtuse by refusing to see the clear distinction I’m drawing.
If it were down to me, I’d solve these complexities once and for all by declaring independence from the UK (perfectly legal, following a successful referendum) and directly negotiating our relationship (whatever it might be) with the EU.
Go on then, try it
And watch those reserves drain away
But do a Greece if you wish….
Reserves are draining away as we speak, as our Government cannot cure its addiction to grandiose capital projects. As for independence: I honestly don’t see it happening in my lifetime, as there is no appetite for change here. Look at our last election: the Government, which must have known that such a favourable Customs & Excise Agreement was vulnerable in the case of a UK recession, simply went on spending instead of saving, and even now doesn’t seem to be acknowledging the gravity of the situation.
So as I’ve always said you’re heading for going bust
And you can do that because as you know the UK has to bale you out
That’s because you’re part of the UK – as the NAO recognised in 2007
Well, no. We don’t have to go bust. We just have to stop spending on capital projects like Imelda Marcos in Shoe City. (The latest proposal is £750,000 for a new diesel shunter for our loss-making steam railway.) If we cured our addiction to spending and made a few judicious tax increases, this could be sorted out.
As for being part of the UK: I think we’re covering old territory here. We are regarded as though we were part of the UK for certain international purposes, but we are notwithstanding not part of the UK for democratic or fiscal purposes. As already stated, I’d sever the link entirely and take our chances.
Bit of a quiet day for you murph? Why don’t you go and spend some time with your family instead of whining on about £34 a head? No one has attacked the IOM for over a thousand years. And I still see the British army recruitment officers hanging around our schools like child catchers so that they can send our kids off to fight their battles. That’s contribution enough. You really might win far more respect from people if you’re work was not peppered with such nonsense so regularly.
I think the evidence that my work is respected is clear
Your crisis was caused by my exposé of your VAT subsidy
Do you need more evidence than that? You may not like it – but my campaign to prevent your island’s deliberate abuse of the UK has had real results, and will continue to do so
Your impact on the Isle of Man has been zero: are you really suggesting that the UK Treasury was unable to realise that, in straitened times, the Isle of Man was enjoying excessively generous payments under the old Customs & Excise Agreement?
I have no idea how to put this without falling foul of your moderation policy, but to use a phrase current in popular culture, your blog, which used to be interesting, has really “jumped the shark” for me. I’m not sure precisely when it happened: possibly when you interpreted a joke as a death threat or compared yourself to the victims of the Norwegian massacre or published a nine-year-old’s treatise on the future of the NHS. Whichever, it’s your credibility that has suffered. Even my friends in the Premier Shareholders’ Group now consider you a joke and want nothing to do with you or your column.
The reality was they didn’t realise the VAT abuse was of the scale it was until I pointed it out.
Just as they didn’t realise the tax gap in the Uk was an issue until I raised it.
And the EU did not take action on zero / ten until I challenged it.
And I could go on and on.
Which is exactly why this blog remains the #1 economics blog in the UK. So much for your claim!
And the death threat was no joke; the Norwegian massacre claim is so massively distorted by you it’s untrue and as for Thomas’ blog – I’m proud of what he wrote – and it was incredibly well read.
And I note you undermine your own claim as you think it worth commenting here – and still read the site
The problem is all yours in that case. To coin a phrase, deal with it.
Yes, I still read your blog, although not as regularly as I once did. But that doesn’t alter the fact that I think its quality has declined drastically, which has nothing to do with any differences between our political viewpoints.
So when was the golden era?
When I was proving the abuse of the Isle of Man?
The “golden era” was when you were writing about international taxation issues, a subject on which I find you interesting, and not publishing what I can only describe as bizarre frippery (children’s political views, paranoid musings about being an assassination target, comments about the Chancellor of the Exchequer having used a swearword, posts making obvious points such as tax paying for healthcare, etc.).
Well maybe UK politics is not your bag
But my readership has doubled since I added it to the stuff on tax
Which is all still there
UK politics is my bag. I just don’t think you write very well or convincingly on it, and are much more readable and rational on stuff closer to your core theme of taxation. You know, the stuff you exclusively used to write about in the early days of this blog before you started to see yourself as a political pundit for hire?
That’s because you don’t like what I write
Odd how the right think I have no credibility on such issues and the left do
It’s really rather narrow minded not to appreciate that
I don’t particularly like a lot of what you write about international taxation, but it’s still interesting and often well-argued. I couldn’t say that for much of your broader political coverage. Yes, of course the Left think you have credibility – you’re saying whatever they agree with. In some cases (such as arguing for greater HMRC recruitment while being funded by that body’s main union) you’re basically arguing as a paid blogger, which further diminishes your credibility for me.
“Nobody has invaded the IOM for a thousand years”
Well in fact it could be argued that indirectly they have been or were under threat in living memory. During the course of WWII the UK was under attack and therefore the channel islands (crown dependencies) were occupied from 1940 to 1945, these included Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney and Sark. Were it not for the efforts, losses and costs to the allied forces and naturally the UK government’s treasury these Islands and most probably the IoM would now be speaking German.
Fighting wars to protect the home nations, dependencies and others has not always been done on the doorstep, more often than not it is further afield. The ramifications of losing the ‘cold war’ up until the 80’s, were and continue to be ‘fought’ at great financial cost including nuclear and ICBM capabilities. These deterrents come at vast cost and include under their umbrella the safety of the IOM.
The Falklands just 30 years ago directly benefited from UK intervention to remove Argentine military occupation and once again it is receiving increased assistance from the UK, hopefully in this case to avoid any conflict by an early show of military protection and intent.
It seems to me that it is only right and proper that the likes of the IoM, the Channel Islands and yes, the Falklands should be paying per head exactly what UK mainland taxpayers are paying to defend themselves and others in their dependencies. The cost [UK defence budget] is in the region of £600 per head of population per year. The £34 per head per year paid by the IoM is not even a token gesture given that this annual £3 million payment/token gesture also allows for the free use of all the UK Consular and embassy services around the world.
To me, the word indefensible comes to mind in relation to the IoM’s ‘contribution’.
There is a lot of hidden borrowing of which the Manx Government does not want the public to realise. Having 24 local authorities for a population of 85,000 seems to have been a convenient way of hiding extensive borrowing until now.
On the defence issue, I’m not sure it can be viewed in such a simplified manner. As I’m sure the Falkland Islands’ government does not pay £300 million or more that the Ministry of Defence spends to protect 3000 people. I assume you would apply the same thinking to them?
I would expect the 3,000 Falkland Islanders to pay just about £600 per head of population. A total of about £1.8 million.
The unfortunate additional costs of protecting the Island at these times will therefore be taken from the entire MOD budget.
Further to my last post. I am what you might want to call a middle class professional working in a front line service on the island. I read your work because it affords me a point of view. I might eve n agree with some of it. I want the world to be fair for us all and who doesnt ? The trouble arises when your writing is unconstructive or betrays a deep seated insecurity in its self congratulatory tone and in the way you attack anyone who offers a different point of view once its been through ‘moderation’. Even more so when you start getting involved in minutia like £34 a head for defence here. Maybe it’s in the uk’ s interests to defend the place in any case. It would make a fantastic Chinese/Russian or Korean military base.
I am 40 years old. I grew up with the way this place is run. I had no part in the economic policy of the 1980s which as I understand it suited the uk govt at the time. The govt that the Manx did not elect. Even you term it as a branch office. We are British people and yet you seem determined to see ordinary families here on the bread line because nobody took mr murphys plan b seriously for whatever reason. I’ll pay more income tax here when the time comes. That’s fine. I’ll agree that financial systems should not be abused to the detriment of developing nations. But your interest should be closer to home. At head office. And don’t go blaming the Tories. I think it was our chief minister tony brown who said that tony understood the importance of the crown dependencies. Tony Blair. The greatest labour leader of our time. Apparently.
You may have noticed I spend a lot of time addressing issues at home.
But whilst the IoM abuses the UK it remains firmly on y agenda
So I suggest you start campaigning for it to stop doing so.
And self congratulatory – no merely stating facts when others dispute them. That’s all.
As for the £34 – another fact that’s right. You don’t pay. You do benefit. So you’re subsidised. Fact.
Would you like to keep to them because as far as I can see you’re seeking to divert attention from your islands abuse that I presume suits you all too well in that case.
Sorry Richard I don’t understand your last paragraph.
I’m not sure you can presume what suits me at all. How do we benefit from defence payments? Are you suggesting that if the IOM defaulted on its defense payment that the uk govt would allow a foreign military occupation at the heart of the British Isles? Great. Here we are. Is Douglas harbour large enough for Chinese aircraft carriers though I wonder. You are a card!
As far as I can see we contribute albeit very little in financial terms to a government that has in my opinion wasted 20 bn on conflicts that have benefitted nobody at all except to furnish Mr Blair with after dinner speech material. That is abuse for you.
And if you had read my post then you will have seen that I have stated that I don’t agree with financial abuse. keep up Dicky!
You are seeking to free ride on the back of the UK taxpayer – that was my point – and it is clear that is exactly what you intend since you assume your will be defended at no real cost to yourselves.
In which case my presumption was completely correct.
I assure you, I kept up. I was just a little ahead of you, that’s all.
Richard, let me approach this from a different perspective. Defence is a service like no other. The Isle of Man has not been attacked or invaded for 1000 years but regardless contributes £3m per year ‘just in case’. We have no military personnel based in the Isle of Man and there is obviously a judgement call that we have no significant infrastructure that may be subject to attack. Let me take the example of Sellafield – the UK has a need to protect this facility and a cost associated with it – the Isle of Man derives no benefit from this and pays to produce it’s own power, why should the Isle of Man subsidise the British citizens for this? I can only presume the the 3,000 residents of the Falklands Islands are paying through the nose for their defence by the UK Government?
I suspect all you have sais is true of the Mull of Kintyre too.
But they don’t free ride as a tax haven.
You do.
But the Mull of Kintyre has a different constitutional relationship. This simply isn’t one size fits all and the argument here is not whether or not the island is a ‘tax haven’, it’s whether it should contribute to UK defence costs. You’ve thrown a ‘quasi insult’ at me that is irrelevant.
VAT subsidy yes, defence subsidy no.
Canada derives an indirect benefit from the fact that the USA spends so much on defence and no doubt the USA wouldn’t like to see Russia or China occupying a country on it’s doorstep. Because of this indirect benefit should Canada chip in a bit to the US defence program?
Canada is not a US dependency.
I hope you stick to facts with your students.
You are a dependency and for defence purposes wholly part of the UK.
Note what happened in WW2.
“minutia like £34 a head for defence here”
You may well think of it as “minutia” however, when those on the UK mainland are paying almost £600 per head it does look like UK taxpayers are subsidising your defence contribution to the tune of about £566 for every man, woman and child on the island. A substantial subsidy and far from a minute or trivial detail.
Well,as neither the Romans or the Normans attacked the IOM,and it still does not seem highly strategically important in todays power struggles-I`d say that £34 per head is a gross overspend!
Additionally tho,I suspect the folk on the IOM would be more inclined to cough up more for just the actual defence of the British Isles,rather than the power posturings and overseas military actions of successive UK Governments still trying to pose as a world power-and wasting, by Parliaments own admissions,billions in the “defence” procurement process.
I can’t believe you are taken in by the sensationalist tabloid journalism that seems to have spread into the manx press of late.
Yes the local authorities on collectively owe £171m, but there is nothing wrong or hidden about borrowing for capital schemes such as social housing, civic buildings, etc. As for claims about the borrowing being secret, all applications for borrowing have to be advertised in the public notices in the local press.
And as for your blog, I love reading it, sometimes you’re wrong, sometimes you’re barking mad, but then on other times, you hit the nail right on the head!
Hang on – taken in? What’s ‘taken in’ about addressing a fact and pointing it out?
The IoM frequently says it has no borrowings.
I am simply pointing out to a wider audience that as has so often been the case it is lying.
That is called hitting the nail on the head
Richard
To add to your original topic regarding Isle of Man debt (and their claims to have no debt), there is of course another large debt that the Manxsters have had hung around their necks since 2005 and ongoing. This is the debt incurred due to the loan scandal of £120 million for the MEA [Manx Electrical Authority].
So – The Isle of Man claim to be debt free but actually owe £291 million.
The ‘unauthorised’ loans [Tynwald were not informed of the loans being taken out] were for £120 million and are still owed to Barclays Bank.
http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/bailing_out_the_mea_1_1738468
These unauthorised loans are of course being paid for directly or indirectly by IOM taxpayers:
The MEA “took out two extra loans totalling £120m, without the approval of the Isle of Man government. The state-owned MEA has been left with a debt equal to £4,000 for each of the Isle’s 78,000 residents.
The MEA’s board has resigned, there has been a threat that electricity bills could rise by 60% and politicians on the island are desperately trying to deal with the fallout from the project.
In the short term, the Isle faces having to find an extra £17m from public finances each year. Its Treasury has admitted the debacle will have a severe impact on public spending for the next decade.”
http://money.guardian.co.uk/businessnews/story/0,1265,-1517685,00.html
At the heart of this ongoing scandal and the various subsequent enquiries was the Teflon coated Allan Bell ex Treasury Minister at the time and now Chief Minister.
Richard, as a genuine point of interest do you have links to anywhere where the Isle of Man claims to have no debt? I am surprised it would be stated as we clearly have two bonds which are listed on Bloomberg and we have an S&P rating – why have a rating if you have no debt?
I have certainly seen it reported that Bell et al being reported saying it
“why have a rating if you have no debt?”
After the S & P downgrade, Allan Bell is reported as saying:
“We have used the AAA rating as a marketing tool, as have a number of other countries. ”
Clear enough, no?!
As for having no debt, maybe it depends what you mean by that?
What Mr Bell apparently said on that same occasion was ” Government has no external borrowing so [the downgrade] won’t affect any borrowing matter.”
http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/we_re_not_any_poorer_than_before_says_bell_1_3969354
Many thanks
Thanks Anrigaut. I must have missed this but it astounds me somewhat. I have requoted the extract below and unfortunately it shows that our chief minister is naive at best, in that we obviously would have obtained an S&P rating so that we could make a public issue of bonds. Thus we do have debt and if our credit rating drops we will therefore have to pay a higher cost on rollover (because I can’t see how we can afford to repay the bonds!!!). Also he is further undermined by our local authority spending!!!
But Mr Bell said: ‘Government has no external borrowing so it won’t affect any borrowing matter.’
He said: ‘We have used the AAA rating as a marketing tool, as have a number of other countries.
Manxboy: I don’t think your chief minister is naive …
Angrinaut, as I said, naive at best. Unfortunately I don’t think he’s a liar either, he’s just uninformed and doesn’t understand finances, which I think is actually more dangerous….
Richard I am not ‘seeking’ to do anything. I’m intrigued as to what you would have us do. As I said, I work in front line services and I pay whatever tax I’m asked to pay. Your government set up this system for its own ends. Even during over a decade of labour govt, Blair compounded the arrangement. Then when it suddenly doesn’t suit your government any longer, the arrangement is withdrawn and ordinary people suffer. And even then you want ordinary people to suffer some more. And some more. Instead of carping on about the symptoms of a system just because it’s an easy target, you should be addressing the system itself. And I know that you do. But what I’m saying is that there is a hypocrisy here that doesn’t do you any good. You say you are campaigning for tax ‘justice’ a phrase which alludes to certain core values. And yet you relish in the misfortune of ordinary people. Strange.
The answer is simple
Pay tax at proper rates
And stop being a tax haven
Implement ‘Plan B’
Then you can complain
Right now you can’t because you aren’t paying and want support to continue as a tax haven
The demand is simple. Why is it so hard for you to understand it? In a few words it is:
– stop being a tax haven
– behave like a responsible jurisdiction
And why is it so hard for you to understand that you are telling a school teacher to stop being a tax haven?! For Gods sake. Again and again you miss the point and then constantly patronise your contributers by insisting that it is they whom are missing the point! I teach. My wife teaches. My mother is an nurse. My mate is a builder. My father sells insurance. How much tax do you want me to pay so that we can all be educated, nursed and kept warm and dry? Ok there it is. Take it. No argument.
I contribute. I work with young people, i abide by the law and i have said that i will pay whatever tax is required. And you reply by telling me to be more responsible. You carp on like there are 80,000 millionaires sitting here defending a financial system created by a British Goverment. The millionaires are all in London. I have no political option. I would be happy for the British Goverment to offer me one. If as you say, the government here is a puppet, then end it. Give me an alternative party system in line with the uk and give me representation in parliament. I’ll pay the tax if that’s what you want.
The British government created the tax haven to suit their own ends, not the Manx. It is they who have to end it and start being ‘responsible’. We just live here by birth and we teach, we nurse, we build and we sell.
Now do you understand what I’m saying here or are you still so far ahead of me that you have no chance of following?
You must be a lousy teacher.
Somehow I was meant to know based on you saying you worked on the front line?
I hope your lessons are a little clearer than that. Because right now I have to say I feel very sorry for your students. You’re reasoning is appalling.
Richard why are you now resorting to personal insults now? Very disappointing. To publicly question my professional standards. Rather low.
Not at all
You said I should have worked out you were a teacher
It would have been impossible to do so form the information given
You laid the elephant trap and walked right into it
Now stop wasting my time