notwell

Regulars
  • Content count

    9,978
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    52

notwell last won the day on May 12

notwell had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,669 Excellent

About notwell

  • Rank
    MF Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

1,035 profile views
  1. I'm not sure they are setting it out as a Miss Isle of Man beauty contest as such. Unless they get entry to Miss World of course Good luck to them. It's great what they are doing the more things that upset feminists the better in my view.
  2. You are continually rude to me with your little digs. You're not clever enough to hide it. I don't care to be fair but let's not pretend you're anything other than a rude elderly man who doesn't like being challenged. You're not the only one on here like that either The IOM SPC's debt position is relatively straight forward as you know which is why i don't understand your logic. They "owe" roughly £100m and if you believe the profit figures then it'll be virtually debt free by the end of the current user agreement. The business didn't "build up significant debts since it was sold on" because it hasn't been running up huge losses. Quite the opposite in fact. Aquisition debt is always going to exist because it was always an attractive low risk cash generative business to buy. Which has been reflected in the some of the previous owners. The current owner isn't in a bad position like you seem to make out. I agree with you that the UA has a value when extended out for a period of time but it isn't quite how you make it out. Anyone taking on the agreement is going to be burdened with substantial investment so any value attributable to the operation is either with that infrastructure replaced (in which case the current owners have invested significant money) or without it in which case any prospective buyer knows that any price they pay will need to discount in the fact they need to find a huge investment.
  3. Smoking has far more addicts and kills far more people. Mobile phone use will be making its way up the road fatalities scale too. There are numerous other statistics that can be cited but I don't see how that justifies any stance for the legalisation of drugs. Would you prefer that smoking and alcohol were illegal just so it makes life "fair" then?
  4. So would you support heroin being made legal then?
  5. But that would involve grasping the nettle really on this one and you know how the know it alls have no faith in the cruise liner income stream (even thought numerous other places do very very well out of it). I agree with you. Now would seem the opportune time to do it.
  6. ah, so you're the victim here? Good grief.
  7. I do know about it though. And that's why i'm relatively pleased to see it not freely available. I'd rather see Cocaine legalised before the stuff you've been smoking if i'm honest. Half the moaning is coming not because those moaners things it does/doesn't do any real long term harm (it does BTW) but more that they feel they should be able to do what they want when they want.
  8. You vary rarely do anything reasonably and politely so we should clear that one up straight away. I'm still waiting for you to actually substantiate your rantings on the debt situation and how it causes some sort of issue to the current owners.
  9. Hboy's comment about the EIS just demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of what it actually is. It's a really good idea too.
  10. We know. But at least Jack Carter has died so to speak. It seems the threads always go swimmingly well whilst a load of (well, several at most) angry old aged men have a free for all slagging everything government (or in this case Government and IOMSPC) and then when someone pulls them up on it by posting something taking a more balanced view you see the standard modus operandi in full flow.
  11. Plus it's like he's barking in a window. Hideous.
  12. Well done HQ. I'd like to see the medical legalisation happen (and be strictly controlled of course) but happy enough to see the rest remain as it is.
  13. That isn't what you were doing though was it Sultan? We.both agree the report is a little light on detail. JW appears to agree with that. The report does give factual information though. And that information indicates a level of seriousness which doesn't quite tally with your view that this was a bright boy holding a few tablets for his pals. On top of that those with a general opposition to drugs (or those who simply respect the law as it stands) are then vilified for that view whilst having it rammed down their throats that this bright lad has had his life ruined etc.
  14. You never do to be fair. At least you're consistent.
  15. In the way that people are defending this so called very bright lad who wasn't bright enough to be able to distinguish between legal and illegal. Had he murdered someone he would still be the so called very bright lad who could not distinguish between legal and illegal. He broke a law that he knew existed. He dealt class A drugs and you'd have to live in a cave not to know how potentially serious that charge is. You are busy trying to dumb down the seriousness of the offence. The judge gave him the minimum so someone else could have got a far more severe sentence. You'll note the judge handed out sentence that was right at the point where it could not be appealed. If this is such a blatant unfair miscarriage of justice for this very bright lad why would the judge do that?