Jump to content
Coronavirus topics renamed and some locked. No new topics. ×
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man

AndyF

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About AndyF

  • Rank
    MF Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK :(
  1. Even to me, that looks slightly confusing. Given that Mon and Fri appear to have an hour beyond 1pm and Wed and Sat an hour less, the answer may of been to set all the days to be 09 to 13 / 1pm , same total. Unless it was like that before ? Not that it means much but our local one recently stopped opening Saturday afternoons (twas quiet though to be fair) and now its 09:00 to 13:30 only...
  2. I think the EU ultimately chose them, if you mean the 'deadline dates' , with some input from what was then the negotiating team as to if they were acceptable or not. I don't think said team went with a 'we must have date x' demand despite what might of been said. Could be wrong though.
  3. I don't think that would be good news. Left and a bit further left 'mix' , although I did not appreciate the last coalition what with it being a mix of right and far left, both sides at least (in some cases, not all sadly :( ) stopped the other from being too silly.
  4. I've not looked into that yet but somehow it would not surprise me that much.
  5. I think they mean too many people in one 'place' as such, rather than the total. Countries can only sensibly "support" x million people so mass movement is causing issues.
  6. That's an interesting take on it. Are you saying that 'left to its own devices' as such nature would erm 'control' the population ? I think that's probably true to some degree. There was a old computer program called "Evolution: Foxs vs Rabbits" way way way back (1982), this was quite illustrative of the point in that the fox population would grow/reduce depending on the number of rabbits available to eat etc, and over eating (so there were too few rabbits left) meant the fox population dropped due to no food.
  7. I was once told that a few hundred years ago in certain countries cannibalism was practised, no shortage of food then :( How true that was I do not know I've never researched into it. Suspect it was the UK when ti was the 'empire' interfering in other countries perhaps. Question is why are there so many people now ? Is it because technology has improved (including a bit in third world countries) where the survival rate is much higher than it was for newborns ? By this I mean it was normal to have a lot of offspring because some were sadly not expected to survive, whereas now they do but no on said not to have so many. I also wonder if religion plays any part in this in perhaps not permitting the use of any form of contraceptive perhaps but that may well be something for another topic another time. Ultimately question is *why* has the population exploded so much in the past 100 odd years...
  8. I'm not terribly keen on another referendum for reasons stated previously however there are a couple of schools of thought on it perhaps if it had to be done. The first would upset the remainers, in that the only options were to leave with a deal or without a deal, aka no remain option ;) The second one would be a choice of three, revoke / leave no deal / leave deal (probably May's deal as that was EU approved) , the thing with this is ideally the result should be immediately locked, as in the losing side(s) , that's it shuttup! We revoke/leave immediately. End of discussion. lol. Have to see how it pans out. I am not too sure I agree on the 'he won't go back' thing you could well be right in that he will simply call an election instead. But he would only be compelled by Parliament to go back , not to accept or agree to anything! Plus the fact the EU could say no (although as you say that's probably unlikely and I agree with this after more thought) , so he could quite well be going and tell them he wants some silly conditions just to make sure they say no, then he returns to parliament having done what the "new law" demanded aka: you must go and ask them.
  9. I had some of those McCartney's sausages the other week, having tried a few other brands (despite said others having good reviews generally I never enjoyed) the MC's were really nice actually. Partly I think because they looked cooked anyway and me being me microwaved them despite lack of info on this, I did ask them but they just told me to oven cook etc, figuring one or more of the other brands were zappable, these were too. They were! Did need a bit of Google research first on the best way to do it though. Same as zapping regular oven chips... Back on topic as such, its more a lifestyle thing and we are not to blame for the majority of it. Take a look 'across the big pond' to the USA for instance where foods are relatively cheap and plentiful. I've already partly covered the 'motor industry' part of the issue here in a previous post so I'll skip that. Can't see them reducing their meats consumption that much somehow. Mind you there was talk of lab grown meat a while back not sure how practical that would be scaled up or its environmental cost. It may be a way forward perhaps.
  10. Trouble is there's no fair way of implementing that I think. Partly why I thought my suggestion of 2.4 x amount regardless of if you have one or ten offspring running about, its fairer as the first one = always unexpected costs. This is also slightly fairer as its not limited to "first two" so there's no discrimination against the others either. Its paid if you have one or one hundred, same amount. :) Not sure on this thought I've seen where they are having endless offspring as its worthwhile financially ? I can't see that unless you've got more than about eight perhaps.
  11. Twas not my opinion although I could see why it was said. Well I think they are probably (all parties) slightly guilty of a bit of erm 'fact twisting' shall we say... True, I suppose he could ask for something stupid to make sure they just tell him to go away (not exactly that but you see what I mean hopefully) , I think all I was trying to say was the UK parliament if MP's took over and managed to pass whatever they wanted, they can't force the EU to give the UK an extension as all EU states must agree to it...
  12. Hopefully its one of those forms that you don't have to post back and you can just ring an automated number to confirm the listing is correct or not. Then again... Unfortunately regarding Brexit, the BBC News 'paper review' thing a couple of days ago. I can't remember the man's name who was one of the two reviewers however what he said at one point rang true in that: They rejected May's deal three times They took control over Parliament to get their own solutions through None of their solutions passed by themselves, they rejected them all. Five or Six of them iirc They rejected No Deal They rejected No Brexit They do not know what they want. They only know what they *do not* want. No easy solution. A computer would of said "Error: Division by zero " I can in all honesty see why May being forced to take NoDeal off the table did weaken her hand anyway as the EU then knew she had to take within reason what was served up. I'm not convinced what Boris is doing is right however it is likely the only way to get some control back as they (Parliament) know he will really do it. The plans they have for Tuesday, well even if they did manage to force his hand and force him by law to go back to the EU to ask for an extension, there is no guarantee at all they would give us any extension. I think Macron was not too keen last time ? , and iirc all states must agree to it too. So the UK MP's are in a slight mess of their own making here, they can pass what laws they like but the extension decision rests with the EU. The only alternative is to revoke I suppose. Apparently that can be done without penalty regardless of how much the EU has spent on Brexit stuff, as the UK has too. The other choice, another referendum well that seems a bit like "you need to keep voting until we get the result we want" , what if the result was the same with a narrow 'leave' again ? Or worse still a narrow 'remain' ? Best of three ? It would be in a way a bit of a travesty to have another vote. A neighbour did actually say something a few weeks ago that stuck in my mind (and he voted to remain) he basically said that if the referendum had gone the other way and the remain had one by a tiny tad, the leave/brexit people would of been banished forever never to be heard again. Because it went for them the remainers are piping up all the time. Alt would be an election I suppose but at the moment I can see it being quite similar to how it is now after, with a tiny majority Cons govt returned or a Lab gov with a tiny majority. A coalition would not be a million miles away I suppose. The last one although quite disgraceful in many respects did mean some good (imo) in that the hardline Cons 'right' could not get all their way as the Lib-Dems's stopped them and vice versa in that the Lib-Dems' extreme left did not get their stuff either as the Con's put the brakes on it.
  13. I would like to think so, but I suspect as I say a bit will go on hiring consulatation firms and the like, so in reality I'd honestly suspect something like 30% to 60% of the money 'taken' would go towards a project/projects with the rest taken up with red-tape beforehand. Then there's the likely 'we are over budget sorry we want more' thing too. Don't get me wrong though! It is worth doing however a better solution would be to encourage them (at whatever cost) to actually stop or reduce the damage/pollution caused in the first place. Ultimately the climate and nature is not really interested in money, you can't (daft example I know) pay the upper atmosphere to fix itself etc.
  14. The nail has been hit on the head here, the main issue I think is simply too many people. Its unfair to targett the elderly who in many cases have paid into the system their entire working lives only to be crapped upon later in life when its time to get something back, due to governments over the past 50+ years wasting endless monies. Regarding excess offspring, I don't know what the benefit policy is 'over there' , however here I think the cap here for max of 2 is completely wrong (read on please) as it potentially discriminates against the other children aka "we don't get money for you (insert name here) as you're our third/fourth" etc. The solution to this "cap" is very simple indeed and something I have suggested, I thought about one of those UK petition things until I realised I needed and excess of email signatures to get it started. Anyway my 'solution' to this is very simple: > They used to say the average was 2.4 children. That may no longer be the case but for the purpose of this example it is perfect. > Let us also (again just to make it really easy to read) say the benefit is £10 per child per week. I realise again that's wrong but it makes it easier to read/understand. With the above in mind any household with children < 16 or < 18 if they are in education etc, should get 2.4 x £10 per week. This is paid if they have just one or ten of them. This is much fairer I think as the first one there are always hidden and unexpected expenses etc etc. Those with one or two offspring will actually be fractionally better off, those with three fractionally worse. Those with a complete menagerie quite a bit worse off potentially. It would probably have to be brought in , in say 10 or more years time to allow people to adjust and not punish those already with an assortment of offspring perhaps. ^ But that's my idea anyway. It seems fair , unbiased and sensible unlike the current system. Moving onto climate itself, I'm not really keen on these carbon offset tax things either, this not really fixing the problem as I don't see the money going towards any solutions really, or some of it will likely be eaten up by "consulatations" and the like at a silly high hourly rate. I sort of wonder if this is merely paying an ongoing fine for your "climate crime" ,perhaps ? Crime is probably too strong a word here though. The answer is to not cause as much pollution, but with factories etc this is going to cost "mega-bucks" to speak to change or amend production processes and/or new equipment and ways of working.
  15. AndyF

    Eviction

    Sorry I should probably put that in my profile but I did that with interests but it showed in the userinfopane (left topic view) so looked untidy. Anyway "here" is Derby, UK Yes I know.
×
×
  • Create New...