Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/18/2018 in all areas

  1. 12 points
    The joke amongst all this is the airport was furnished with millions upon millions of pounds to cope with the projected 2 million PAX plus per year by now ! It can't even deal with two easy jet flights in proximity ! I despair at the lack of accountability anywhere in the CS or government it really is a joke !
  2. 12 points
    1) He did. 2) We did.
  3. 11 points
    When I think of the number of so called politicians who rode into the House of Keys in September 2016 on the back of implementing change and Lord Lisvane's review, this just makes me want to throw up. http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=42003&headline=Tynwald rejects Lisvane reform&sectionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2018 You bunch of hollow, gutless, slimy, self congratulatory cowards. You are all a disgrace to this island!
  4. 10 points
    A general election will only demonstrate the same. Once these people get elected they make a huge - and I mean huge - amount of new friends. Powerful, rich and charming friends. An endless stream of civil servants - senior, middlin' and scratchin', they become on first name terms with the likes of judiciary (separation of powers is a myth, to be bragged about at presentations to people who believe in fairy stories), so-called leaders of industry court their attention and senior advocates becoming their buddies. The police, the hospital doctors etc. etc. The ego meter goes off the dial. There are 'buffets; by the billion. 'The scrotes' who elected them become relative nothings. They have nothing whatsoever to enhance this new found life style, not for another five years anyway.
  5. 9 points
    It seemed very clear to me that the strong inference from that front page was that a crime had definitely been committed. By the person named in the report. Seemed very implicit. It is totally abhorrent, red-top-type sensationalism. That editor needs his butt very swiftly kicked...
  6. 8 points
    The unfortunate truth is that when it comes down to honesty, integrity and motivation that nice Mr Karran is head and shoulders above the current lot and those who have gone before. I can't think of any others in recent times who you could trust to do what they thought was best for the island rather than themselves. As a performance yardstick just think of making the disabled pay for their parking whilst ensuring free parking for themselves. That says all you need to know about the "quality" of the Tynwald denizens currently lording it over the hoi polloi....
  7. 8 points
    Well your opinions may mean something to you but I suspect nothing to many ,so leave me out of this "us" cobblers Hope this helps
  8. 8 points
    It'll be an expensive disaster. Of that there is nothing more certain.
  9. 8 points
    The franchise isn’t too bad operationally. It’s the ownership and financing parts of the package that were mishandled. There should have been a golden share to stop ownership change, and to allow a purchaser to borrow all the purchase price for the shares and then to transfer the borrowing to the company, effectively buying the shares for nothing, and saddling the company with debt it didn’t have, used to be prohibited. The Law changeallowed McQuarrie to buy, and sell on to one of its infrastructure funds, and take out huge profit. That’s where the process went really wrong.
  10. 7 points
    It's the IOM Declan. Plenty of people's lives have been ruined by the public appetite for lies, scurrilous rumour, innuendo, malicious gossip, witch hunts, and the fantasies of vexatious individuals. You should get out more. I've even known lives to have been ended because of it.
  11. 7 points
    Interesting and equally worrying to read how the film industry and conflicting interests were seemingly prevelant . but who remembers Vision 9 and the unnamed individual who was to get a cut in profits on that escapade . Seems its not a one off then for someone to benefit unfairly .
  12. 7 points
    “Even if the ECRC is expressed in entirely neutral terms, there must be a danger that the employer would infer that the disclosure would not have been made unless the chief officer had formed a view of likely guilt” that is not the job of the Police. Unless there was very strong and ultimately disclosable intel suggesting a risk, then I can’t see how the disclosure was proportionate or justified?
  13. 7 points
    Peter Karran is far from being a zombie. There is a clever head on those shoulders. I would pit him against about 20 of this useless mob we have in now. Jesus Christ
  14. 7 points
    I’d like to see that fat cunt cycle to work.
  15. 7 points
    More than exemplified when the new intake of MLCs are hauled before the Grant-Receiver-in-Chief and warned off before they've even started. Regardless of that though, I believe that Tynwald will do its utmost to obstruct any inquiry into this. If only on grounds of face saving and protecting some of its favoured past members. It will be yet more strips torn out of its cloak of authority and competence to govern - which is starting to look more than a little moth eaten anyway.
  16. 7 points
    I have mixed views on this and have concerns that Beecroft is trying attract attention as we all know why the money has been pissed against a wall. Firstly making and investing in films is expensive and the chances are that you will lose money. I don't think anybody sensible expected that the media fund would make money from films. The question was really whether what was made from the periphery would off set the losses. The losses should not come as a surprise. We goy lucky with Waking Ned, expecting to get lucky again was very optimistic We know why the money has been written off and that is with the films having been released the expected return on the films is way less than the costs. They have been revalued to reflect expected future income which is expected to be minimal. The only question is should more be written off, or should it have been written off earlier. At this point it was really only an accounting exercise as in cash flow terms the money had long gone. There were huge conflicts of interest, starting with Steve Christian. I am sorry he passed away but he was on a great deal. Firstly in terms of the cinema fund Cinemanx was entitled to the interest on the £50m to cover running costs. They could have done nothing and just taken the interest on the £50m. Even if you are only getting 2% that is a £million a year. Christ I would not have minded that sort of deal. Secondly Steve Christian in some form was the party who recommended to the Govt what films should be invested in and how much. Now who was the producer of most of the films. Yep. Steve Christian in some form or other and he would eraned decent money for being the producer of a film. So along come two investment proposal. One be for a potential blockbuster, one for a turkey. Does or did Steve Christian turn down the turkey? Looking at some of the films that the Island invested in you have to question whether the thought of earning a crust from producing a film might have impaired his judgement. Me and Orson Welles for f**k sake. Or was there a temptation to go for the turkey over the block buster if the former meant he would be paid as producer but the later said no thanks we already have somebody. He may have been scrupulous but who the f**k thought it was a good idea to have the guy who was reliant on films being made to earn a crust from them as producer advising on whether those films should be made. You advise against you earn nothing, you advise to invest then kerching! You can be as honest and as scrupulous as you like but in those circumstances it is always going to look well dodgy. That is all known and there is nothing new to be learnt from a select committee. As Shimmins said spend that effort into solving todays issues so I agree with him there. I don't agree with him totally in not looking into but as I said most of the effing issues are well known. If there is to be an enquiry it should be into specific issues which look a bit murky. Christian was given an unbelievably good deal but also a hugely conflicted one. There is no way the person who was advising on which films to invest in should have had a financial interest in those films. That is so obvious it does lead me to have concerns about who the hell agreed that sort of deal for Steve Christian and did they in turn have some undisclosed interest. If any areas need to be looked at it is those where there could be a faint wiff of corruption. I am making no allegations that there was, and I have seen no suggestions there was, but if there is to be an investigation it needs to focus on specifics rather than another bout of navel gazing. Looking at Beecroft's motion I am concerned that is all she was doing. One thing I meant to add is a boring bit about the accounting in respect of films etc. It may have changed but it used to be when they were made they were valued at the cost of making. Say £5million. Now having made it they might realise that it is a complete turkey and no distributors are interest and you will struggle to get a bean in income. The other has distributors desperate for it, with huge hype causing massive expected demand when it opens. In both cases until the film is released in general they stay in the books at cost. It is only post release that the turkey would get written down. It is why years ago ITV kept a load of expensive drama they had made on ice as until they showed it was basically shown as an asset. It was only an expense when it was shown. At the time ITV was suffering badly with poor advertising revenue so by not showing they could make the accounts look better by treating the full cost as an asset. As I say that may have changed.
  17. 6 points
    This made me laugh. How many analogies are there with the way the Manx public sector is run? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6017203/A-53m-HQ-scarf-wearing-classes-Jamaican-jaunts-no-wonder-Northamptonshire-council-broke.html A bankrupt town council where 23 people earn over £100,000. £50,000 spent on flights to Jamaica for spurious reasons Massive pay offs for people who are basically incompetent And monster buildings built which then have to be sold on and leased back as they can’t afford them.
  18. 6 points
    http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=42064&headline=In the Examiner%3A Museum indecent assault trial under way&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2018 Something needs to be done - you surely can’t publish a headline like this with picture of the accused etc only to be found not guilty a few days later. The first read of the story is horrific - clearly a different picture two days later.
  19. 6 points
    This is the second time I've heard of this advanced police check bullshit. Questions I have: 1. If it's innocent until found guilty then in such an emotional type of charge how are names realesed before the conclusion of a guilty verdict let alone at all if found not guilty? 2. If found not guilty how the hell is it allowed that an advanced police check would show the case? The law is an ass!!!
  20. 6 points
    OK, we agree on something, one of us must be ill..
  21. 6 points
    Well on paper yes. I suppose it saves people trying to suggest the Government via the Gawne's have some sort of influence on Manx Radio. I see Phil was on that Sunday morning manxie manxie programme again this week. When that happens I switch over to the Archies on BBC Radio 4. If I want to hear a theatrical Manx accent I'll go to the Young Farmer's Concert. The guy has cost the non-landowning people of the Isle of Man a fortune by introducing that somewhat euphemistically named Countryside Care Scheme for his friends. That was when he was one of Tynwald's blue-eyed boys as Ag & Fish minster or whatever it is called now. And now he is given a seat at the nation's mouthpiece radio station.
  22. 6 points
    You can’t make a silk purse out of a pigs ear. And Lisvane was a pigs ear. He didn’t grasp our existing constitution at all, so he never understood where he was starting from, so he couldn’t set out an effective road map. There are a number of issues. I don’t think he really identified them. That meant he didn’t know his destination either. My take on them is: 1. A democratically elected legco. 2. What to do in case of conflict in the legislative process between keys and council. 3. How elected representatives hold the executive (CoMin and departments) to account on our behalf. On the first this is necessary. It isn’t difficult. It’s details that could be problematic. The biggest problem is the fear of the Keys that giving the council a popular mandate weakens the keys. That sort of ignores the fact that our parliament, the policy and finance decision body is Tynwald. Not Keys or Council. It also assumes that Council should be a scrutiny and opposition body. Keys and Council are just legislative parts of a greater whole. The issue and resolution of conflict between Keys and Council can be designed to eliminate the fears of the Keys and our current provisions for resolving conflict which involve delay. Conflicts should be resolved in Tynwald, by special majority, a majority in Keys is 13 and in Council is 5 ( ignoring bishop). Ignoring the Bishop ( and I do think he shouldn’t sit in Tynwald) that’s 18, out of 33 ( including the President ). You could make it 18, 20 or 22. In case of dispute a qualified majority would work just as well as Keys being able to ignore Council after a delay and repassing. The third is the difficult one. At present the system is perceived as institutionally corrupt. Almost everyone on the payroll. That doesn’t inspire confidence that they will risk income to criticise CoMin policy.. My solution is that departmental members should be reduced. I’ve no objection to ministers coming from a popularly elected Council, and I can see the advantages of a junior or deputy minister. And political heads of Utilities, Post, Fair Trading. But the rest should be back benchers. Some back benchers will Support CoMin and it’s appointees, some may not. But by taking the next step of select committees being appointed and populated solely by and from CoMin placeholders that creates a method of scrutiny by elected representatives who are not within executive government. The changes won’t be all that big, but they should improve transparency and accountability, I also think that we need to be offered a choice of policy platforms during a general elections, not one dreamed up by Chief Minister candidates and civil servants after the election. And that means party politics by whatever name you call the bodies.
  23. 6 points
    The bottom line is, once they get elected they are molly coddled and swooned over by the well paid and pensioned civil servants and it takes on average the first free buffet to get them well on side and to forget the electorate. From day one Peter Karran has as good as said, shove your free buffets up yer arse. He could have had those free metaphorical buffets for 30 years but he chose not to. Staying loyal to the electorate and his principles. The Isle of Man civil service/establishment charm offensive is a well oiled machine that uses money, vanity and ego as the three weak points of any politician, but it was fucked when tried on Peter Karran. As Zombie Dave might say: Aye: Prrdrrr Krrrrnnn rrrrtrnnzzz
  24. 6 points
    It certainly will be if that free-loading pillock's been there....
  25. 6 points
    seems to be the case with MHK's too but most were dumb to start with.
This leaderboard is set to Isle of Man/GMT+01:00