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

James Hampton

Regulars
  • Content Count

    382
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

178 Excellent

About James Hampton

  • Rank
    "At least there's a protest vote available now"
  • Birthday 06/02/1981

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

685 profile views
  1. LIDAR is good, but still not good enough to accurately estimate the habitable area of a house even in combination with the other data they have. I’ve done a lot of transferring data between satellite imagery, LIDAR and full ground surveys. It’s good enough if you’re knocking up a planning application and the odd meter here or there doesn’t make any difference, but if we’re going to be charged x/sqm I don’t think it’s accurate enough. At the end of the day if you think you’ve been measured incorrectly I’m guessing it will be up to the individual to prove otherwise. Or maybe I’m too cynical again. The basic principle of using such an arbitrary factor to decide how much tax you pay is extremely regressive, not that we should be surprised.
  2. Not good enough to differentiate between a hedge and a shadow in our experience.
  3. Not consistently, older properties especially inaccurate. In theory government have been collecting survey data for a long time, but that isn’t verified either. They tried to do a similar thing a while ago with field boundaries I think and that was inaccurate too.
  4. The current system is a mess. This proposal is also a mess, and above all patently unfair - which is clearly why the government did not ask a direct question on the proposal when they had the chance. The most basic logic would do away with property rates entirely, as clearly there is no correlation between the form of a property and the cost of local services. It would make far more sense to scrap it entirely and move the cost to income taxes - though Chris Thomas denied they have any data on income and residency! The aerial photography solution is clearly going to be an absolute nightmare, with the onus on rectifying government guesstimates no doubt left with those who will be paying over the odds if they don’t correct the errors. I appreciate this is a poison chalice, but really this solution couldn’t be much more ham fisted.
  5. As I said earlier in the thread, I think numbers of vehicles licensed rather than registered over say ten years would give a far more informative data set. I quite fancy finding out actually as it would also shed light on the population question. I’ll have a crack at an FOI later if I get time.
  6. You saying the case wouldn’t go anywhere is not the same as proving liability has been removed. Your original suggestion was that IOMG could change to be ‘like’ the UK in this regard, however the fact is IOM Motorsport already runs under the scheme of reduced liability you claimed was a removal. If you’re running an approved event your liability is the same IOM or UK. The only gray area I’ve never had a clear answer on is what would happen if a Manx court tried to summon a UK GOV backed body. IOMG could reduce liability for organisers, however I can’t see that really being a vote winner as most of the legislation concerned is ostensibly there to protect the public.
  7. I think (could be wrong) that most organising bodies do offer some insurance for organisers in terms of civil liability (true for MSUK for instance), but again not absolute and subject to compliance. Most organsing bodies - whether authorized or not - are essentially insurance providers. MSUK provide permits, which is the legal requirement, and within the permit is insurance.
  8. The point you tried to make was that the UK has removed liability for event organisers. That is not true, and none of the links you’ve provided say that. There is a significant reduction if you can show compliance with regs - irrespective of whether it’s a motorized or any other form of event, but nowhere does any info I’ve ever seen (and I’ve seen a lot) offer a total removal of liability as you indicated, even if compliant. Prove me wrong. 100% clear exemption please. The IOM could draft its own law, but it would have to overrule all the other laws as listed - which would clearly be madness.
  9. It’s a UK Governing Body. Organisers would generally be prosecuted under H&S legislation, not traffic acts. That’s why there is no 100% exemption possible.
  10. It’s not a certainty, as you’ve already acknowledged, that’s not how the law works. IOMG could pass any law, that is correct.
  11. You are correct in one sense, it is odd that all IOM Motorsport is authorized through the UK Government - and so UK hold ultimate responsibility. Always struck me as a problem waiting to be discovered.
  12. I’m aware of the situation. You said ‘remove’ liability. You’ve now corrected yourself, it’s a reduction, not a removal. Organisers are ultimately liable. If they’ve fully complied with the regs they are working to they’ll probably - probably - be ok. If not, they are in deep trouble.
  13. And it was an authorized event, that’s why the authorizing body were also in court.
  14. That is exempting the competitor, not the organiser.
  15. I don’t think that is the case. Do you have a link? Organisers are always ultimately liable as far as I’m aware. There have been a number of prosecutions in UK in recent years on a variety of different forms of event - cycling is the one that springs to mind. https://m.pinkbike.com/news/not-guilty-plea-from-llangollen-race-organisers-in-spectator-death-case-2017.html With regards the Jurby Fest to me this looks very simple. These guys have been putting their time in for years (presumably with no pay with it being a club), and the balance of effort vs. enjoyment has now tilted too far the other way for them. As they guy said in the MR interview there is probably very little Gov can do to help, because ultimately the problem boils down NOT to money, but to having people who know what they’re doing and are willing to put in the effort - if they’re not there you can’t simply hire them, it doesn’t work like that. I was tempted to say Gov could supply some ‘bodies’ to help with the grunt, but even that is then putting more pressure on the top guys to manage them, and you’ve probably then got another liability nightmare. It’s not a problem gov can fix I think - and that chap indicates the same. Of course that’s not to say IOM Gov haven’t made it more difficult than it needs to be. We’ve seen this in 4 wheeled events, where the organiser is working entirely within the requirements of a UK authorizing body, and so would be entirely covered ultimately by the UK government, only to have IOM Gov add their own additional requirements - which it sounds like could have been happening here. The guys deserve a big thank you for their efforts to provide an event which was clearly popular with visitors.
×
×
  • Create New...