Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On the subject of public access, I see the gate between the Cherry Orchard and Close Famman in Port Erin has been fenced off. I remember it having to be opened except for one day per year, sometime around Christmas / New Year iirc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes I'm kind of getting that impression of you.

So Rich bloke doesn't want the Island's great unwashed cycling and walking through a small piece of his land...fancy that.

At one time the Grand Island was the best hotel on the island .  The reason that it fell into disrepair was calculated neglect , as were a couple of other hotels in Douglas/Onchan. It's not

Posted Images

4 hours ago, John Wright said:

Even that is wrong. It may apply to a very small percentage ( less than 10% ) who are civil trial lawyers. But even then it’s not clear cut.

Of course it's not, but "lawyers are wrong 50% of the time" is a beautiful adage, if only because it winds advocates up and causes a severe loss of sense of humour, as you have demonstrated here.

(I would say 10% is way too low in any case, and it's not just civil is it).

But of course you will not disagree with that other beautiful truism, especially on the Isle of Man - "the lawyers always, always win" £££££££££££££

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, John Wright said:

Or, the Grand Island was in such a terrible state, hot and cold water running down the walls, failing electrics, threadbare carpets and furnishings, that a Nissen  hut on the beach would have been an improvement,  and IoMG got a good deal.

Not disputing that John, the a similar style of hotel was promised. What they got was that thing on the promenade

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Neil Down said:

Not disputing that John, the a similar style of hotel was promised. What they got was that thing on the promenade

it wasn't promised at all.  You are literally making that up.

There was never any request or promise to replace the GI with a GI type hotel.  Largely because it wasn't viable.  Which is why it was knocked down.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The new Park Hotel was NOT as originally promised, that was the subject of considerable complaint at the time, specifically the lack of any capacity for functions which left Ramsey residents with very few "in town" options, just the Masonic Hall or one or two pubs with the capacity. That has only now been added with the new extension.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

The new Park Hotel was NOT as originally promised, that was the subject of considerable complaint at the time, specifically the lack of any capacity for functions which left Ramsey residents with very few "in town" options, just the Masonic Hall or one or two pubs with the capacity. That has only now been added with the new extension.

To be fair it didn't lessen the options did it?

The discussions were never around a huge hotel and grandiose ballrooms etc.  The town needed a hotel that could provide a decent number of rooms.  It got one.  Which was handy given how ridiculously fucked over Peter Lloyd was.

The main requirement was a hotel in the town. Which was delivered.   It's perfectly decent too.  The addition of the function room aspect is welcomed too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Barlow said:

Of course it's not, but "lawyers are wrong 50% of the time" is a beautiful adage, if only because it winds advocates up and causes a severe loss of sense of humour, as you have demonstrated here.

(I would say 10% is way too low in any case, and it's not just civil is it).

But of course you will not disagree with that other beautiful truism, especially on the Isle of Man - "the lawyers always, always win" £££££££££££££

Or, 50% of clients are wrong. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

it wasn't promised at all.  You are literally making that up.

There was never any request or promise to replace the GI with a GI type hotel.  Largely because it wasn't viable.  Which is why it was knocked down.

Talk shite much?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

To be fair it didn't lessen the options did it?

The discussions were never around a huge hotel and grandiose ballrooms etc.  The town needed a hotel that could provide a decent number of rooms.  It got one.  Which was handy given how ridiculously fucked over Peter Lloyd was.

The main requirement was a hotel in the town. Which was delivered.   It's perfectly decent too.  The addition of the function room aspect is welcomed too.

Nobody is suggesting that a grandiose replica of the GI was offered or requested. The facts are that a replacement was stipulated in return for the dropping and development of the GI site.

But that initial replacement lacked the function facility that had been promised which left the town without any decent option until the extension of a couple of years ago.

When Peter Lloyd presents plans that are acceptable to the majority of authorities, they'll be passed. Simples.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/19/2020 at 8:41 PM, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

it wasn't promised at all.  You are literally making that up.

There was never any request or promise to replace the GI with a GI type hotel.  Largely because it wasn't viable.  Which is why it was knocked down.

You do seem very passionate and "well informed " about TH's motives and reputation. 

Are you just a wannabe or is your obsession something more perverse after all?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Max Power said:

Well, going back to the Donkey Track. If a private individual can just ride roughshod over PROW legislation and is allowed to get away with it, a very dangerous precedent will be set. 

It’s not a PRoW

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Max Power said:

It's listed as a road so surely there is a right of way?

A highway maintainable at public expense is publicly owned. The public can use it without the need for a right of way. A right of way, public or private is over the land belonging to a private third party.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...