emesde

Personally I would rather they adapted a known working policy from the UK than bring in more consultants to come up with similar recommendations after many months and a huge fee for doing similar to what has been done here . If only we could have cut and pasted a successful road strategy from somewhere else we wouldn't have another 10 years of inaction in that area .

A company called Goldwell marketed that along with "Snowball" and "Wicked Lady" Ah nostalgia isn't what it used to be.!

I think they disappeared about the same time as Babycham; Mackeson ; and glass soda syphons

Only if there was a brewery tie. As a free house they would be able to buy wherever. There are several island based beers, wines and spirits wholesalers and a cash and carry. They could also import some products themselves or buy branded products from retail supermarkets. No guarantee they would buy all or any products from H&B

I'm not sure that is true as I think the people most likely to object to a Wetherspoon opening would be the LVA as their members would probably be the biggest losers. Wetherspoons will not operate, as far as I know, where they cannot get a turnover well in excess of £30,000 per week (1.5 million pa ) . If they felt they could get that in Douglas it would just about close or bankrupt every free trader in the area (possibly one exception) . If you think that is good for the trade as a whole and and worth it in order to cut a few pence off a pint so be it. It would certainly not increase choice and would destroy a lot of livelihoods. Running a single large pub from a distance is an expensive operation and they would be unlikely to be able to offer the same deals as in their UK pubs. I Believe they did look at the IOM as a possible market at one time but in every way it did not stack up as a business proposition. Please don't think I am against Wetherspoons, as I even have their app on my phone But the IOM is a very small market and expensive to operate in remotely .

There are probably too many pubs on the Island for the size of the population and the market ---many are struggling already to get a reasonable return. Why would the brewery actively seek competition to their own premises and further adversely affect their own operation?? They have operated pretty successfully for over 120 years and are managing change in a declining market in the way they feel is best for their business . You obviously don't agree, But it is their business to run as they see fit.

I think that the VIKING in Castletown is currently on the market if you are looking for a restaurant /pub . Advertised with Lowey and CO

As far as I know the brewery didn't manage the Liverpool Arms. It was a Tenancy which means that the Brewery owned the Building and that the Tenant owned the business . The tenant would pay an agreed annual rent and have a supply agreement for products . They would then have a business and accommodation.You seem very keen to blame the brewery for a business venture they did not control. I am sure if the brewery could have found a new ,financially sound businessperson to take this P.H. on and build the business they would have as it would give them a guaranteed rent and an outlet for their products .

Plus the food on the Pont Aven is pretty good

This is absolutely correct . Driving is the most dangerous thing that most of us do on a day to day basis ,therefore anything that reduces risk has to be a good thing. There have to be changes in the standards of roads------- ,junctions ,signage, speed limits etc etc Changes in vehicle design and reliability (To be fair vehicle manufacturers are pretty good at making advances) and to vehicle maintenance. Changes in the training of drivers whether it be to a generally higher test level ,or regular testing or graded testing for different power cars. or some other method of improving competence. As you say if the risk is reduced by even small amounts in each category the overall effect is significant in terms of road safety.

The whole thing is a whitewash to try and make out they are interested in road safety . look at item 7.3 "undertake local research on attitudes in relation to seatbelt use and compliance" There are volumes of research already on seat belt use over decades. They want to take years collecting unnecessary information which will keep lots of people in jobs and nothing will be done . Perhaps in a few years they will have a referendum to see if we want seat belts to be worn or not .

So it's up to the police to have to go and find faults in cars and not the responsibility of the owners to check their own cars. Really.?

Of course there will still be death and destruction. However the target is zero. To achieve this you aim to have safer cars driven on safer roads by safer drivers. You do not achieve your goals without addressing all three issues. That's what the Safe strategy is based on.

I suspect they are going to see how the CI are preparing for brexit. They will then come back and do similar. It saves them actually having to come up with ideas and solutions of their own.

Of course it would be cheaper not to pay for a test. But you could say that about everything in life. In terms of time we are talking about an hour a year. In this case I stayed in the vehicle while the tests were done. No repairs are carried out. If there are issues you are given a sheet showing the defects and have to get them fixed within a certain time (can't be more specific as car I was in didn't have any serious faults)