Yibble

No. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

I have not previously held strong views on IoMG's handling of COVID, though there has certainly been a bad smell around their dealings with Dr Glover and her company. Today though they have demonstrated complete contempt for the Island's people. Fully knowing the cruelty of the lockdown, the suffering it's been causing, the importance to businesses and all the other ways in which it impacts on lives, they chose to waffle on and listen to their own voices instead of hold the briefing at the scheduled time. Did nobody in the Keys think to put their own self-importance on hold and call for an adj

Whatever it's painted with, it seems it's not scuff proof: https://www.ligurianautica.com/en/mega-yacht-en/a-small-sail-boat-rams-the-luxury-mega-yacht-a-one-of-the-most-expensive-in-the-world/73136/

I think it's important to distinguish what minister may actually be pronouncing, or even just discussing, from "groundless media speculation."

To be fair, I did suggest a (singular) pint. No it isn't*. It is certainly an offence to cycle on a road or other public place whilst unfit to ride through drink or drugs (RTA 1985, s13). However the 'Prescribed limits' (s 7E) apply to 'mechanically propelled vehicles', which pedal cycles are not considered to be (but e-bikes may be. I don't know). As with various road traffic legislation, the law quite sensibly recognises that there's a big difference between pedal cycles that travel at (say) 15 mph and one-tonne-ish+ metal motor vehicles that can travel at 70mph+. *My understan

You're consistently posting sensible comments. That's not very ManxForums. Add to that the cost of e-bikes will fall. But more to the point is the speed - reduced journey time - fresh air - fun - fitness - happiness - save money - powered-by-belly-fat-not-petrol stuff. Stop off on the way for a pint / coffee / nip-in-to-shop without parking hassle stuff. Bicycles win for so many journeys. Obviously if your commute is from Cregneish / Ramsey, that's probably not the case, but for those closer in it's an easy win. Warning. It hurts a bit at first. Oh and you may need a coat, sometimes.

Maybe the brewery's behaviour elsewhere has bitten them back on the arse here then. I do hope so, albeit I accept that may not be great for Ramsey (in the short term).

I wasn't suggesting that. Merely highlighting that FI seems (to me) to be another prominent example of a business creating blight, in the hope that may help as leverage for them to get planning permission for an inappropriate change of use.

The problem is not planning. The problem is H&B running the pubs down, slapping on restrictive covenants and then (Fort Island styley) leaving them as eyesores, in the hope they can get planning to turn them into luxury executive housing developments (*may prove unsuitable for the rapid rotation of felines). If the authorites stopped H&B from getting away with it, perhaps H&B would stop doing it in the first place.

Ah yes, the sunny tropical hotspots of Amsterdam, Copenhagen and (increasingly) Manchester and Dublin. It could never work here, not until someone invents the coat at least.

Car drivers get unhappy when they're stuck in queues of other cars and see cyclists whizzing past them too. That's because there are too many cars trying to use (and park on) the same road at the same time though, not because there's a problem with cycling. I guess the same will apply to e-bikes and e-scooters. I agree there will be issues keeping them off pavements and I also suspect small wheeled e-scooters may struggle with the state of Manx road surfaces. All the more reason for proper infrastructure for alternative forms of transport. Slightly off-topic, but I thought this was a goo

That would effectively have reduced Manx profits and increased profits somewhere else. Transferring profts from a low tax jurisdiction to a (presumed) higher one doesn't sound like particularly clever tax planning to me.

And then of course there's the grand old duke of tax avoidance jurisdictions: Luxembourg. That's fine though, because the avoidance industry was largely created whilst Jean Claude Junker was Finance Minister / Prime Minister, albeit it apparently all happened without his knowledge and he's assured us that he certainly was not the 'architect' of the tax regime and practices which facilitated massive scale avoidance.

That also struck me as the most likely path both to obtaining a good outcome for the Island and to minimising ongoing embarrassment and reputational damage for all parties.

Back to the booze (please ;-) ) . . . So yet another attempt at micro management then. Just because some folks' lives may be improved by changes in their own behavior, that's no reason to impose laws on the general population. This is also 'fiddling whilst Rome burns'; sort the hospital, sort the public finances and public sector pensions funding, sort the DoI and stop messing about with micro-regulation. As has been said, minimum alcohol pricing would mainly impact the sort of stuff I would prefer not to drink anyway (my choice, others should be free to enjoy). However it could also