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


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

275 Excellent

About maynragh

  • Rank
    MF Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

453 profile views
  1. Public 'prepared' to pay for healthcare

    I have a neighbour who's a GP and that's exactly what they told me last year, pretty much word for word. Also said IOM GPs terms are worse than they are in the UK - longer lists for less money. Recruitment is going to be a major issue. The main thing that's surprised me since this announcement is how little reaction it has garnered. It seems most people either don't understand what has been proposed or simply don't believe it.
  2. Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

    As I think has already been discussed, there is a selective myopia on both sides which leads to poor outcomes for those who actually live through the process. On the one hand there is the attempt at obfuscation over what is a human life, when a straightforward scientific appraisal gives no such room and what is actually being debated is what makes 'a person' rather than 'a life'. This appears to be due to the difficulty a lot of people (religious or not) have when dealing with the fact that as a social species we are ordinarily complicit in the termination of lives that we do not identify as belonging to our group. Or to put it another way, we're happy to accept the deaths of some humans because someone tells us they are not 'like us' but this apparently does not apply to unborn humans from within our perceived group - a complete contradiction. On a lighter note... The best comment I saw in relation to the recent anti campaign demonstrations was that it would be a better idea to just give away free condoms. I took it that this was just an off-the-cuff remark, but the more I thought about all the gnashing of teeth and the apparent appetite for conflict the more it struck me this was a brilliant idea. I was sorry the thought hadn't occurred to me earlier, and if they do come back I'll certainly be trying to form my own demo. What better way to counter such a negative approach to the problem than to stand alongside them with a huge banner saying "NOBODY LIKES ABORTION, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A DICK ABOUT IT! BE HAPPY, HAVE A FREE JONNY ON US!"
  3. Abortion plight should shame us all? Really?

    If you're not religious where does your view that killing anything 'is wrong' come from?
  4. Chinahand's Random Stuff

    I think it was actually just about the dangers of disassortative mating.
  5. Chinahand's Random Stuff

    An interesting read thanks. My perception was that the point being made was about sexism and our preconceptions - i.e. that the story wouldn't have created the same feeling in our minds if it had been the other way round - older woman and younger man. I wondered if it would have worked were the relationship depicted as a same sex couple.
  6. Home Automation

    Thanks for the first hand info. A bit more to google around in that lot. I may be back with more questions.
  7. Another MLC in court

    I was surprised by this. I recall a short exchange I had with Juan not that long ago where he advised me that something I was considering doing would be problematic with regards data protection - that was entirely my own risk. I've also always thought he was someone who was a bit anal about rules and regs - he would certainly have been aware of the requirements at the very least. So I find the idea that he has been caught apparently so far in the wrong a bit odd. The cynic in me thinks there is someone who very publicly bit the hand that's been feeding him (very well) not so long ago. Is this a very public smack down before he's shoved out the door?
  8. Well we can live in hope I guess, but what gives you the idea that there are 'seismic' changes taking place in Europe? I wish there were, but as far as I can see it's only really Iceland where that has and is taking place. Can you sight a policy?
  9. Not at all. You've made a point about a person you allege to be a criminal. If there were evidence of such in terms of his dealings with the IOM he would have been turned away. The current position really does nothing to prove that he is or isn't, it simply asks as series of questions that pretty much everyone else asks. The IOM Government could increase it's level of investigation before allowing people to bring money in, but on what basis would they do that seeing as it would then put us a competitive disadvantage (in the eyes of those who set such policy - if not actually in reality)?
  10. And none of that matters so long as the voters of those jurisdictions are happy with it - happy enough to not force their own governments to change it, or force them to try and change someone else's rule set.
  11. You think they'd have us? Maybe if we promised to behave.
  12. I think the point PK was making was with regards the 'bottom of morality' but maybe I misunderstood. How could we get lower on that regard? And do enough people care? Either you're missing my point or ignoring it. If there were proof that the gains were ill-gotten we wouldn't be discussing it - the system in place would have filtered it out. Or are you suggesting a change to the filter on the grounds of morality? It really doesn't matter how seedy it looks, because apparently the majority of people on the IOM don't care so long as they remain comfortable in the short term. Do you think it would make any difference at all if the entire thing were on public display? Surely the most important thing is the balance of comfort for the majority of voters in the jurisdictions that are receiving the money?
  13. Car Rallies - Tim Baker

    The problem is you are conflating two separate groups. There are people who choose to engage in organised motorsport. Generally these people are well behaved drivers when on public roads, because if they aren't they're risking being banned from competing - this is the responsible thing to do. There are also people who drive like complete knobs on the open road. These people may or may not be fans of motorsport, but either way that is irrelevant - watching motorsport is not what is making them drive like knobs. The point is that everyone should be forced in the strongest possible way to behave on public roads whether there is an event on or not, and it should be as easy as possible for people to take risks if they want to in an environment that protects them from those who don't want to. I think I've said it on here before but for example, during the TT the mountain road 'one way' system should be a paid toll road (paying to enter becomes an acknowledgement of the risk acceptance as well as generating income), where you enter entirely at your own risk and have to carry additional insurance to pay for scraping you off the road if the worst should happen - whether it's your fault or not. The rest of the entire road network should be zero tolerance - 1 mph over, one bit of reckless driving, and you and your vehicle are escorted to the ferry. It's the only logical solution. Could work well for other events too.
  14. Huge Meat Plant Loss

    Who the farmers or the politicians? There's no doubt Farming has been too soft a ride for those at the top (which has included a number of politicians) for a long time, but I guess the problem they've got is they're going to struggle to keep it quiet in this day and age. People know how much money is being spent, they know animals are being live exported and they know local small retailers are getting shafted. That's my take on why this has blown up in the first place, but if they think just reshuffling the deck and changing nothing is going to smooth things for very long then I guess they really are out of their depth. Without protecting the market the industry is stuffed, but presumably that is not a palatable option for the top dogs because it would mean levelling the playing field - against them!
  15. I agree with you completely, and I think we're already pretty much at the bottom aren't we? If you or I were sitting in the benevolent dictator's chair we could be turning it around tomorrow, and to hell with anyone who started crying about loosing their share of ill gotten gains. But back in the real world the question is how do we move upward when the majority of the population on the IOM would place their own comfort ahead of trying to morally filter the money passing through the IOM? Moral outrage changes nothing, as the Panama and Paradise Papers prove.