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


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/26/2018 in all areas

  1. 10 points
    We don't have to justify anything Dilli - we're allowing sportsmen to do something they want to do, nobody is encouraging or forcing them. In terms of the benefits to the Treasury coffers, any inconvenience to the rest of us is justified or they simply wouldn't do it. The Island is a last bastion of freedom in an increasingly regulated world of snowflakes who have to do a risk assessment before operating a mobile phone. I don't enjoy road racing or belong to the biking fraternity (despite owning a mid-life crisis bike) and find the whole TT/MGP things uninteresting and inconvenient. But they bring joy to tens if not hundreds of thousands of people and I applaud their skill, courage and determination.
  2. 6 points
    "Mrs Hughes said that the offence was made even more serious by the allegations being in a small community and anyone identified would soon have their name circulated around the island." ...tell that to the recent museum case guy.
  3. 2 points
    If you had to choose between... Spending money on public art you don't like... Or Spending the same money on jollies for politicians... Which would you pick?
  4. 2 points
    They’re just looking for bitter trolling targets Dilli. It seems to have been the same stream of nastiness coming out of several posters for a few weeks now. They don’t really mean it. They’re just trying to get your attention and prove how clever they by ripping people apart and winding people up from behind anonymous keyboards.
  5. 2 points
  6. 1 point
    As it says in the article, by statute the Treasury receives an annual £1.5M "dividend" from the PO, rain or shine, profit or loss, which is now being renegotiated. This point was also raised previously a couple of years ago and questioned. It must be an albatross around the PO's neck given the competition it now faces from everywhere else?
  7. 1 point
    The money is poured into that black hole that must not be talked about!
  8. 1 point
    I exchanged a few words with a Manxnet Forums legend down there but mainly I was there with my dad who's been called neither glamorous nor a woman ever before
  9. 1 point
    God knows, but they get through more new vans than I do bog roll!
  10. 1 point
    Sabre rattling joke to come.
  11. 1 point
    Next one to mention that mountain gets a visit from this guy
  12. 1 point
    As I thought, no specific ideas about how the racing could be made safer and no analysis of current risk reduction measures other than a very scant comparison of past and present fatality rates. It is easy to say you support the racing continuing as long as risk reduction measures to improve the rate of fatal incidents are put in place, but without some understanding of what assessments are currently place and some specific risk-reduction measures that you might want considered, the words are really quite meaningless. As has been suggested, any racing event that is held on public roads involving high speed motorcycles is going to pose some fairly extreme risk. The only way to make racing motorcycles relatively safe is to build purpose built racing circuits with risk-reduction measures built into the design. Racing on roads can only be made "safe" by reducing the speed traveled to one where any impact with a hard surface will be survivable. However, the nature of the event would be rendered so sanitised that it would not attract riders or spectators necessary to make the event viable. It is possible to accept that the event will lead to serious injury and death, as that is inherent in the nature of the event itself, whilst putting in place the risk-reduction measures that are possible and reasonable. These might include fast response medical support; the provision of impact reduction course equipment in higher risk areas; restrictions where spectators may spectate in areas that are considered higher risk; the provision of marshals in sufficient numbers with access to a reliable communication system; on-course paramedic support; the appointment of a suitably qualified and experienced Race Organiser; year-round course-inspection and liaison regarding course maintenance.... Are we recognising something here? These measures will never solve the issue of racing injury and deaths, but as speeds rise they may just stabilise the statistics. Of course, there is a sure-fire risk-reduction option. Simply, cancel the races and end road-racing on the Isle of Man. This is the moral dilemma; to do it, or not to do it. To face up to the fact that the event is run not for the sport or to fulfill the hopes and dreams of competitors, but for money and to support the tourist industry on the Island. To accept, or not accept that the injuries and deaths are an acceptable and inevitable price to pay to earn the money. To pretend that you support the racing as long as further risk-reduction measures are put in place is not facing up to the moral dilemma, it is just using weasel-words to avoid it. Lastly the questions I might ask are; Why was it considered necessary to put a one-way system in place for the TT and not for the FoM? Why was it still considered unnecessary to have a one-way system in place for the FoM after the deaths of two visitors due to a head-on collision in 2014, even after the film of that incident was used in a DoI sponsored "road-safety" campaign? What risk-assessment was carried out to justify this decision? Who made the decision and was it politically signed off? By whom? Now there has been a further head-on collision, will those who made this decision (I suspect on the grounds of cost) now stand up and take responsibility?
  13. 1 point
  14. 1 point
    Well at the risk of sounding like a bit of a stickler, if she meant “uninsured” I’d have liked to have heard her say “uninsured”. Mind you, it’s easy to make that kind of mistake; like when I mean to say “politician” and mistakenly say “twat”.
  15. 1 point
  16. 1 point
    It’s all about the drama. Without it where would they be.
  17. 1 point
    I bought a Light Cavalry sabre made originally in 1854. I had the receipt from Wilkinson's of Pall Mall. It had been purchased by Captain (The Hon) Walter Charteris ADC to Lord Lucan at Balaclava in the Crimean War. Later I met Mrs Josephine Day (Google) then medium to the late Queen Mother. She told me she could pick up objects and get in touch with the owner in spirit. I had a long talk with Captain Charteris and followed his directions. This took me to various places. I researched all he said. I was having a conversation with a man killed at Balaclava in 1854. It all proved true but took me years to prove it all. The result was published . It changed my life. I do not believe. I do not have faith. I actually know! This caused me to write and publish esoteric and spiritualist versions of the Gospel of Mark (The shortest!) You can look at the main catalogue of the British Library under my name and also Bodleian, the national libraries of Wales and Scotland and Trinity College Dublin. All asked for copies. You can see the Walter Charteris item in the catalogue. Yes there is another world out there and you will be going to it faith or religion or whatever. Makes no difference. You will go there! Do not add knowledge to your faith. Add faith to your knowledge.
  18. 1 point
    It's lucky that this man's family have internet trolls to remind them that they know better about what he should have spent an enjoyable 30+ years of his life doing.
  19. 1 point
    Could any jury really conclude any defendant guilty given that the prosecution evidence appeared to be centred around the statement of a four year-old child? With no other witnesses to the alleged crime? There's probably very few 4 year old girls who are aware of casual improper touching or how to interpret what constitutes 'touching,' let alone have the vocabulary to explain the circumstances, unless of course it's in the extreme. It must be a very difficult decision to make for the investigators and presumably, specialist counsellors, when dealing with such allegations to interpret what they hear from such a young child. And there's always a risk of over-zealous questioning and interpretation; a possibility of 'leading the witness' even when that witness (the only one in this case) is a four year old child. Given all that, and the swiftness of the verdict, it's difficult to see how the PPU and the AG saw a realistic chance of conviction. Be interesting to know what swayed it.
  20. 1 point
  21. 1 point
    It’s not going to inspire any kid to do anything but hang themselves from a swing. Some of the work on his FB Page is good; that’s complete cack.
  22. 1 point
  23. 1 point
  24. 1 point
    I once sat outside a newsagent where a bloke and his wife had left the kids in the car as they went in to buy scratchcards. They both came back out, sat in the front seat and furiously scratched away, while the kids were climbing all over the place. Not a word was spoken amongst any of them while they were busy hunting for winners. They must have scractched off a few winners, both got out, went back into the shop and came back out again, repeating the same thing all over again. I've hated the lottery ever since that day. Now I've seen that awful, awful cash-grab of a mural, I hate it even more.
  25. 1 point
    How do you define unemployment? It has been moved about so much over the years. I have been unemployed at various times of economic crisis 1987, 1993, 2008-2014. The statistics started to be massaged in the early 1980s when they said "the number of people unemployed and signing on etc" was "X"...But many people were put on schemes and courses whereby they got more benefits &/or did not have to sign on. The key was "signing on". Then it moved on to means tested benefits other than "Dole" so you did not count as unemployed. Then a full time job was legally defined as 16 hours as week so the people in full time employment rocketed in theory as those on benefits were made to work 16 hours a week but with their wages made up to a living level and which still happens. The latest version of this is the "Zero Hours" contract. In 1987 I signed on until they offered me a full time media studies(!) course at Salford College of Technology all paid and found. No signing on. Not unemployed. Ditto 1993 when I was put on an IT course at Lancaster Chamber of Commerce for a year. Not counted as unemployed. I was unemployed down on my manor age 58 when the banks crashed. However when I was 60 they offered me the state pension I would get at 65 on the basis that I would not have to sign on and so I was not counted as unemployed. This was called "Pension Credit" Neither did I have to seek work. When I was 65 I was not unemployed as I was no longer legally obliged to seek work being then an OAP proper. Now they have a sort of universal benefit or credit which has failed to get off the ground so far. I contributed towards the Office of National Statistics report. I think they pick the names out of a hat! The payment is a book of first class stamps by way of a thank you. I suppose people returning to the EU makes for job vacancies in theory but the problem is getting folk off the benefits once they have been out of circulation a long time.