Albert Tatlock

The last time I was in a noisy car...I was courting.

You're not an expert on anything if you have one opinion only and do not consider any other options. He shouldn't be allowed to be there as a doctor, he's obviously simply just yet another god botherer.

I think he has to be in bed for 7pm, so he might have missed that one.

Were they all crying and got sent home?

The main problem with noisy cars I have is the shit 'doof doof' music you hear at full blast most days at traffic lights and stop signs. How can people concentrate on driving listening to that racket at that volume? All sound equipment in cars capable of playing any music produced after 1989 should be immediately confiscated in my view.

Even if such a scheme is brought in, you would still have the usual landlord v tenant arguments about the condition a place was left in, and what it was like at the start. Mostly subjective, with no arbiter except for the courts perhaps. I know a few professional people that have taken photographs when they moved in and out of rented accommodation - left the place in good condition (sometimes even conscientious enough to get a professional cleaner in before they moved out) - yet still faced this bullplop from landlords. A couple pursued the landlord, but most give up - which is exactly what most landlords hope you will do, given the complexity, potential costs and inconvenience involved fighting them. If government are serious about trying to bring people here, and sorting the accommodation crisis, they need not just a deposit protection scheme, but an arbiter too, perhaps one who also holds the photographic evidence when a person moves in - that can be compared to when they move out. I think most people writing cheques for large rents and deposits would even chip in to such a scheme - a fee of e.g. £30 for such a service would make the tenant feel more protected and the landlord more wary of trying anything on. Maybe run on similar lines to, or an extension of, homestay inspections?

The masters of propaganda knew...

When I started this thread, my main concern was not having, say, a 5 year residency rule. They seem to have addressed this now and realised the likely financial and health infrastructure consequences of anything less. As to the medical experts in this field, they should be listened to. But the 2700 religions on the planet should be told to stick any objections affecting others and not themselves - up their arse.

This stinks of more government made-up statistics...or Isle of Man Government 'Stat-Twist-Tricks' as I prefer to call them.

I don't think anything under £80M will be realistic going by past performance. School building costs vary substantially by square metre, by city, in the UK: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1330345/primary-secondary-education-building-construction-costs-uk-by-city/ and I highly suspect ours will be much closer to the higher end + the usual Isle of Man screw up/milking government costs. Square metre comparisons don't work on the Isle of Man - it's usually the 'cost plus' model that is followed here = initial estimate + forgot this + forgot that + cocked that up + had to redo that + revisit initial requirements + inflation price increases + fixed 15% construction profit. They seem to be still planning for a population of 100,000, which it seems most residents don't want anyway not least for a wide variety of other 'way of life' and existing infrastructure capacity reasons - plus more recently the birth rate has collapsed to around half of what it was. That only confirms to me a further government disconnect from reality. I'd put off any decisions until the 2026 census provides far more 'sensible' data to be able plan on. There's a much bigger picture going on in the background here. Linked to that data, a modular approach (along with a management plan as to what years attend which schools) could reduce costs significantly and save us building a lot of under utilised infrastructure at top dollar. Government need to be far more realistic on this, they've already increased taxes (the full affect and impact on business of which will only be known next year). The last thing we need is another ferry terminal equivalent, and an ill-thought-out under-utilised utility.

A 12th of an AA battery is difficult to imagine in a single sausage. So I would use a more recognisable comparison scale. The average smallish fart is around 30mg so that's around 60 small farts per sausage. ...or around 4 super-dooper farts (those bordering on follow-through) per single sausage.

Doesn't matter even if 100% vote for such a manifesto...the Chief Minister and his selected band for Comin always gets in. Not one manifesto has actually been implemented in at least 30 years. Shameful really, particularly, for example, on the affordable housing issue 90% of all candidates put as a 'top priority' in the last election. Little wonder most people have given up voting here.

The cheeky barsturds!

"Commissioner Stupidity Part 1"? We could give this its own channel on MF.

Isn't there already a glaring, say 73% 'None of the above' with such as a 27% turnout? So you're essentially dealing with the same question...should the 73% actually mean something in a democracy? Should for example a 51% or greater vote turnout count, and a 49% turnout means the vote is deemed 'none of the above'. Worst case, the current system could technically get you voted in with 1 vote - from yourself or no votes given too few candidates (totally undemocratic). Would a 'none of the above' option actually increase turnout by very much in reality?