All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Yesterday
  2. Good Morning PK. Well I lived through most of that time, travelled widely and I don't remember a general clamouring for, or people marching in the streets carrying banners supporting the establishment of a United States of Europe. As I said, it's a top down imposition by an elite who think they know what is good for you. What really clinches it is that they could not come out and say they were fashioning "Euroland" because they knew that people wouldn't wear it. Instead it has been done largely on the pretext of doing something else. Let us dispense with the notion that the EU has kept the peace in Europe for 70 years. War weariness, the cold war, nuclear weapons and common NATO membership of the major players has done that. The EU is actually dangerous because of the internal pressures and resentment it breeds such as those growing between the centre and Greece and the centre and Hungary, Poland etc. These are not going away and the clock is ticking.
  3. So let's see your proof and not just your opinion. Clue: check out the maps of Europe pre and post WW2. You might just notice some subtle differences.....
  4. were all the fireworks at 11pm tonight a celebration by HR ?
  5. @ Pongo: For me it's entirely a sovereignty and accountability issue. Totally that. The EU is a top down supra-nationally imposed quasi-state organisation dreamed up after WW2 by idealists first as a common market and then as a creeping progression towards a super-state. Nobody asked for "ever closer union". Nobody wanted it. It was imposed from above by the type of people who know better than you because you're too stupid to know what's good for you. It is for this reason that it has been a running sore in British politics virtually from the outset, attacked by patriots from throughout the political spectrum because of its illegitimacy of purpose. What then is the EU for? There is nothing that the EU does that could not be arranged perfectly well by the independent states that comprise it on a bilateral or multilateral basis. We don't need a European Parliament - it's a joke anyway, and we don't need the EU Commission or the 4 presidents and army of bureaucrats that suck on the teat. We certainly don't need an EU Court to tell our Courts what they can and can't do. In short, no foreign body should exercise sovereignty "pooled" or otherwise sitting above national institutions. It is a matter of national self-respect for all European countries. For matters of common interest we can set up joint boards that can hammer out proposals but with the members always under the authority of their own national governments. We can also have free trade between independent European nations - or we could, if it was not for the EU blocking it if you are not in the club, or dare to leave. The EU is the impediment to free trade unless you accept all of the onerous conditions and costs that go with membership. What does Brexit mean? Well, really anything that slams the brakes on "ever closer union" and reverses it as far as Britain is concerned. Anything that means we never end up in a superstate with ever more remote figures setting the agenda. Anything that frees the country from the dead hand of "one size fits all" rules. So long as Britain is legally outside and no longer a member state then the rest can go do whatever they like and it will be interesting to see for how long they can hold it together, single currency et al.
  6. There is a world of difference between "cutting short the negotiations" and a year zero approach. The "long transitional period" is code for "play for time until we can overturn the whole thing".
  7. But Robs had media training at considerable expense. He clearly believes he can handle himself. The fact that he can't and invariably gets sucked in and makes and makes himself look a bit silly is entirely incidental. The liquidators report is clear in that a 'Manager' was appointed in October 2012 two years after he said he started there. Which is reflected in the below court order. https://www.gov.im/lib/docs/iomfsa/PressReleases/courtorders4october.pdf I can't see any mention of the FSC sending in some sort of A-Team before that date in the liquidators report. On the corporate filings it's clear Callister was a Fiducuary Manager with Louis Group (IOM) Limited before the business was liquidated. I'm sure he has no connection with the Living Hope or its Directors as claimed though.
  8. No connection with the Living Hope Church or its Directors...... You should have just left it at that Rob. It's little wonder that we get so few MHKs on here when those who do post, just get baited non stop. !
  9. WOW,how about that for a total rebuttal.
  10. The RSPB are wrong. They are not in decline, they've just feckin moved to my house...
  11. Do you believe in the risen Christ, or are you c of e?
  12. But you were employed by the Louis Group were you not as a Fiduciary Manager a good 2 years before the liquidator was called in?
  13. The liquidator (PWC) was appointed by the IOM Courts in 2012 I don't believe I ever stated that I worked for PWC but a team put together in 2010 to review the structures and to report back to the FSC
  14. We need to breed a few more of these fellas to kick them UK gulls out,
  15. You did actually work for Louis Group though as a Fiduciary Managed didn't you not for an independent liquidator, and you were a director on Louis Group Companies from the filing history at UK Companies House. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07036362/filing-history
  16. Yes, the FSC (now FSA) suspended the investment funds in 2009, the investment team was also made redundant in 2009. In joined the Louis Group in 2010 in order to review all the investment property structures I have already explained my involvement in the Louis Group several times on Manx Forums.
  17. So your involvement with the Louis Group came about only after it had already entered into liquidation, you were not part of the original Louis Group but were employed by a third-party liquidator? I am not asking leading questions. Just curious as I do not know the answer. Thanks.
  18. I really love the distant sound of seagulls in the morning, or at any time. It's something primeval in me, I think, from coming from seafaring ancestors. Perhaps even diluvian in origin. The sound fills me with a sense of optimism and hope.
  19. No connection with the Living Hope Church or its Directors......
  20. The RSPB classifies Herring Gulls (no such thing as a 'seagull' BTW) as red status, meaning their numbers are in noticeable decline. Across the UK there are estimated to be approx. 140,000 breeding pairs. Not so many compared to the 66 million people...some of whom are far more of a menace. Most of us exploit animals in one way or another every day but the moment they dare to exploit us or move into 'our' environment people whine and bleat endlessly. Sad.
  21. So is Rob Callister a "believer" ........
  22. From what I've read into this they had quite a few members of said church in this organisation. Lucas Nakos, andrew rouse, helen Edwards, Rousseau moss, and a few others who seemed to disappear off the island when this all kicked off. There is mention of A Bateman and Dirk Mudge both who appeared to have connections with living hope in this report https://www.gov.im/lib/docs/iomfsa/PressReleases/lgsfplcinspectorsfinalreport.pdf but apparently they disappeared off the island very quickly after this all came to light. Oh, and don't forget Mr Stanfield, lead pastor of living hope, was cutting ribbons for the opening of the building and was best mates with Mr Louis and the team.
  23. I don't believe that. Of the roughly 50% who voted to leave, there is no reason to believe that anything other than a minority support a simplistic / ideological 'hard' Brexit. A pragmatic middle route, something like a Norway solution, would clearly have majority support amongst both sides. The issue, of course, is that what Brexit means was never defined. Really there should be a second vote in order for people to chose what sort of Brexit they actually want. You're saying it's an if. Not a done thing.
  24. This is Manx Forums so I doubt it...
  25. The year-zero approach would increase uncertainty since there would be nothing in place - no systems or documentation, no agreements around which to build those systems. Import / export for example, would grind to a halt. You can imagine the queue of lorries on the M20 if the UK were to take the UDI route. And that's only one example. It would be a national emergency. Whatever form Brexit ultimately takes, there is going to need to be a long transitional period after the agreements are gradually reached in order for the many new systems which will be required to be designed, tested, implemented etc. This will be a lengthy and hugely expensive process. Pragmatically and sensibly it can only ever be a gradual and carefully planned thing.
  26. what even if "the contract" doesn't state so? you must be mad....
  1. Load more activity