Yibble

Indeed. Pubs are important community assets and legislation is needed to prevent H&B from effectively closing them down via restrictions on trade. Any MHK's listening?

No, no and no again! And anyone with that attitude needs to be removed from public service. The purpose of the rules is to ensure standards are met / maintained, but it should be the job of public servants to guide the public towards compliance with those standards, not to act as pettifogging officials trying to prevent things from happening. They are there to make things good, not make things difficult. "Where you can", not "Computer says no".

Indeed. It does rather feel like that. I would have hoped that, in a situation where there seemed to be some sort of impasse between the civil servants in his department and the organisers of a major event, the minister's role would be to step in and (diplomatically) bang a few heads together. The end result should be to have the department working with and supporting the organisers (perhaps bringing in additional expertise if needed) rather than castigating them and (seemingly) waiting for them to fail. In place of that, we seem to have had a department which found the time to pursue would-be bollard painters, instead of help save a major event. It feels like personnel changes are needed both at ministerial and departmental level.

I suppose that if you can't really refute the detail in a 132 page report from the world's leading firm of accountants; as blunt and damning a report as I have ever seen from that profession (and very well put together), you could always try this sort of 'defence': http://alanlouis.com/2018/06/08/false-accusations-in-the-marketplace/

Time that Tynwald legislated against H&B acting against the public interest in such a manner. Is there a single MHK with the balls to sponsor such legislation though?

Surely the Manx Highway Code would have been a better starting point? That would have in turn pointed you to ROAD VEHICLES (MAINTENANCE AND USE) REGULATIONS 2012, Reg 64: 64 Leaving motor vehicles unattended (1) A person must not leave, or cause or permit another to leave, on a road a motor vehicle which is not attended by a person licensed to drive it unless the engine is stopped and any parking brake with which the vehicle is equipped is effectively set. (2) However, the requirement of paragraph (1) as to the stopping of the engine does not apply to a vehicle that — (a) is being used for ambulance, coast guard, defence (including civil defence), fire brigade, lifeboat or police purposes; or (b) is engaged in an operation which requires its engine to be applied — (i) to drive machinery or apparatus forming part of, or mounted on, the vehicle and used for purposes other than the driving of the vehicle, or (ii) to maintain the electrical power of the vehicle's batteries at a level required for the driving of such machinery or apparatus, unless the vehicle is in such a position or condition as to be likely to endanger any person or property.

It would be beyond ridiculous to try to regulate every activity (for all) to the point where even the stupidest individuals can't manage to put themselves in harm's way. Rather than make the case for boat licensing, I think you may have advanced a good argument for some (such as yourself) to be tattoo marked as state registered fuckwits. [Edit] If you were actually serious that is, which I doubt.

Yep: Extract from the LICENSING (AMENDMENT) ACT 2001 2. Children and young persons (1) Sections 20 and 21 of the 1995 Act (presence of persons under 16 in bars) shall cease to have effect. (2) In section 9 of that Act, after subsection (5) insert — "(5A) When granting an on-licence the court shall consider whether it should impose a condition prohibiting or restricting the presence in any specified room in the premises of persons below the age of 16.

That was largely back when the Republic was a grim theocracy and the North was a heavily fortified military zone with simmering (or sometimes boiling) inter-community conflict. Now they're both nice places to be, with good food and even the beginnings of half-decent beer. Less reason for the natives to need to escape.

and for some, especially those whose economic contribution the Island most relies on, getting on with life includes making significant decisions like: Whether to invest or divest in/from a business Moving to / from the Island Where one sites one's pension fund and other investments Buying / selling property by kicking the PS pensions can down the road (yet again), IoMG is leaving those who need to make those decisions without any of the certainty they need around the Island's financial future. In our hearts, I suspect most of us would like to bet in the IoM's favour. However until IoMG actually steps forward as does what needs to be done here, it's very hard to do that with our heads. Meanwhile our 'leaders' can occupy themselves by debating whether to gild the horse trams or turn the breakwater into a luxury cruise liner terminal. Idiots!

They have one. Except it's not one where participation is optional.

Then how about custody or community service terms? Presumably, by your 'logic' (or opinion) idlers and others with time on their hands should receive longer sentences? The traditional view is that the punishment should fit the crime. If instead you believe that those who are cash rich should be punished more harshly, then surely the same should be true for those who have organised their lives so that they have free time instead of savings / income? Or are your views more driven by spite?

Rubbish. I think the large majority of those on the Island with religious beliefs would accept that they are personal beliefs, not to be imposed on others. Not all, I accept. We do have our share of the nutters. However I've never judged Baker to be one of those.

The actual race coverage itself is superb, perhaps with a small complaint that they switch from location to location so quickly it's sometimes a little confusing (even for someone who knows their way around the course well enough). Still great coverage of fantastic racing though. The in-between-bits presentation OTOH is pretty poor. Steve Plater and Cameron Donald know their stuff. Jodie Kidd though seems like a nice lass who is a bit confused as to why she's there, struggles to maintain enthusiasm and often sounds like she's just reading a script off a card. Matt Roberts' wander through the starting lineup yesterday was just downright embarrassing. Frankly I wished the organisers had removed him from the track. Whilst the previous Doyle, Parrish & Whitham combination seemed a little tired at times, it beat Kidd & Roberts by a country mile. And yes, I intially thought the thread title was about Jodie Kidd complaining about midgets. ;-)

Oh really? The IFS don't agree: https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066 HMRC don't agree with you either: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140206181159/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/excheq-income-tax-2042.pdf Nicola Sturgeon was of your view though, but things don't seem to be working out too well for her: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/06/01/scotland-could-hit-tax-hikes-sudden-389-million-budget-fall/