P.K.

Agreed. There are some officers who appear to have forgotten that in these parts we have what is known as "policing by consent". One arrogant officer who was particularly insulting ended up having a cosy little chat with his Chief Constable. The problem is that it's not the arrogant copper who suffers when co-operation is less that forthcoming shall we say. It's the victim who ultimately pays for poor policing practices. So you should always carry on giving your full co-operation and if you feel hard done by i.e. doing 30 in a 30 limit, write down as much as you remember as soon as you can after the event and as a first step write to the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable ultimately works for you so EVERY letter sent to the CC is replied to. If you don't like the reply the next step will be to speak to one of his staffers. Eventually you may end up speaking to the CC himself. In the past I have told a copper that I would be writing to the CC about him. He told me it wouldn't do me any good. I told him it would do him a lot less good when letters of complaint start being attached to his personnel file where they will stay for as long as he is in the force. He didn't like that but then he shouldn't have been banging on my door at 2:00 am having gone to the wrong address and then tried to arrogantly fob it off.

I thought it was known as "Ramblage" on Mannin and I'm sure JW will know about it. As far as I'm aware "Trespassers will be Prosecuted" is just stating the bleeding obvious i.e. you're liable for any damage you cause. I much prefer the sign "My bull can cross this field in two minutes - can you?"

Bronowski's "Ascent of Man" is essential reading. I recall seeing the series when it was first broadcast and so read the book asap. I still have my original copy. I also had on my desk some work of Feynman. His famous "Problem Solving Algorithm" in fact: Feynman Problem Solving Algorithm 1) Write down the question 2) Think VERY hard 3) Write down the answer

The same. Last tour he'll ever do I imagine. Hotel at Tower Bridge, champers launch to and from the O2. If you're going to do these things you might as well do them well! Barca looks interesting - one of my favourite cities.

So far 2013 is shaping up nicely for us as well. Saw the Cowboy Junkies the other evening and very good they were as well. Margot Timmins has a voice of pure honey. We've also booked up Clapton, Reginald D Hunter, Lenny C and the Roses cricket. It's going to be a busy summer!

I disagree. First off how many faddish gadgets save you cash? Usually you have faddish gadgets that prove the running costs are not an issue to you. Secondly we purchased our first breadmaker as the missus seemed to develop an intolerance to mass-produced bread. She then made all sorts of awful looking lumps of mush that were pretty much inedible. Only to discover our home-made bread didn't effect her at all. We've never looked back. Mind you, we have a fondu set in the back of the cupboard!

I sourced a paddle from here I think it was http://stores.ebay.com/Bread-Machine-Parts-Finder

I know some people who use a breadmaker to mix the dough and raise it, but don't like the finished product cooked in a breadmaker. So once it is ready to bake, they remove the dough, put it in bread tins, and bake it normally in the oven. They say that the resulting loaves are considerably better. We've tried that a few times but didn't really notice a difference other than a harder crust. I'll try it again over xmas. To have lovely lovely bread first thing in the morning though we would have to set the breadmaker to finish it's last rise and then immediately take the dough out and put it in the oven. After baking and cooling enough for slicing that would take about an hour. That's an hour the breadmaker would let you have in bed! No contest.

Absolutely. Everyone I know who makes their own bread would NEVER purchase mass-produced flavour-free e-numbers ever again. There's the cost as well. 1500 gms of brown flour, enough for 3 loaves, is about £1.30. White flour is 70p per 1500 gms which surprises me as white flour needs more refining than brown. Sachet of yeast - 10p. Add a few spoons of salt, sugar and oil plus water and you have a loaf far superior to anything you can buy for about a third of the cost. We use a breadmaker and like to set it all up so the loaf is baking early morning - and you can't beat that lovely bread baking smell when you get out of bed!

What customer service? or was that the point ? No. That was the "joke."

it's mine??? edit; BOLLOX Strange, I can only see 38 pages. Of course, the max is view 40 posts/page so all the "100 pages" lot must still be on the forum default.

Dear me, what a pissing contest on fares! Some say it's expensive, others say it's reasonable. So they start to make meaningless comparisons with other routes. And they are meaningless because so many other factors should be taken into account! With the major one being volumes where economies of scale kick in. However, probably in every other route you care to mention, there isn't a monopoly on pax. There is in this case and the SP has it. Does anyone on here seriously think they don't use it to their advantage? Grow up, get real, move on...

Why on Earth did you bother? Do you tune into local radio stations around the world to listen to shipping debates? Because it's a service I happen to use. Dear me, you really are the very worst troll by a country mile. Still, you managed to post two sentences without resorting to obscenities, which is an improvement of sorts I suppose... So freight is not part of the UA? Strange, before I lost the will to live I'm sure I heard Mr Quayle say that the rates had to be ok'd by Tynwald? Guess who said this a little while ago "to retain and win back freight business rates would have to be reduced..." Clue : Breaker Morant.

That makes perfect sense. But the price rises are restricted by the UA of course. Now assuming enough Graylaw's business is lost the Mezeron operation will presumably run out of steam (sorry, couldn't resist) and they'll pack it in at the current level. Now these "favoured customers", do any of them really think that on the demise of Mezeron's twice-daily sailings the SP won't then hike their prices back up?

I listened to this yesterday (I was waiting for some paint to dry) and frankly it's an hour of my life I would like back. Mr Quayle was very coy on who the owner's were, what action they were taking, how it's the haulier and not the stores who have gone to Mezeron and so forth. Basically nothing new at all. The amount of freight they have lost would appear to be about 20% which has got to hurt. Although he did say the banks who own the shares clearly want to fight back, but then they would as the assets fall so far short of the loans it's the ONLY way they can get a return on their investment. However he didn't mention that they were going to put freight charges UP and he MUST have been central in that decision making process! Funny that...

Well hboy, that's a nice public statement you've made there! Errrr - wait a minute....

Are you sure that it's not a management indecision? The SP will have modelled profit seasonality to the n'th degree and right now it is heading into a peak. Come the new year perhaps some decisions will just have to be made. Wait and see mode.

I suspect, because I do not know, that Mr Gawne is of the opinion that if the SP wasn't having to service their £200m debt then they could compete with Mezeron. I wonder what his point is? If the SP was to be nationalised then they would have to bring on board (sorry) the debt with it. IMHO it would be a very bad idea. It's very very rare that a successful and profitable business can be run with a social conscience. Still no real reaction from the SP to all of this. Lot's of kite-flying but that's about it i.e. the words wind and pissing spring to mind here. I suppose it's possible that the route is just so profitable that they can absorb the recent losses but somehow I doubt it. I've seen it before where inaction is the result of not knowing what you can do so you don't actually do anything in the hope that things might improve somehow. Always fatal. Unless, of course, your profit margins are such that they're an embarrassment...

And your point is? 20 mins to the Ashes 2010. For once the England bowling doesn't pick itself. So what if North and South Korea go nuclear and the SP stick to the UA on minimum levels of service. There's more important things to life than such trivialities... History is with the Baggy Greens as they haven't lost at the Gabba for 22 years. You know, I'm starting to enjoy this semi-retired lark. No work to get up for tomorrow for me - happy day's - I hope. But Australia are always difficult to beat and they're on home ground. Forget their recent run of defeats, they're always going to be a formidable opponent. Bring it on!

Any sniff of a Gov subsidy will immediately polarise the travelling population. Between those who use the SP a lot, for work let's say, and those who usually prop up the Ronaldsway overspend. In fact, I would bet the Irish bailout that it is already happening on here! Those who bleat "Let the SP suffer" will be the air travellers and those looking for SP alternatives will be the rest. The SP attitude to pax has always been "We're going anyway, you can come along as well if you like..." which tends to bear out that freight is the reason for the level of service. So what are the SP currently doing about it? Well, no answer was the stern reply...

Unfortunately the SP have demonstrated just how much can be squeezed out of the route. Don't expect a charitable organisation to take over anytime soon...

Well exactly. I'm not talking about Dogs Bollocks Ltd (Total Exemption) here where some nerd has purchased a company and promptly bores the arse off everyone in the pub with how he "owns his own company" and is desperate to give out his vastly over-priced business card with "Managing Director" emblazoned on it and at the same time running down the NHS whilst keeping quiet about how he uses his "company" to avoid his social obligations by giving the NHS / pension fund a paltry £12 per month. I've mostly worked for US multi-nationals. That's the US that is the most litigious nation on earth. Bearing in mind the shareholders could sue your arse if you fuck-up their investment what US director is EVER going to make a decision? So of course the company has to financially cover their directors otherwise NOTHING would ever get done. It's a bit subjective as well. When does "sharp practice" become fraud? When does "incompetence" become criminally negligent? Everyone knows about Enron but the real story for me is Xerox Corp, not least for the fact that amazingly it's still trading! Probably like Hoover and Google it's down to the strength of the brand. A French colleague of mine purchased 1000 XRX shares in 1997 I think it was for $38 per share. Two years later in 1999 they were trading at $62 per share and Patrick was a very happy boy. A year later they were at $4 per share, had been rated as "junk", $millions had been wiped off the value and he couldn't even give the bloody things away. Patrick was a very unhappy boy indeed (and the subject of some mockery I can tell you). The cause was that the directors had been somewhat "overstating" the business. With the result that one of them trousered over $20m in one year alone just on his share options. The SEC came down hard on Xerox. It made them restate their figures for the last 3 years (iirc) and handed down a record penalty of $10 million for the way the director's had "presented" the business results. To the disgust of many shareholders, like my colleague who had lost 90% of his investment, this was paid by the company thus reducing the (by then negligible) divvy still further. It was paid by the company because they contractually covered the directors, see here for the SEC ruling. There was a little footnote. Probably because of shareholder pressure the SEC eventually grew a pair and took a pop at some of the directors. For some reason the SEC are happy for payments to be made without admitting liability. The penalties were laughable compared to how much they had taken out of the company but they made them cheerfully in order to "get on with the rest of our lives" - the point being that not having been found guilty of any wrongdoing they can still hold company office. So when a director of a failed IOM bank stated that "not being told what was going on was like being on a pedestrian crossing and being run down by a lorry" I had to smile. Whatever happened to "due diligence" I wonder? Oh well, never mind eh...

It clearly states "factual amendments" but does anyone challenge the SP version? This made me smile "identify any items within the report that they consider to be commercially sensitive and that should not be made public" which is to say ALL OF THEM. With a business rival snapping at their heels the last thing the SP would want is to broadcast their P&L to all and sundry. But again, who makes the call on what should or should not be in the public domain? What auspicious timing for the SP...

Do you mean as per the famous Enron cows - beloved by Business Schools everywhere? Capitalism You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income Enron Venture Capitalism You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using Letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then Execute a debt / equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The Annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. - No Balance Sheet provided with the release. The shareholders buy your bull. Edited to add the rest: TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM -- You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income. AN AMERICAN CORPORATION -- You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead. FRENCH CORPORATION -- You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows. A JAPANESE CORPORATION -- You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create clever cow cartoon images called Cowkimon and market them world-wide. A GERMAN CORPORATION -- You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves. A BRITISH CORPORATION -- You have two cows. Both are mad. AN ITALIAN CORPORATION -- You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch. A RUSSIAN CORPORATION -- You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka. A SWISS CORPORATION -- You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them. A HINDU CORPORATION -- You have two cows. You worship them. A CHINESE CORPORATION -- You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the numbers. AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION -- You have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute. ENRON CORPORATION -- You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using Letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then Execute a debt / equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The Annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. - No Balance Sheet provided with the release. The shareholders buy your bull. ARTHUR ANDERSON, LLC -- You have 2 cows. You shred all documents that Enron has any cows, take 2 cows from Enron for payment for consulting the cows, and attest that Enron has 9 cows.

I've been waiting with some interest for an SP response and to date there hasn't really been one. But in a way I suppose any response would either be limited or total. The sheer scale of the loan is a surprise to me. We're not talking small fry like Gordon Ramsay putting his house up against borrowing to keep swearing at all and sundry his dinky little company afloat - these are seriously corporate amounts of cash. A loan of £232m would need some serious security. And I just don't see anything like enough in the SP operation. And loans eventually have to be repaid. In this case how? I don't see how the SP was ever going to be able to repay the capital. And now, well, hell in a handcart! It's always down to the £numbers and to me it seems these have never added up...