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

craggy_steve

Regulars
  • Content count

    912
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

craggy_steve last won the day on November 22 2016

craggy_steve had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

481 Excellent

About craggy_steve

  • Rank
    Travelling hopefully towards disillusionment

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,728 profile views
  1. Telegraph, weed and MT

    Seems Bakhshi is Not Guilty http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=37587 but this mess cost him his job as CFO with MT, so is someone going to pay compensation for his loss of office, reputational damage etc., and if so who? Us?
  2. What is the point of this for the cost?

    The compiler or interpreter gives a syntax error for an unrecognised instruction or undeclared variable.
  3. What is the point of this for the cost?

    Dunno. Should not have cost much, just a web form onto a database, but I don't personally see the value. Whoever coded the form can't spell emission.
  4. Single Resident Record - Is it me?

    Dan Davies is employed to do a job. If he doesn't do it then no job. Right now that job includes promoting the proposed change to enable a "single resident record" (albeit the reality of implementation will be rather more complex). No point hanging it on Dan, he is just the CS mouthpiece. This debate is the CS vs the Citizen, both sides have strong arguments, we do need the likes of the SRR to help improve Gov't efficiency - but knowledge is power and in return for the additional knowledge which the SRR will provide to the CS about Citizens the Citizens need to see more checks and balances controlling how that power may be (ab)used.
  5. Single Resident Record - Is it me?

    Unfortunately I wasn't on island to present to PAG in person but that was me - or rather someone showing my slides for me, although what I actually said on the slide in question was as shown. It wasn't tongue in cheek. In the UK you get a mandatory minimum 5 years imprisonment for possession of certain types of firearms without a permit, even though you have never shown them to anyone, threatened anyone with them, have no ammunition for them, and keep them safely locked up. That's it - you can be imprisoned for five years minimum without harming or intending or threatening to harm anyone. That savagely unjust sentencing policy of five years for owning a lump of metal, laid down by parliament, is intended to change UK culture on gun ownership. In my slide I propose similar deterrent for those government employees* who actually abuse our data, and the two heads (Civil Servant and Politician) of the departments in which abuse has been permitted by them to occur, as a deterrent to ensure that we actually get culture change which means that public servants cease abusing our data - whether it is a policeman who looks up someone's criminal record as a favour for a friend, a treasury employee who looks up someone's income details for unofficial purposes, a health worker who discloses information about someone's medical circumstances - whatever. There is absolutely no point in imposing a financial penalty on a government department in which a data abuse occurs - the fine is paid by the taxpayer, therefore the penalty must be paid by the actual data criminals and their masters, and must be sufficient deterrent that no public servant ever, under any circumstances, takes the risk of abusing our data. It's about culture change - no public sector worker will go to prison for it because they won't take the risk. *and before anyone cries "what about private sector", government is different. We don't have to give our data to private sector organisations, we choose to. Government can and does compel us to give our data to it, therefore the penalties for abuse of that data should be much more severe.
  6. Pencil & Paper Policing

    I think there have been a few Police system upgrades in recent years, but the usual problem of limited budget and limited capacity. Money spent on IT systems is money not spent on new frontline services etc. and, as with the hospital, there has not been a culture of electronic records so introducing new capabilities will require lots of expensive "change management", training and officer downtime in addition to whatever technology investment might be required. Easy to envisage a £200K tech investment turning into £1M change project - which would be a tough call on a £13M p.a. Police budget when the paper systems have "worked OK" since forever.
  7. Deepwater for Cruise Ships

    Then that's what needs to be sold to the public, clearly. I can believe a case for redeveloping / modernising Douglas port, but the cruise business case is a questionable add-on - questionable in both ROI and desirability. As a port modernisation of Douglas will likely also largely kill freight in Ramsey the business case needs to include the economic impacts to the North. The biggest benefit here is clearly the ability to handle a wider range of bigger ro-pax & freight vessels, eliminating dependency on specially commissioned smaller vessels.
  8. Deepwater for Cruise Ships

    I don't get this. If the proposal is to redevelop the whole port complex then it's not a cruise terminal, it's a port redevelopment and I would agree that Gov't funding should be involved. If it's a cruise terminal then, like the SPCo linkspan, it's just an add-on part of the overall port which can be owned by and exclusively used by its private owners without Gov't funding. Which is it? The addition of a cruise berth capability to our existing port, or redevelopment of the whole port? If the proposal is for the latter I have missed that emphasis in the reporting. If it is the former then I don't see any basis for the claim that the operator would want or be justified in wanting control of the revenues and operations of the rest of the port - their interest would be limited to the operations and revenues of the deep-water berth / cruise terminal.
  9. Deepwater for Cruise Ships

    My thoughts exactly. Huge investment, limited number of business beneficiaries. If they think they will get their ROI then they should form a consortium to put up the money, this doesn't seem likely to be sensible use of taxpayers' funds.
  10. New Rules

    @ans/ mods - I'm not anonymous - I may use a "handle" on the forum but I've not been shy about declaring my identity - but I think that there are many who would justifiably not be comfortable stating their cogent, interesting and valuable opinions if they were required to post under their real names. Small island, bullying etc. I think Facebook is no substitute - some of the gang bullying on there is really pretty appalling - so there is an enduring need for something like Manx Forums. Like others I get Island news and insights from here which I wouldn't get from elsewhere. I sympathise and empathise with the mods, I'm a mod elsewhere (not FB !!!) and it's never easy - clowns from here abusing the mods via other channels is unacceptable. I have curbed my posting here over the past couple of years because the high volume of trolling and abuse (not of me) inhibits participation. A modest registration / membership fee paid by an identified online account even though the forum persona uses an alias could well be an effective means of curbing the sockpuppets and would be worth it if it restored sanity to the forums. FWIW, Steve
  11. The Appleby structured data component of the Paradise Papers is now online https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/search?utf8=✓&d=ap&c=&q=*&j=&e=
  12. So they likely had some disgruntled folk in-house - nothing new there. As I said though , I've not heard anything to suggest that an intruder should be ruled out? Have you?
  13. Any basis for thinking it was an inside job? And if so where (here, Jersey, someplace else)? Obviously a possibility, and not followed it closely, but I've not heard anything to suggest that an intruder should be ruled out?
  14. Discrimination

    Hmmmph.
  15. Ben My Chree

    Running slow, was c 35 minutes late into Heysham yesterday lunchtime and despite a fast turnaround and departing Heysham on time in the afternoon was 35 minutes late into Douglas last night (I was on board). I asked a crew member and got the impression that the Ben had a bearing problem on one engine / shaft so they were taking it gently. Probably sensible. Last 24 hours of AIS track has her doing around 14 knots instead of her usual 17 or so.
×