Yibble

Anything but Tynwald. Well unless of course it runs massively over budget and behind schedule; proves finacially disastrous and generally unfit for purpose (apart from being a well paid source of employment for far too many crew, who are also largely unfit for purpose).

Indeed. Hence why one would change down a gear when driving at only 20 mph instead of 30, thus reducing vehicle speed whilst keeping engine speed near constant. But then you know that anyway, but have nevertheless made the silly claim that "D[r]iving at low speed is bad for the engine, reduces concentration and increases CO2 pollution. Idiots!", when the context is small reductions in speed for short parts of a journey through urban areas. If almost all of your driving is short trips around Douglas, you are right that won't be good for your engine or exhaust system (especially so if you drive a diesel), whatever the speed limit. If that's the case, an electric car or a bicycle would be a good choice. If however you regularly get of of town, the introduction of a 20mph urban limit should not have any of the disadvantages you claim.

Really? Citation needed. I'll be particularly interested to see what the global CO2 impact will be from slightly slower half mile journeys through Douglas. Most of London seems to cope well enough with 20mph limits in residential areas. There doesn't seem to be much problem with similar limits in residential areas elsewhere in the UK and Europe. I can retain my concentration perfectly well at 20 mph. And on the IoM, if you have a need for speed, there are plenty of places where you can exercise that urge (and long may it remain so). Maybe you should consider some driver retraining? Or perhaps your vehicle doesn't have a third gear?

He (Maguire) has been a prize tit. He's also undermined a cause (anti-racism) where he could have and hopefully still will make far more useful contributions. The Island clearly does still have a problem. The young lady who had an interview published on the IoM Newspapers site portrayed things very well and I hope more thought will follow from that. I also hope Mr Maguire will quietly apologise to Stu. However I also hope that most here will recognise that young men do make mistakes and will not attempt to pillory him for it.

Over to you, cheesemakers. Your move. I think at the very least SP is due a slap-up cheese feast of Beano proportions.

Not really. Pretty much all other countries have concluded that cycle helmet legislation is not a good idea. Most non-nutters do the same after having given a little thought to the arguments. There is a mass of stuff out there on this so I'm not going to statr repeating the arguments here though, beyond posting a few 'starter links'. https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets https://www.cyclehelmets.org/

On the same basis, it's surely about time that pedestrians were required to wear Kevlar body armour and to be fitted with airbags?

I don't want to see part of the taxpayer funded subvention payment used to have to make 'sorry we've wronged you in the interests of giving in to bullies and not making a stand for free speech and fair play' payments. Peters is owed his show back, sharpish, and either an apology or something close to it: "MR regrets SP's suspension during the investigation period" . MR also needs to issue a firm rebuttal of allegations of racism or inappropriate behaviour on SP's part. If MR 'pays the Danegeld' to the agitators this time, it won't be long before they're back with more demands on something else.

Chris Thomas's comment on the IoM Newspapers site was: Chris Thomas · 1 hr ago · REPORT The bill - even if enacted - does not make wearing helmets compulsory.

It's pure idiocy. Pretty much everywhere else in the world has concluded it's a bad idea. The law will either be widely flouted or the police will risk losing public support as they end up ticketing respectable 'old maids cycling to evensong' (nevermind the loss of authority if we set about some serious civil disobedience over the issue ). Hopefully this is just a 'wobble' or yet more crappy reporting. If not, the IoM will quite likely become a laughing stock here. [Edit] per John's comment above, it seems that this is indeed crappy reporting. Thank you John.

Bloody cheesemaking surrender monkeys eh? ;-)

If only we had the sub tropical climate of, say, Amsterdam, or Copenhagen.

So it's fairly clear he's not going to be a major rocker of the boat. He's not going to be the leader of a revolution. That doesn't necessarily equate to 'weak' though. Sometimes change has to be effected in a more subtle, collaborative way. It's possible Baker can operate as a competent, safe pair of hands, gradually changing things in a more sensible direction, bit by bit, without any major trouble (which is probably more than we could hope for from any of the others). Or he can just perpetuate the status quo and take the salary. To me, it's a 50:50 bet on that outcome. We'll see.

Agreed. He's also bright enough and a fairly decent and principled individual. What will be interesting is if he can actually subtly bring about change from within 'the club' or whether he's just become fully assimilated. I had hoped for some of the former (in a low key sort of way), but his high handed position on the Snuff the Wind biker ban suggests he's become just another member of the prefects' club. We'll see.

The economist Simon Wren-Lewis publicly backed Jeremy Corbyn for UK PM, which tells us all we need to know about his judgement. Had the UK electorate been stupid enough to follow Wren-Lewis's advice, the UK would presumably now be facting C-19 with Corbyn 'leading', Diane Abbott doing the science and John McDonnell deciding who is entitled to medical care (answer: party members).