Roger Mexico

To change the subject from Dilli's meltdowns to Charles Guard's, the second part of that interview is even worse isn't it? The way he defends the over-numerous and over-paid management by declaring that they're really underpaid because they get less that Departmental CEOs is wonderful. It just highlights how overpaid the latter are rather than the Manx Radio lot are hard-done-by. He also seems really resentful that Moulton actually gets makes a living in the private sector and that what he does is somehow 'unregulated'. Presumably exactly the same regulations apply to Moulton as Manx Radio, maybe what he really is thinking of is 'uncensored'. And of course the snobbishness about the gardeners, which seems to imply that anyone who works with their hands, no matter how well-qualified or knowledgeable about their job, is somehow inferior to every white-collar worker and so should be paid less. Of course Moulton produces a lot of very good and often investigative content on a much smaller budget than Manx Radio. Often fulfilling the public service requirement far better than those who make such a fuss about it. I also suspects his take-home pay and perks are a bit less than Mr Pugh's.

Clearly he is horrified by the idea that they might be employing any. It's another brilliant example of the Manx Establishment at its arrogant finest. Any accusation of wrong-doing is met, not with an attempt to find out what happened or even denial, but with "Who told you that?" and the implication that whoever did ought to be punished. Everything must be personally motivated, as with the accusations against Moulton of bias. They simply can't understand that any criticism might be justified or even needs to be investigated, because they know that anything they do is by definition perfect. Anyone who disagrees must therefore be malicious and driven by personal spite.

It's even worse than that - Juan Watterson is in his 'ceremonial robes'. (You wonder if he sleeps in them).

This is exactly the issue and maybe get Manx Radio run with a little bit more financial acumen and not posting a loss every year. Manx Radio should be lobbying for this and quite frankly I don't understand why they aren't. The BBC taking over or paying for Manx Radio, just isn't going to happen. The last new BBC Local Radio station was set up in 1993 (and that didn't last long). If they haven't provided a new one since, they're hardly going to start one for 85,000 people who have two local commercial alternatives. And they're certainly not going to start paying for something that someone else runs. In fact when the UK Government made the BBC start paying for services once paid for by the Govt, such as BBC Monitoring, they just cut it back so much that, according to Private Eye, the UK has had to start providing its own at much greater expense and with less expertise. The main structural problem with Manx Radio is that it is massively over-managed and administered and those doing those jobs are over-paid and unwilling to do anything differently from how they have been doing them for the last 30 years. The commercial side seems mainly to exist to fund itself, if rumours are correct (even by Manx standards the accounts lack transparency). None of these problems will be fixed by the Government intervening because they are just the fame faults the IOM Government has itself, but in miniature.

No form of contraception is 100% effective and that applies particularly to the types used in less permanent relationships such as condoms. But even if every one of the say 20,000 fertile woman on the Island was on a contraception that was 99% effective, that would mean 200 unwanted pregnancies a year. In reality things will never be that near effective, but even if it was there would still be a need for abortion. To try to blame a lack of responsibility (as some do, though I realise you're not) ignores this, though I've always wondered why a lack of responsibility should somehow oblige people to parenthood. And while contraception is theoretically available in most countries, it's not always easily accessible, reliable or affordable for everyone. And that does make a big difference - look at the way the Irish fertility rate dropped from the early 70s on when contraception gradually became legal and available. There are still many countries where religious prejudice and the poor status of women means that obtaining reliable contraception is not easy. It's true that 'abortion as contraception' has tended to exist in some countries - often during Communist periods, though capitalism can have its effects as well. The Pill used to be banned in Japan due to pressure from condom manufactures and abortion doctors (and is still not that available), leading to high abortion rates there. But women will opt for contraception if easily available - it just isn't always.

The Abortion Reform Bill 2018 is currently awaiting Royal Assent and the Explanatory Notes that came with the Bill lay out the structure of the way the different trimesters are dealt with: This seems reasonable to me (including the expectation that the very rare (c) ones should be done off-Island). The only real worry I have about this is that elements in the DHSC will try to obstruct its implementation.

No it isn't. Abortion may be cheaper for the NHS than a birth (never mind all the subsequent costs) but it is still more expensive than contraception. And contraception is much less of a bother for women than having a long stream of abortions. Helping "women not get pregnant in the first place" should be and is the priority. But no form of contraception is perfect and accidents and mistakes can happen. So the option of abortion needs to be there as a back-up.

But she is facing her responsibilities - she's having an abortion. She's deciding that she is unwilling or unable to have (and presumably raise) a baby at this time in her life and so taking action to change that situation. Because we have a National Health Service, it's right that she shouldn't have to pay for that procedure, just as she wouldn't have to pay for the (much greater) cost of giving birth. If you support one option being free then you should support both, or you are advocating her being punished for the decision she has made.

The Manx Radio report is a bit ambiguous, but if you follow the link, the ten deaths is the figure for the year up to the end of August, not just in that one month. It says: There have been 10 cases recorded by the coroner, as of the end of August, compared to 5 in the whole of 2017. The figures listed in that piece are: 2018 (to end Aug): 10 2017: 5 2016: 3 2015: 8 2014: 1 How reliable they are is another matter. There was an FoI request to the Cabinet Office in August: How many deaths by suicide have been recorded on the Isle of Man in each of the last twenty years, which they answered by saying: The yearly figures for that were: 2014: 5 2013: 10 2012: 11 2011: 9 2010: 10 2009: 15 2008: 6 The discrepancy between the 2014 figures is probably because they also include open verdicts, where it is impossible to say (for example with a death from a drugs overdose) whether the death was intentional or not. There may also be confusion if the inquest is held in a different year from the death. I'm not sure if the FoI request was from Manx Radio, or where they got their later figures from. At least the Cabinet Office were helpful. When someone asked a (very badly worded) similar request in March, the General Registry basically told them to piss off.

That's all true, but Butterflies was simply making the point that, even in its own (financial) terms, the argument GeeCee was making was a stupid one. In reality most of those who use the "we shouldn't pay for abortions" are really saying that women should be punished for getting pregnant.

Yes it's quite shocking (and very bad of Manx Radio to treat it so uncritically). This 'counselling' organisation seems mainly to exist to make women feel as guilty as possible for having an abortion - and to include as many other people in the guilt and blame as possible. But the truth is that most women don't feel guilty about having had an abortion at all. A bit regretful about the necessity perhaps, but accidents happen and circumstances change and they are usually sure they have made the right decision. And it then really isn't the business of anyone else. To try to make women feel that they 'ought' to feel sad and worried is appalling, though it's what too much of discussion on the topic assumes. Even if women and their partners feel bad emotionally - as they might say if they've had to abort a wanted pregnancy that has produced a badly-damaged foetus - I would think the last people they should turn to for help would be these religious guilt-merchants, who would surely make their grief far worse. Rather than promoting them, Manx Radio should be exposing them.

It looks rather like the reason that Juan Turner managed to get off on the data protection charge. Because they hadn't updated the admissible evidence law when the UK did to cope with ultra-modern technology, like ... er ... computers, what would otherwise be solid proof suddenly was found never to have been allowed. You wonder just how many convictions could be declared invalid because the AG's Office sat around doing nothing about it for 15 years. It's not even the first time we've seen this sort of slip up.

Since 1993 according to their website.

Technically there's no more people working for the BBC than before - they've had two dedicated staff on the Island for some years (based at Douglas Head) and Baby Gawne is employed by Manx Radio - he's just paid for by the BBC. The direct BBC employees shouldn't normally provide Manx Radio content - their job is to produce Isle of Man coverage for broadcast on BBC regional news and to write stories for the BBC website page (though they only manage less than one a day). It's possible if something is broadcast on the BBC, Manx Radio might take a clip, though it ought to be credited. As to how many journalists are needed - probably more if the job is to be done properly. There is a lot that doesn't get examined and very little that gets looked at in depth or with independent research. Some of that will be because of lack of people to do the job, though more is due to timidity and the way that the most lucrative path in journalism on the Island has become to get a PR position in the Cabinet Office.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread that is pretty much what has happened with a lot of papers in the UK and the BBC money was effectively just subsidising the profits of private media and no extra reporting was being done over what happened already. Existing reporters were encouraged to apply for the BBC positions and not replaced if they got them. I don't know if this is going to happen with Manx Radio, but if one (or both) of the staff who have moved across to the BBC Isle of Man posts is not replace, then that will have happened here as well.

Of course they were connected - they took place within an hour of each other! Some of the memorial services would have been not long finished. I'm sure the Laxey event was well meant (and I'm sure that the DED had nothing to do with it, and for once can't be blamed) but it just comes across as gatecrashing someone else's party and announcing that it's all about you. Any other day such a memorial would be touching, but especially in a year when the mass slaughter of WWI is so high-profile, it seems incredibly tin-eared.

I don't know - by the standards of BBC jargon it's almost comprehensible. Though it does rather give rise to the question why they weren't reporting on local democracy in the first place (and of course they're still not).

I presume he's the 'Local Democracy Reporter' for Manx Radio, funded by the BBC, but employed by Manx Radio. It's a bit of an anomaly because the vast majority of these are assigned to local newspapers rather than broadcasters. Technically his output is supposed to be available to other local media outlets as well, but in practice the assigned employer will be the one directing what gets done and produced. With the other BBC Isle of Man employees[1] also working from Manx Radio offices, lines may be a bit fuzzier than elsewhere and he may have some direct input to the BBC as well. The idea of these LDRs is that the BBC is supposed to be fulfilling its public service remit by providing extra coverage of local councils - and in this case Tynwald etc. In practice it has become (as was forecast) a bit of a scam The local or regional newspapers just got rid of the reporters who were doing the jobs anyway and used the BBC-funded one instead. Sometimes the previous employee ended up doing the same job - but paid for by the BBC. The whole thing has become a way of subsidising the profits of private media conglomerates[2] at the expense of the licence fee payer[3]. I don't know if Manx Radio has done something similar or whether this is a genuinely extra post. [1] There are usually two of them I think, but it's difficult to know details as names, contact details, even job titles seem difficult to find. Practically anywhere else in the world reporters are only to keen to have such details known but on the Island secrecy seems to rule - as it does with Manx Radio (and there fewer details are available than there were say five years ago). I suppose the idea is to signal that only the 'right' people should be allowed to get their viewpoint across, though in Manx Radio's case it is also to disguise the imbalance between those actually doing the work and the number of people 'required' to manage them. [2] If you look at the list of employers in the link above, the big groups such as Trinity Mirror have got most of the contracts. [3] There are other worries as well - Private Eye has reported cases where Councils effectively vetoed the appointment of those who they though might report the 'wrong' things.

Despite what his lawyer said[1], there was another alcohol-related conviction before the one in September 2017. It was prosecuted afterwards, presumably because he was offered help with his alcohol problem, didn't take it up and then offended again. But it still seems odd that there was nothing offered to help this time, but maybe the charges used meant that that couldn't be an option. That might explain Jayne Hughes' expressing "surprise that the defendant had not been charged with a different offence". Not for the first time. [1] The newspaper report says "his client only had one relevant previous conviction, for being found drunk in a public place in August 2017", but the first offence happened in May 2017 and the second was prosecuted in July. So either that was yet another one and the newspaper only likes to report penis-related incidents, or lawyers and/or press are being fairly careless with the timelines. Given that they also say he was 31 last year and is 34 now, some sloppiness seems possible.

If you look at the Q2 2018 figures from RAJAR, they show a very small recovery (probably just random variation) , but nothing like a recovery to 2017 levels even: 307,000[1] total hours with 46% reach. So it doesn't seem to be getting worse, but the lost of a quarter of their 2017 listening seems to have continued. It may be a change in methodology, but it's a big contrast to the more gradual decline in the reach, which is the sort of thing you might expect with this sort of legacy media. There really needs to be some explanation for what is happening and if and why people are listening to Manx Radio a lot less than they did last year. [1] There's a lot of 'spurious accuracy' in the figures in Manx Radio report. There's no way that their decimal points are meaningful in the above.

It's called 'remuneration', so I would imagine it includes sales-related bonuses, but not benefits in kind, such as cars or healthcare or other employment-related costs such as pension contributions (I think they're in the government scheme).

No it isn't. According to the Accounts: Of course you might think even these salaries high for a business with an operational turnover of £ 1.13 million plus public subvention of £875,000. If they are at the top of those bands that means that one eighth of the whole income goes to pay those three people (not to mention other costs associated with them). If you include employer's NI, pension contributions etc, it's very possible that two or even three cost over £100,000.

It seems an odd mix-up: It doesn't seem that much to have something filmed and edited professionally. But you wonder why a local charity would bother to do such a thing (there will usually be a volunteer to do so for free, if less dexterously) - delusions of grandeur I suppose.

The meltdown seems to have been triggered by piebaps pointing to a particularly poor piece of journalism on Manx Radio online (and presumably broadcast) where some FoI requests about legal aid had been misunderstood as an attempt to set up a Manx Army. This has now silently disappeared from the website (without apology or correction), but not before I copied it and posted it on MF. I also pointed to some more systematic failings in Manx Radio that this exemplified.

On the subject of Manx Radio, I don't know if Stu has seen this contribution to the comments on a piece in the Guardian today about the 50th anniversary of the first British radio phone in[1] [1] Or possibly not because the launch of Manx Radio was before this by several years and if they had any phone-ins in their early years, they would have had the precedence. But I couldn't find any information on that.