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

Chinahand

Regulars
  • Content count

    9,071
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,226 Excellent

1 Follower

About Chinahand

  • Rank
    MF Veteran
  • Birthday 07/12/2005

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    IOM, but then again ... could be China

Recent Profile Visitors

8,598 profile views
  1. which is the most unbiased news source?

    Kinnock got 271 seats in 1992, Corbyn 262 in 2017. But Kinnock got 34.4% of the vote, Corbyn 40%. Major got 336 seats in 1992, May 317 in 2017 While Major got 41.9% of the vote to May's 42.4%. Both May (7.6 seats per 1% of the vote) and Corbyn (6.6) got fewer seats for each vote than Major (8.0) or Kinnock (7.9). Elections are won and lost on the concentration of a party's vote.
  2. which is the most unbiased news source?

    Oh goodness Stinky. Are you still fixating on some perfect ideal of impartiality. It doesn't exist. Every organisation has a point of view. The BBC expresses the UK established consensus view. Exactly what that is is complicated - The National Front, Enoch Powell, UKIP, Militant tendency, various Trotskite and leftist groups have at times bordered the Overton Window, while at other times been outside it. UKIP and Momentum have gained entry to the window over the last decade or so; while Neil Kinnock's Labour fought a battle to keep Militant outside. The BBC encompasses a broad church, but that church controls the views that can be expressed by it and surely you really aren't so naive as to pretend to be shocked that access to that was monitored and controlled. Radical Islam isn't going to be given an editorial role in the BBC, neither are White Supremacists, or revolutionary communists (awaits for Woolley's harrumph). Are you really surprised by that, or that when someone with such views applies for a job a quiet word is had and the application suddenly gets lost. The BBC isn't unbiased - it just tries in a very BBC way to be consistent within the acceptable window of views it represents.
  3. Prince Charles - head of the Commonwealth

    It is 2 generations apart so only 25% shared dna but I think the line of the nose and the eyes are reasonably close. The crows feet on the eyes especially so.
  4. London Marathon

    Good effort from Mo Farah today. His Second competitive marathon, 1st since deciding to concentrate on it and he places 3rd with the British record which has stood since 1985. The next year or so should be interesting.
  5. Prince Charles - head of the Commonwealth

    I think it is interesting to compare Harry with his paternal grandfather. There is quite a resemblance, and this time it is on the father's line!
  6. Prince Charles - head of the Commonwealth

    Not read the rest of the thread, so maybe this has already been pointed out to Barry but similarity to Diana’s relatives isn’t the issue... no one is claiming she wasn’t his mum. Comprende?
  7. Prince Charles - head of the Commonwealth

    Ireland, Germany, India have head of states a million miles from USA. There are many different ways of doing it than Monarchy or Trump.
  8. Prince Charles - head of the Commonwealth

    Nah it was a grant. You are welcome to apply here.
  9. Prince Charles - head of the Commonwealth

    Cor blimey I applied for a grant to advance a business project and that puts me on a par with Royalty. Who’d have thunk it. Lucky me. Come on Paswt doff your cap double quick. ;-)
  10. Prince Charles - head of the Commonwealth

    Bash royalty all you like, but I think the Commonwealth is a wonderful organisation. 53 nations, a third of the world’s population, a quarter of the UN’s membership and covering a fifth of the world's land area. Its members tend to share the same legal system and it promotes an set of “Commonwealth values”, including democracy and human rights. It is also one of the few functional multilateral organisations which successfully spans rich and developing nations. It is mostly a talking shop, but I think it is better to think of it as a multinational think-tank which deals with everything from economic development, climate change to the issues of poverty and immigration. The smallest nations sit with the largest, and the richest listen to some of the poorest. Getting world politicians together to face real issues of global governance is vitally important and the Commonwealth is far more grounded in the realities of the world than Davos, the OECD, the G7 or even the G20. The shared culture also allows for better mutual understanding compared to the dog eat dog geopolitics the G20 fosters. I hope it goes from strength to strength. I just don't want it to be headed by Big Ears because of who his mother was.
  11. Ah the advantages of birth. Have various political leaders from around the world just given Charles a job for life???!!! Sorry, but that is just unacceptable in this day and age. Though the Commonwealth leaders aren't exactly an enlightened, modern lot, are they. I really hope it is at least a renewable set term, subject to revalidation. To have a person appointed due to simply the priviledge of their birth is wrong. Hereditary political leadership belongs in the history book, not at the head of the Commonwealth, which could be a useful organisation for multilateral cooperation rather than a place for Charles to go meddling, wining and dining.
  12. Nothing Compares 2 U

    Erm ... it was released on The Hits the B sides in 1993. Very very happy memories. Her name was Karen.
  13. Rivers of blood revisited.

    Neil you have to extrapolate over decades prior to what you fear has any relevance. Also we are back to the culture v. Ethnicity issue. Of that 13% what proportion do you think are well integrated. How do you think the level of integration will change over the coming decades? Only the worst type of racist would ignore the level of integration within the immigrant populations before seeing them as some sort of threat to our society.
  14. Rivers of blood revisited.

    Can you read? There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.
  15. Silent Keys

    Goaded, Grounded & Gladys’ed?
×