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

joebean

Regulars
  • Content Count

    258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

380 Excellent

About joebean

  • Rank
    MF Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

806 profile views
  1. As usual, this will be pushed into the fuck-up archives as soon as possible and everyone will get on with their salaries. The idiots that allowed this should be named and pushed aside, in favour of people who can exercise a bit of decent judgement.
  2. To be fair, I don't think DfE have anything to do with VAT charging. Health and Safety stuff will come from the Health and Safety Inspectorate or the "experts" in DoI and DHA. I went to Jurby this year and paid my £10. I heard that there were 12000 people through the gates. £120,000 could pay for quite a lot of event management and H&S advice, but I wonder about the insurance. Perhaps VMCC think that the taxpayer should be funding it, whilst they continue to take the gate receipts. My verdict on the £10 entrance fee was that it was too much cash for something that bored me after about 40 minutes.
  3. Why is it that everything that DoI does, in terms of bigger schemes, ends up as a total mess, causing inconvenience and disruption to motorists, the public and business? Why are they permitted to do this with seemingly impunity? Do any of our politicians have the sense of duty to call out the senior management at DoI for the useless items they are and demand that someone more competent, capable of exploring and mitigating issues before they become problems, replaces them? Or is the Government response just to wring hands and pretend nothing can be done? Of course, I already know the answers to these questions. Feeble senior civil servants and feeble self-serving politicians are not the ingredients of good Government, however much they pretend they are.
  4. The Business Case for this proposal has to be made public in order that the assumptions upon which it is grounded can be scrutinised, not merely by our MHKs, but by more expert and discerning individuals who can have some input into a decision to spend their money. I could neither support or oppose the proposal based on a lack of information. I suspect the wedding and dinners element of the Business Case is only a small part of the earnings identified to contribute to a return on the (significant) investment, but this must be considered, as said above, in terms of providing unfair competition to the private sector. Unless, of course this is just part of a continuing "strategy" to support Enterprise whilst extending public ownership in every possible sector.
  5. I had the opportunity of buying a second property for rental income. My choices were an apartment here, or for the same money, a house across. Every time I viewed a modern apartment, I had the choice of a number of empty apartments to view, sometimes in the same block. Some were priced at many £1000s below the original selling price when the property was first sold by the developer. It did not take a great deal of thought to decide to buy a house in the UK. Everything I read, and see, about the local property market, including Mr Thomas' new statistics, vindicates my decision not to buy a second property here.
  6. I look forward to the next visitor survey. I hope it asks how many people come for the MGP, primarily. I was on the boat last Thursday and it was packed with bikes leaving. Anyway, I am not necessarily arguing for it to be stopped, just given a contract and funding appropriate to its relatively low value. I suspect the Chairman will be asking Skelly for a lot more than that to keep him in his hobby for years to come.
  7. No, I have a problem with an event that is funded to attract tourists, but doesn’t in sufficient numbers to justify soaking up a significant sum of taxpayers money. I have the same issue with any other taxpayer subsidy that is an inefficient use of public money. I am not concerned about the history of the event, but the future of it in relation to the future sums of money likely to be expended on it. It doesn’t really matter if you blow a million quid in two days or two months; it’s still gone.
  8. The best course of action if you don’t like the papers is not to buy them. I decided I could not be bothered to read them about 4 years ago and have never bought one since. I am not even curious about their content anymore.
  9. joebean

    TT 2018

    Surely this is focusing on the wrong point? The Course Inspection Car has always been deployed at these speeds without an issue. The cause of this incident was surely the riders being sent back down the course in the wrong direction, without a TM escort and with many others marshals on the route they travelled failing to stop them or even question their presence on the road. I know that the marshals are great for volunteering and have done it myself, but it is very difficult to believe that any instruction cane from the Control Room and whether it did or not will be easy to check as all TETRA broadcasts are recorded. It seems to me that the real fault lies with Marshals. The problem there is the requirement for 530+ of them, many with minimal training. It’s one of the risks associated with the event which needs further mitigation. To my mind theCourse Inspection car and driver were only the end results of failures elsewhere.
  10. A decision does need to be made about the long-term future of the MGP. However, this is unlikely to assist growth, but serve to assist funding. The MGP is not really a spectator event, as demonstrated by the lack of spectators when it is going on. It is a support event mainly aimed at giving competitors the opportunity to ride the course and a hobby for the MMCC members and the road-racing purists. As such, it has a value that has to be determined in that context with a contract and funding structure to match.
  11. The current Grandstand is not really fit for purpose and neither is the scoreboard. However, before significant sums of taxpayers money is committed to TT facilities there ought to be a full analysis of the return on the investment which is made public. It would be interesting to see what assumptions are being made about growth and the period of the return in relation to racing on the TT Course. Too few decisions about committing taxpayers money are made following a proper and transparent debate.
  12. joebean

    TT 2018

    You are trying to apply logic to the DoI/DHA position on TT Course “safety”. There has never been any. Neither Department really understands the principles of Risk Assessment but consider themselves experts.
  13. Pond life should not be dredged up from the bottom of the swamp and exposed to sunlight. It is happy in, and well-suited to, its natural habitat.
  14. But first MT have to accept that customers can choose, sometimes, not to accept poor service and high prices. The problem we have with some Island businesses is that they forget we are customers rather than cash cows ready for milking. This is the real short-sighted attitude.
  15. The TT has sold itself by building up the riders and the rivalry between them, riding for the best teams and best machinery they can attract. The Classic TT has introduced the same riders and rivalry with the most iconic machinery they can attract to the event. Its been the recipe for some success, so it seems. Meanwhile the MGP has riders that no-one outside of club racing has heard of, riding fairly nondescript machinery in fairly mundane classes. Its the recipe for a handful of spectators, at best. How much is it costing the taxpayer to host? How long can the taxpayer afford to subsidise this risky non-attraction?
×
×
  • Create New...