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


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/07/2019 in all areas

  1. 7 points
    I see one of three options: 1) We end up with a beautiful marina, the envy of the rest of the silt-plagued Island 2) A half finished job, begging for Govt funding because the original financing proposals were laughable 3) No marina at all and a bunch of marine Mike Proffits waltzing off into the sunset with bulging accounts whilst our great and good wring their hands and promise that "lessons will be learned" Please place wagers according to your own opinions but any other option suggestions freely welcomed.
  2. 5 points
    From home appliance fixer to Home Secretary in two moves. First by getting elected hanging on the coat tails of Peter Karran/Liberal Vannin then dumping the Party
  3. 3 points
    It depends on how it's calculated. To put purely imaginary figures on it suppose for each Santander transaction there are external costs of 1p, the sub post office charges 2p to do its work and IOM Post adds 3p to cover overheads etc. Giving a total of 6p. If Santander are only prepared to pay 5p, then according to that the contract is 'losing' money. But if the contract is cancelled, the sub-post office loses 2p times however many transactions there were but probably has to keep the same number of staff. And IOM Post continues to have the same overheads but is down in terms of income by the same amount. Only 1p per transaction is being saved, but both are losing twice that in additional income. So the 'saving' is costing money and that's even before you take into account the social benefits that might accrue in this case such as providing banking facilities in places that don't otherwise have them or helping keep sub-post offices open.
  4. 3 points
    No foot passenger price increases until the Ben is replaced? So less than £20 one way* until 2032 then, that's alright. *Conditions apply, midweek travel booked 3 years in advance, no refunds, no luggage, last on last off, bullshit etc
  5. 3 points
    It is not in the government's interest to reduce single use plastic use. Anyone who has read the EFW contract will know this.
  6. 3 points
    more cost for shops........ just ban them and go back to glass bottles........
  7. 3 points
  8. 3 points
    a bit harsh on gibbons me thinks.
  9. 3 points
    There’s a fourth option.... Absolutely sweet FA.
  10. 2 points
    If i was a criminal i'd rather bob malarkey was making the decision on my release rather than someone with a bit of sense.
  11. 2 points
    There was definitely a crushed plastic one in the new surface somewhere. IoM Newspapers ran a pic of it when the news of the expense broke.
  12. 2 points
    As a kid I remember Downward Qualtrough had a deposit scheme. I still remember occasionally finding the odd bottle in between the razzle mags in the park and going to get my 10p cashed in for a grape Mr Freeze, to only collect 100 empty Mr Freeze wrappers to get a free Mr Freeze. Recycling at its best. And I’m still recycling 40 years later. Kids recycle that’s the target audience.
  13. 2 points
    Just imagine this as a housing estate etc The more you think about it the more ambitious and unlikely it becomes.
  14. 2 points
  15. 2 points
    I wouldn't trust this clown with a shopping list let alone somebody's right to release from prison
  16. 2 points
    It's nothing to do with being right wing or the age of politicians, it's more a matter of perception. I believe that the PO, like many government agencies, should offer services to the public, some of those services may not be profitable but they do help the postal service to spin in other ways. The decision to cut services is usually made by the Chief Executive and his cohorts in answer to the requirement to make savings at all costs. This requirement was made by politicians to reel in the waste in the PS, the adverse effect is that the departments turn bandit and try to make a point and make life difficult for the politicians by cutting services, instead of addressing the real problems such as management efficiencies and pay and pensions!
  17. 2 points
    Military Microwave technology information LINK HERE Really explains the dangers that I've been trying to put across. 5G is a weaponised system and there's no ifs or buts about it. I've said it before - You wouldn't live under an electric pylon, so why have one in front of your house and systems within it? Lets keep the island safe and if it means having technology that is hard wired and costs fractionally more, then so be it as I'd rather do that than people being sick or ill which the hospital or mental health services are finding it hard to cope with now.
  18. 2 points
    There is indeed an item in the current Pink Book which earmarks £250,000 for "design fees for non-tidal marina development". It is mentioned in several places. Does anyone know what this is, or which marina it refers to? It probably doesn't refer to Ramsey Marina, but you never know, and it is rather sloppy accountancy to have an item of this magnitude in the budget but with insufficient information to identify what it is.
  19. 2 points
    It’s the law. and in fairness, ha states it is unlikely he would overrule the committee
  20. 2 points
    The shit hit the fan in 2007 but someone realised that the Isle of Man Government had amassed such a huge amount of money from the £100 millions per year extra VAT that there was no need to panic. All they had to do was grab as much of it for themselves as they could and while they could. There were promotions after promotions followed by early retirements and mega lump sum golden cheerios. And the boot-filling continues to this day. The only illusion is the pretence that they are doing something about the problem. There ain't no problem whilst those in charge of the money are still able to grab and distribute to their pals as much of it as they can while they can. And that dear forum reader is the Isle of Man in a nutshell.
  21. 1 point
    Apparently 'Comic Relief' is upon us. I have to admit to having mixed feelings about charity 'events' such as this - and indeed all forms of targeted charity fund raising - for some time. I am not against the principle of charity at all, however there seems to be an increasingly 'political' purpose in the post 'Band Aid' era. This morning I caught a snippet of a radio show which was raising money for Comic Relief - full of the now standard emotionally loaded content about how they are raising money for 'vital' services - you know, the sort of services some would say a government should provide. Last night it was the 'Stand Up 2 Cancer' GBBO - all use the same model now. During the bit I caught on the radio this morning the presenters were introducing a short clip of a pre-recorded joke by another famous. Prior to playing the clip there was some jovial speculation as to whether this famous was a 'Sir', at which point one of the presenters realised this was probably not a good topic to pursue and moved swiftly on - because of course the famous in question is famously not a 'Sir' due to the much publicised discovery they had been investing in tax avoidance schemes. Which sort of crystallises the problem for me. If we lived in a more equitable society where people such as this were not permitted to avoid taxation there would be no need for emotional blackmail to fund 'vital' services - and for them to have the bare faced cheek to support it. There was a later snippet where the same presenters were opening joking about whether they were being paid for this particular 'charity' broadcast, which again was quickly swept under the rug. However it sort of got me thinking... If you wanted to create a broadcast event such as 'Band Aid' or 'Save the Children' or 'Comic Relief', but you wanted to have it focused on encouraging people to pay taxes equitably in order to fund the same objectives that would be viewed as a political broadcast wouldn't it? So why is the reverse not true? Pushing society to the point where services we are told are 'vital' are only funded by voluntary choice is fundamentally a political message isn't it?
  22. 1 point
    I cannot understand people buying water in plastic bottles, the quality of our water is fine, just buy a reusable bottle and fill it from your tap. The price we get charged for water rates is high enough why not use it and I bet the quality of our tap water is better than the bottled stuff.
  23. 1 point
    But that's assuming that both parties are operating rationally and competently. Santander probably are, but the facility isn't essential to their business, it's a nice facility that enables them to keep happy and maybe retain customers outside Douglas, but it's not essential and their going to assess its usefulness carefully. The IOM Post Office is a different matter. We know from questions that Hooper was asking last year that they have been losing a lot of commercial contracts - presumably because they have been unwilling offer realistic prices and so losing clients. We actually had a very good example of this last month, where the client was no other than the IOM Government. The contact was for the postal electoral registration where letters are sent out to all households. ER Services, based in England[1], won the contract with a bid of £32,000. The IOM Post price the previous year had been £66,000, so their 2019 bid might have been more than that. The basic costs would actually be less if it was handled all on Island, so the amount of overheads/profit they are putting on these contracts looks like it must be fairly substantial. Of course, unlike in a commercial company, there is no likelihood of being sacked if you lose a contract. You can just brag about how mush money you are 'saving'. The whole thing is also a splendid example of the silo thinking which the Manx bureaucracy seems to do more and more while complaining about it[2]. Because of course they have ended up paying out real money to a UK company and the UK Royal Mail where it could have gone to IOM Post and then come back to the government as profit (or reduced losses). But I suspect the Cabinet Office were just pissed off with the Post Office charging whatever they felt like because they thought they had a captive market - and judging by what else we are hearing, so are a lot of their other clients. [1] Electoral Reform Services Group are specialists in running postal ballots and organising voter registration and do the update of the electoral register for a lot of UK local authorities. They were already managing the updating of the register online and by phone, so it's not like their area of expertise and software wasn't already being used and paid for before. But previously the letters had been sent out and any returns processed by IOM Post and delivering letters is supposed to be what they are good at. [2] Bell used to go on about it endlessly. If only he had been in a position of power over the previous decade to do something about it.
  24. 1 point
    Bob Hoskins taught a lot of people his age how to read and write properly though.
  25. 1 point
    He's in the Department for Enterprise, he's obliged to help spin this one on behalf of tourism.
  26. 1 point
    Do like DFe and don't think about it. This could be twinned with the airport gateway ya know.
  27. 1 point
    Rob is not always flavour of the month on here, but he is one of the few MHK's that take things seriously and I have no doubt that he is fully conversant with the agreement. I am not always a fan of Rob, but he does not deserve the vitriol on here.
  28. 1 point
    who the fuck told you he thinks ???
  29. 1 point
    I would imagine that the cost of transporting empty bottles back to the drink producer, then washing and sterilising them outweighs the cost of new bottles. The consumer would have to pay more for the product and no matter how green and environmental you say you are, hard cash still has a big influence.
  30. 1 point
    Yes thats true in principle. But the profitability of any contract has to be judged against the costs involved in fulfilling the contract for the contract holder. That cost is different from business to business depending on their cost base. But I assume it was cheaper for Santander to delegate the collection of all their cash outside of Douglas to the post office otherwise they’d have done it themselves. So they either pay the price tendered or, if the contract holder puts the price up, they don’t. It seems to be commercially not worth the effort for both parties otherwise the price would be properly renegotiated.
  31. 1 point
    Yes that’s odd as when the post office suggested a money purchase option it was the basis for a strike and almost every MHK came out against the suggestion, Now it seems government itself is going to do it.
  32. 1 point
    Yes, but the answer is the same. It’s the law.
  33. 1 point
    why don't they just moor the yachts on the pier........
  34. 1 point
    Port Erin would be far more convenient for the yacht-importation of drugs though. Just shipping it in direct to the users.
  35. 1 point
    Remarkable that the only deep natural harbour on the iom hasn’t got a marina. TBH Port Erin with a stream of yachty ‘when i’s’ would be unbearable. Ramsey can have em.
  36. 1 point
    I see they are looking ar introducing a voluntary defined contribution scheme as well. I'm sure that will see a massive takeup rate.... Who doesn't want to pay the same for less in return.
  37. 1 point
    My Option #4 is that the apartments get built and the marina not at all...
  38. 1 point
  39. 1 point
    But the trouble is that we're relying on the massed managers of the Post Office to tell us that the service is 'losing money'. There have been so many contract losses (sometimes with them ending up doing the same work at a lower price) and disasters from these people recently that we don't know if the figures are correct or not or whether there are only losses because the PO is expecting the contract to cover so many overheads (ie the salary of all these managers). In particular you wonder if the contracts provide useful earnings to keep the sub-post offices running (they will the ones doing all the work) , but because the PO can't pile a big margin on before charging Santander, they want to stop the whole thing, even though it wouldn't actually save any money.
  40. 1 point
  41. 1 point
    Technically practically anyone can apply, they seem to advertise most years (here's 2018's press release) and members serve for three years. There's more details here and in the linked information pack. Like most of these monitoring committees its not that well paid. It was £78 per meeting last year, but if each can last up to 5 hours and require 15 hours prep it's only half minimum wage. The press release says Clare Faulds was the Committee Chair (I suspect the Chair is always going to be a lawyer), but I think that the other members' names tends to be kept private - presumably to stop them being lobbied on behalf of or against prisoners. I'm slightly surprised if Malarkey has the final say, because I thought that EHCR ruling which said the UK Home Secretary was not able to decide on the release (or not) of life prisoners would have applied - maybe it only affects to indeterminate sentences.
  42. 1 point
    That’s not what I asked Derek.
  43. 1 point
    Yes, it's frightening. Mind you I would say the same of elements of the Parole Committee.
  44. 1 point
    Just what we don't need, another tax
  45. 1 point
    like handing ferry contracts to irish backed shipping companies who copy terms off a fast food shop.......
  46. 1 point
    4) iomg step in and it costs £350m........
  47. 1 point
    Joiners use planes, but it’s goid news we won’t see any flat expanses of land flying around.
  48. 1 point
    Don't you go antagonising people with common sense,no good will come of it.
  49. 1 point
  50. 1 point
    Go on then spill the beans who you talking about, as it’s in the public domain due to a court judgment, there’s nothing to hide.
This leaderboard is set to Isle of Man/GMT+01:00
  • Create New...