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

James Hampton

Regulars
  • Content Count

    387
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

187 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

731 profile views
  1. Whether it was funny or not is for the individual to decide, which they could do even if they’d commented by turning off notifications for that post. Blocking everyone’s access because you’ve personally decided it is no longer funny and you have the power to do so is pretty much textbook megalomania.
  2. A post was made in the ‘what, where, who group’ bemoaning the fact you could no longer buy half a cucumber in Ramsey Co-op I think. Wasn’t clear if it was a joke but was done in a ‘massive injustice’ stylee so it received the response you would expect. Went a bit viral locally with everyone and their dog piling in on the joke and carrying it along. For no logical reason the comments were then closed, no sign of anything nasty or abusive that I saw, ostensibly just because people were enjoying it too much. Classic case of moderator megalomania.
  3. Just a snapshot of a wider problem. Residents have effectively been robbed and are paying directly by reduced service and increased costs, but rates could double tomorrow and would anyone resist? Unlikely. Makes me wonder how much would be too much. How much would trigger a response. Seems likely central government have realised this and LAs are now being lined up as handy scapegoats to carry the burden of cost being offloaded by central government via the rates ‘modernisation’
  4. But I thought everyone loved this system? Best we can do I was told repeatedly.
  5. 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.
  6. Not good enough to differentiate between a hedge and a shadow in our experience.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...