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

manxman1980

Regulars
  • Content Count

    3,656
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by manxman1980

  1. "Penny for the Guy" is hardly begging... When I read the title of this thread I imagined children sitting on the streets wearing rags due to poverty! I see no harm in it as long as they are not being obnoxious and that they have actually made an effort. As to whether this is a Manx tradition or an imported English one I do not think it matters too much. Guy Fawkes was certainly taught in a historic context around this time of year when I was at school on the Island and we learnt about the persecution of the Catholics as well. As EORH mentioned the target was not just Parliament but also the King - The King who would have been Lord of Mann (as far as I am aware) so there is some relevance to the IOM. As Pierrot Lunaire says most people love a good firework display.
  2. a taser doesn't have the range of a gun though, she might aswell have been holding a knife. The point I was making was that it had not been disharged and therefore would suggest that even a gun would have been no use in this case. The key piece of information however is that the Police Officers themselves do not want to to routinely carry a fire arm as they believe that this will lead to them being less approachable by the general public.
  3. If I was buying a locomotive I would prefer to use a company that concentrates on building good locomotives rather than having a fancy website.... Maybe that is just me though!
  4. It is certainly possible for an Employer to legitimately issue notice of termination to an Employee and offer immediate re-engagement on new terms and conditions. It can fall under one of the fair reasons for dismissal known as "some other substantial reason". Without going into chapter and verse it would be for an Employment Tribunal to decide whether the Employer had acted reasonably taking into account both the Employee's point of view and that of the Employer. For further information please see the Isle of Man Employment Rights and Responsibilities: A guide for employers, employee and workers - August 2012 which you can find on http://www.gov.im/ded/employmentRights/rights.xml You are looking for section 1.3 on page 19.
  5. The majority of the Police force are not in favour of being armed either! I do not believe that had the officers who were killed in Manchester been armed it would have made any difference to the outcome. Last reports were that one officer had removed her Taser to use - surely it takes the same time to remove the Taser and it does a fire arm...
  6. Someone please correct me if I am wrong but none of the list of offences are actually criminal offences. Are they not in fact all civil offences?
  7. "In order to proceed with this transaction, you will be required to contact the agent in-charge (MICHEAL PATEL) via e-mail. Kindly look below to find appropriate contact information: CONTACT AGENT NAME: MICHEAL PATEL E-MAIL ADDRESS: michealpatel6@gmail.com" Because so many officials in the USA have gmail accounts for business! "We have tried our possible best to indicate that this $550.00 should be deducted from your winning prize but we found out that the funds have already been deposited at Bank Of America and cannot be accessed by anyone except the legal owner (you)" Are the FBI not sure if they have tried their best?
  8. http://www.courts.im/courtinformation/othercourtfunctions/coroners.xml
  9. It looks like a reasonable list to me. Why would you want the courts tied up dealing with these offences if they can be dealt with directly by the Police? It might also help tackle people who do not look after their vehicles and therefore make the roads safer for everyone.
  10. Why am I not surprised that someone made that comment.... *sigh*
  11. I have higher standards than that. If it had been me, I would have resigned from that particular post, and don't forget we are talking here about the equivalent of home secretary. Where would you draw the lines on these things? 'He was drink driving, but no one got runover so it's all ok!'? Principles are principles. Integrity is integrity. Responsibility is responsibility. But he was not drink driving was he?! He was being responsible and after having a few drinks chose to use public transport rather than get behind the wheel himself. Juan could have chosen to get a taxi or a lift with someone instead and in that case would we have had all this fuss? Maybe he could have booked a hotel room and put it on expenses?! This thread is nothing more than a witch hunt and you all know it. There is no real argument that he was being irresponsible by using public transport (I do not know how much he had to drink but it may not have been excessive as alcohol can affect people in different ways at different times). Juan also admitted that the event had happened and apologised for it - what more do you want for a minor indiscretion?
  12. They commemorate people who died during the conflicts? I'm aware of that. Monkey boy - You initially stated that they are "public shrines to people who would by now be dead" rather than as a memorial to the people who lost their lives in the conflict(s). That was the reason it was commented on.
  13. ??? Don't ask, Albert, don't ask ..... It's quite simple, even you two should be able to grasp it. The enormous conflict that came to be known as The First World War started on the 28th July 1914 with the invasion of Serbia by the Austro-Hungarians. A centenary is a period of time equal to one hundred years. Therefore it follows that the 28th July 2014, a date less than two years hence will be the centenary of the start of the First World War. I hope that clears things up for you. If not, try to go against your instincts and just ask, both of you, ask..... I think the question was more about the reasons you were looking forward to the centenary rather than about dates.
  14. I was not born at the time but listened to the documentary as I was interested in what had happened. Although none of my family were in Summerland at the time a few family members attended the scene as part of the Civil Defence. They also took pieces away for analysis in the UK as part of the investigation. I was dissappointed that the documentary seemed to be more about blaming than an actual review of what happened. It would also seem that the views of irishone may have been slightly misrepresented or taken out of context. I have contacted an MHK with regards to looking at a proper memorial and service of remembrance and would recommend that others do the same. That way maybe we can get over this apparent lack of care and interest from the Manx people.
  15. “You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time”.
  16. LDV - Whilst I can now understand your views, I am afraid that we will continue to disagree with each other. I do not believe enough consideration has been given to the practicalities of your ideal society to currently make it a viable alternative. I think you would find that people will revert imposing similar structures as exist now. I think such change would also be very difficult as it would take a huge shift for people to give up individual possessions and share them with society. I noticed that you were advertising an item for sale on these forums. Surely this must conflict with your ideals? I know that you will say that this is what society imposes but you could give items to charity if you no longer require them.
  17. I am so glad that people listened!!
  18. Please can we focus on what really matters and that is the missing child... No-one on here (including me) knows the facts of what happened that evening and the circumstances leading up to the abduction. Everyone is speculating and that is not helping anyone. All it does is spark a few pointless arguments.
  19. Why don't we just ditch the law altogether? That way there is no crime at all and we can do whatever we want!
  20. Incorrect on most counts: in the UK you are now automatically enrolled and even if you opt out you will be re-enrolled at regular intervals in an attempt to force you to save for your retirement. The Tynwald scheme is final salary: which means that it bears no relation to anything you have paid into it at all as its linked to what you are paid as a salary throughout your working life/terms of office. Yes you will be re-enrolled at regular periods BUT you can still opt out each time... You are not legally obliged to stay in the scheme and therefore not compulsory. It will also not apply to everyone and is linked to age and earnings. It will be 2014 before some companies are even required to start doing this. Previously employers only had to have a pension available and were under no obligation to contribute. I will accept the point of the final salary scheme. Even so the two points are completely irrelevant to each other!
  21. Problems, illegal drug activity will never go away, even if you drag it kicking and screaming into legitimate standing. Booze, fags, DVD's, clothes, etc all can be bought legally and with tax attached to it. Yet millions (if not billions) of pounds/dollars/whatever is made on the profuction of/smuggling of/distribution of knock off or tax free goods. While I agree that legalising certain drugs will reduce the police "footprint" on that particular substance....people are still going to get rich, illegally, on a black market for cheap/tax free prodcuts. Exactley!
  22. The UK Schemes are not compulsory - you are just automatically enrolled and you can opt out if you want... Without reading in detail what the Tynwald scheme gives you as a benefit it will still be linked to the total contributions - those choosing not to pay in will therefore lose out compared to those that do... Otherwise why would you bother contributing additional money yourself.
  23. But if you lose your inhibitions and become violent through alcohol or drugs that are the cause of you beating your wife surely it is to late to stop you... And do not compare sexuality, which may be a genetic predisposition, with a lifestyle choice. You are not born wanting alchohol, tobacco or drugs...
  24. But most people who drink alcohol (or indeed get drunk) don't buy it illicitly. At the moment everyone who takes (illegal) drugs has to do so. The very existence of a legal market would make it much easier to enforce restrictions on any remaining illegal drugs activity. Legal drugs would be more 'reliable' both in terms of how they are experienced and avoiding overdose. You would probably be get more users and possibly addicts, but the actual help needed might well be less and of course the cost elsewhere on law enforcement etc would be less and there would also be income from duties and taxes. It is a matter of getting the balance right, rather than going for complete prohibition or complete deregulation. But there's a good argument that the current balance is too far on the prohibition side - unlike say in Victorian times. I buy the argument but I think they should be highly taxed just like alcohol and tobacco if they were to become legal. Whilst I might agree with the argument I do not see why people need them to have a good time. If you cannot have a good time without drugs, alcohol or tobacco you need to seriously consider what you are doing!
  25. Okay - Legalise it and tax it highly. People will still buy the cheap stuff cut with god knows what because they cannot afford the legitimate stuff! It happens with designer goods (cheap knock off rubbish still sells), and is now happening with alcohol (cheap Russian "Vodka" anyone?). Potentially an increase in additictions as they become more accessible to the whole of the population and therefore a knock on effect with increased need for drug support, medical treatment and policing of people who are high. So we up the tax once again and everyone cries foul while the criminal element continue to make money from the cheap stuff. I could reduce crime to zero if I was elected - I would just repeal every law ever made and then there would be no crime, no need for the police either. Just get on with whatever you want too!
×
×
  • Create New...