Phillip Dearden

Members
  • Content count

    183
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

131 Excellent

About Phillip Dearden

  • Rank
    MF Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

108 profile views
  1. Yes, lots of very interesting stuff in there.
  2. Derek Best wishes and good luck for the future. TYVM for your contributions - which I hope continue in a new form.
  3. This happened to my wife and on investigation we could see it was quite a big issue in the US - some groups are considering class actions against Apple (but I expect that won't happen). Although annoying - I can't see that it is MT's fault. Your phone downloaded stuff and they charged you, why wouldn't they? I'm an Android fan and this has not happened to me yet but I do think it is something to watch out for.
  4. "... as I'm assuming she isn't male does the of rule apply to her??" Interpretation Act 33 Gender Words indicating a gender include other genders.
  5. Isn't this all a bit pointless? Or is that the point? If posters are anonymous why does it matter how many people someone is? If you don't know who they are it can't matter how many anonymous people they are, I think. If posters would consider addressing arguments, points, principles, content etc. rather than being mean and nasty about posters, it would not matter who you were communicating with and sock-puppetry would become meaningless. [Not that it has any validity now]
  6. Max has a good point but I don't think the solution will work. The idiots will still spout their bile and venom on sensible topics. Can I suggest that those with something sensible to contribute just ignore the trolling and insulting posts and focus on issues. I have not posted for a while as the forum seems mostly about childish bickering but if we ignore that, the idiots might either go away or grow up.
  7. Jack Carter said "chooses to identify himself on here which is actually against the Forum rules" Rubbishing Trumpeters and Brexiters is fine, commendable even, but this comment is going too far. Rule 1 : 1. No naming, no identifying of Members who use an alias. Means you cannot name anonymous posters, it does not mean or suggest that using your own name is banned.
  8. tough shit, its an investment which can go down, payout should only equal whats in the pot.... The problem is that there is no pot :-( tough shit They have a contract of employment, including pension provision so they are entitled to what they signed up for-the fact that the pot is running out of money is another matter, ie the gov stupidity in not putting the contribution rates up years ago. Every year they were transfering money in the budget to pension fund reserves- the writing was on the wall for years but the MHKs were not listening. If a pension scheme in the private sector was in trouble you will not see gov saying we will pick up the shortfall, yet that is exactly what they are doing with their own pensions. In the UK they have the pension rescue fund, good job we dont have one here as the private industry ones would be bailing out the gov scheme This is different from a company scheme. You can't blame the employees because the employers did not put the pension contributions in a fund. When a company scheme has a shortfall, the company has to make good the deficit. Many pensions are underfunded at the moment due to low interest rates making liability calculations very high. This is very different from the IOM PS PS, there is no fund! Whether you think not funding the scheme was a good idea (£3bn that would not have been spent on services) or a bad idea (going to be hard to fund) it does not seem to be the fault of the employees.
  9. A late Friday afternoon in high summer, gridlocked on the Edgeware Road at Marble Arch, trying to get anywhere(and dying for a piss), would give a perspective on all this. I used to live around the corner. I had a company car and did 300 miles in three years because the roads were so gridlocked - and this was quite a while ago. The neighbourhood kids that used to break-in to my (stationery) car spent more time in it than I did - got some weird tapes left in the cassette deck. Since then, I have never been able to acknowledge the IOM's "two cars at a roundabout" as real traffic. You are right, some people need perspective. PS the 300 miles in three years wasn't one long journey.
  10. Well said. It's not fashionable to agree with the Government or Notwell but this time MF is too negative. Work-Permits make our economy less efficient and that's the last thing we need. If an employer can hire a suitable local they will but if they can't we need to let them hire appropriately. I have had several clients in hospitality and catering complain that on the one hand they are criticised for poor service but on the other hand they can't get suitable staff to supply the type of service that they want to. There are locals who want to work in this industry and who want to do a good job but there are also people who are just looking for something to do and are not really interested. Competition for the latter group will mean they either adopt a new attitude or face competition for jobs. Work-permits protect poor performance that, ironically, MF would be the first to complain about.
  11. Never, not in a million years, madness.
  12. He joined the Board of the MEA AFTER the problems to assist with remedial action and he assisted in making the VAT/film money, not spending it. Your post is harsh and unfair.
  13. The "funders" whoever they turn out to be are one of the "interested parties", I did say all interested parties need to be involved.
  14. I also welcome Neil W's contributions. This is a tricky problem and if those concerned are prepared to debate their points with us, I think we should be grateful. Neil, quite understandably, represents his members and presents their view but I still find his input welcome. There is a very difficult matter to be resolved with many interested parties, the more knowledge we have the more likely we will find a solution - that solution is going to have to take account of the views of the many interested parties, I think this means we need to understand those views.
  15. the legacy issue will sort itself in 40 years when they're all dead, we could hurry it along a bit for those taking the biggest chunks??? We are paying the legacy now!