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


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/22/2019 in all areas

  1. 10 points
    but not as green as the population of this island who pay folk money for owning land without linking it to food production?
  2. 9 points
    Because government policies over the last twenty or so year's have turned the place to shite!
  3. 9 points
    Perhaps most of the debate is down to shoddy, unintelligent and sensationalist reporting? Unlike other press, the IOM press seems incapable of properly interpreting and accurately reporting cases. They seize on the sensational bits (probably because the junior hack cannot communicate at any level beyond text speak) and miss the salient points. So the legal process appears broken, but when you read the judgement, eventually, there is sense.
  4. 9 points
    I can only assume he means this position...
  5. 8 points
    I do get the fact that he has form for voyeurism but who openly gets rodgered on the kitchen table then complains that somebody might have seen them through the kitchen window? Buy some f**king curtains or a blind. http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=47052&headline=Man spied on woman having sex in kitchen&sectionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2019
  6. 8 points
    Deliberate provocative poking of a bear or bees nest with a stick like that might mean you aren’t far behind.
  7. 7 points
    You can guarantee that if every non-farming-community member of public on this Island approached their MHK and wanted this scheme modified or scrapped, there'd still be no change. Ever.
  8. 7 points
    he must be one of those lovable rouges who for some unknown reason ( has he died ? ) if he did read what was being typed here is incapable of creating a login to MF and responding.. also tied to river pollution, 16 investigations and a 7.5k fine. a real decent bloke, we need more of those around.
  9. 7 points
    It’s a very difficult balance. Remember this is a privately owned forum. No one has the right to Membership or absolute freedom of speech. Forum owners have certain protections. This is my personal view. I don’t speak for any of the moderators or owner. Moderation here is very light. Generally only reactive. There are some idiot posters who think they are in the pub or the front room and forget that what they post is publicly visible, and that they can get us, and themselves in trouble. Other sites and pages are much more rowdy and or assertively moderated, for good or ill. There are others who just tediously post stupidity and turn of the screw tit for tat material. There are yet others who deliberately post provocatively and are confrontational to the moderators. Others who think they have a god given right to post bleat if they are suspended or posts removed. There’s one or two who clearly have mental health issues and can’t let it go. We had someone here who posted under at least 100 aliases over a 5 year period. Total nuisance. I see on FB that someone banned by JamesCorrin is obsessing on another page and setting up their own page. Good luck to them. I’m a member of a number of pages in areas where I have family connections. Many are much more pathetic than anything ever on here. Especially about crime. The speculation about what has happened, where, who to, who by is pushed to extremes and attempted to be justified on public safety grounds and right to know. The administrator tries to close down, and the attacks on him have to be seen to be believed. He eventually bans a few people. They then set up alternative pages, where they spend most of their time attacking the previous page and it’s administrators and posting really inadvisable crime stuff. Why inadvisable? Well because of the damage it could do to fair trial. We get police requests, to remove, from time to time. So does the administrator of the page I’m thinking of. It’s hard work. When I gave up for a while in October 2017 it was not just health, but dangerous speculation about a serious crime, where some posters just wanted to push boundaries after I’d removed the original. Incidentally there are now 10, or more, XYZ Past & Present pages with additional words, uncensored, no rules, unmoderated, etc. Many have only 1 or 2 embittered members banned from the original page. At some stage someone will post something truly idiotic and the people responsible for the new page will have heavy police breathing down their neck. Then they may understand. OK, that’s all background. I think the section is insidious, it’s very poorly worded. It can be used against anything.It’ll give administrators and administrators headaches.Its a wimps and complainers charter. However I do understand that there is horrid cyber bullying going on.Frankly it’s aimed at moderators when we take a stance, in a mild and mainly snide way. Some of the things posted about politicos aren’t nice, but they are in the public eye. We’ve had one, or two complainers, and one serial one. Don’t speculate. I don’t want to deal with another whinge. I think that the current law is sufficient, along with FB and other social media sites tightening up on some sickening content. Lots of people need to learn that there is no such thing as freedom of speech. There are restrictions, more restrictions are on the way. I think we are at the high water mark. There is going to be a reaction against bullying and fake news, especially from the ultra left and right, to whom truth is anathema. But the genie is out the bottle. It’ll be hard to close down the conspiracy theorists, the 9/11 ers , the flat eathers, those who twist a whole concocted construct from a deliberate misquote to suit a perverse agenda, the disaffected, the plain mischeivious. It used to be fun. Not sure it is any more.
  10. 6 points
    As previously posted - during the SAVE initiative a large number of public suggestions were made re cutbacks to CCS as a means of making economies. All were ignored. Speaks volumes? And an MHK proposing it? Breaking the Govt line? Not a hope in hell.
  11. 6 points
    i quite like the idea that that this government is so inept that they decided dilli was the right man for the job to come on here and shill for them.
  12. 6 points
    could you do the rest of the pages as well please, at a quid a pop the local papers are a rip off.
  13. 6 points
    A short arsed James Bond?!
  14. 6 points
    He says that about every single junket they go on. ETA: But then he's hardly likely to say "What a waste of effin' time that was." is he?
  15. 6 points
    Is it the guy who pretends to be a roofer?
  16. 6 points
    The grey Beemer is a 2016 ex demonstrator bought with some mileage on it, early 2017 if I remember correctly. A car I hold in some affection as it was the last police car I ever drove. The price paid, believe me, was ridiculously low. In fact, we were set to order an unmarked ST Focus when this came available unexpectedly, and we saved several thousands off what we would have paid even for that. I cant see an FOI request ever giving up individual vehicle prices. It would give the overall expenditure over a year perhaps? The manufacturers do very noble deals for the police service, and as soon as you start undermining the integrity of that then it would quickly change. Trust me - the cops had some absolutely belting deals on their fleet during the time I served and I’ve no reason to believe that has changed. Down to very hard work on the part of one particularly dedicated individual.
  17. 6 points
    Dilli and TSOS any more posts aimed at each other in the next 30 days will result in long suspensions. There’s nothing to choose between you.
  18. 5 points
    Chris Thomas is now embarking on rates reform to try and find a fairer method of assessing them, good luck with that. Whichever way the coin falls it will cost more that is the only certainty.
  19. 5 points
    Ah but you never know what might happen if there is a world catastrophe, or a boat strike or...or...or anything and we rely on our landowners to supply us with food, which of course they will supply us at a very low price taking into account the £millions they have already received.
  20. 5 points
    The Countryside Care Scheme 2009 (since renamed as an amendment to Agricultural Development Scheme) is due for its 10 years review. There was a wedge of money allocated to its running in the budget this year. There were no shocks for the lower paid in the budget, for example a penny on beer or whatever. This would have resulted in the masses revolting a tad and there would be no way that they would allow the Countryside Scare Scheme to continue Alf Cannan Treasury Minister is fully committed to the scheme and says it is not an easy job finding out whether money is being given to people who don't need it. So they are giving it to them anyway. That is how the boys stick together on this Island. The purpose of the scheme is to allow our farmers to compete with EU farmers as they get grants willy nilly. Give Phil Gawne his due, he did a marvellous job whining it through Tynwald. A la: We Need Food To Live. Farmers Produce Food. If You Don''t Give Loads Of Money To Farmers You Die.
  21. 5 points
    Surely this should have been amongst the first benefits to be done away with back when the VAT rebate cheques stopped coming in.......?
  22. 5 points
    But compared to lots of H&Bs offerings a Wethers would be a good pub.....
  23. 5 points
    This is a very dangerous path to be going down.
  24. 5 points
    Not a fan of Rob but in compiling a report it may be useful to offer the various solutions promoted by other authorities which may be relevant , however if the author of a report steals someone else's report and presents it as their own it demonstrates that they are lazy dishonest and unable to fulfil the requirements of the job and should, IMO, be facing disciplinary action.
  25. 5 points
    Absolutely. Those are covenants which protect the community from "poor" behaviour or change of use. A covenant to prevent continuation of historic use in the interests of the vendor and potentially against the interests of the community is a different matter. Covenants have a valuable positive role when used for appropriate purposes, this is not one of them.